Constitutional torture in the cause of tort reform
Upon taking control of the U.S. House in 2010, Republicans announced that every bill proposed or passed in that chamber would be required to cite specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution that authorize Congress to take such action.
Here, for example, is the language originally contained in H.R. 5, which was approved in the House this week. The bill would abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Board and impose new national limits on malpractice claims.
Hmmmmm.
So, “Health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce….”?
They “affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high costs of health care and premiums for health care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers”?
Therefore, the federal government has the authority under the commerce clause to pass legislation dictating how states must handle those issues?
Interesting. Very interesting.
Now, as it happens, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments next week in an important case that also revolves around these very questions. In fact, in its defense of ObamaCare, the administration will use language almost identical to that of House Republicans. They will tell the nine justices that “health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce.” They will also claim that health insurance and health care “affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high costs of health care and premiums for health care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers.”
Recognizing the potential embarrassment, not to mention the bad timing, U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall of Georgia this week introduced an amendment that stripped H.R. 5 of the language cited above. His amendment was approved just before the bill went onto final passage. Now, the bill contains no constitutional justification for imposing federal limits on state malpractice awards. Apparently, since they can’t find language in the Constitution to justify their actions that would not also justify ObamaCare, they simply abandoned any pretense that it matters.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
535 comments Add your comment
Oscar
March 24th, 2012
4:45 pm
38 states Oscar ……….. this has little to do with left or right !
________
I agree that the courts should folow the constitution. and the Constitution says the Supreme Court decides constitutional issues, not the individual states. The control is that the voters elect the President and Congress who appoint and approve, respectively the members of the Court. Voters over time have the last word.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
4:45 pm
Doggone/Ga.:
You mean like the Obama Justice Department not prosecuting under certain laws upheld by the Supreme Court ?
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
4:47 pm
Oscar:
I would say that voters have the last “influence” ……… not necessarily the last word.
Don't Forget
March 24th, 2012
4:49 pm
That’s why a bill can pass in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 49.
Not since Obama took office.
Brosephus™
March 24th, 2012
4:49 pm
Scout
From downstairs if you didn’t get that last transmission… That wouldn’t be my first tango with ire.
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
4:51 pm
“You mean like the Obama Justice Department not prosecuting under certain laws upheld by the Supreme Court ”
such as?
Tom Middleton
March 24th, 2012
4:51 pm
Must be that atheistic whatever-serves-your-own-interests thing the Republicans’ spiritual lord and master – Ayn Rand – taught them. How much longer till “We The People” get to start doing it right, November? We can only pray!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxCWbTqz9s&feature=player_embedded
Mr_B
March 24th, 2012
4:52 pm
Afternoon, Scout.
Sorry, I don’t have a problem with any system in which everybody can participate. But I would point out that “introducing a resolution” means nothing. Any legislator can introduce a resolution for any reason, including that the Moon is made of green cheese. Your own statement indicates that less than 25% of those resolutions passed. My guess is that they passed in states like GA where one party has almost complete control. Do you have information to the contrary?
“this has little to do with left or right !” Or maybe everything to do with it.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
4:54 pm
Doggone:
DOMA, fraudulent voting.
Jm
March 24th, 2012
4:54 pm
such as?
Such as not killing Americans without due process
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
4:57 pm
“DOMA” – I refer you to the dictionary to learn the difference between “defend” and “prosecute”
” fraudulent voting ” – got any examples?
JohnnyReb
March 24th, 2012
4:57 pm
The Constitution and Bill of RIghts is written to limit the power of the Federal Government. That’s why Liberals have such a problem with it, want to make it a so-called living ever changing document that supports their agenda. It’s a pesky henderence to them.
Past SCOTUS rulings on the Commerce Clause has extended the reach of the Federal Government well past the intent of the founders. Now, the Liberals after jamming Obamacare through Congress with no support from the Right, want to use the Commerce Clause to justify Obamacare.
My crystal ball shows that if SCOTUS does not rule against the individual mandate, or Republicans do not win sufficiently in November to be able to overturn Obamacare, there will be civil unrest well exceeding that of the 60’s. Many American’s will not stand idly by while our Constitution foundation is changed without a Constitutional amendment.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
4:59 pm
Mr_B:
I believe the nine states to be : Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Texas, New Jersey, Georgia, Minnesota.
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
4:59 pm
“Such as not killing Americans without due process”
Ummm, that would be an example of breaking a law – not an example of refusing to prosecute it.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:01 pm
Doggone:
Sorry, he is violating his oath as the chief law enforcement officer of the land when it comes to both including that Detroit debacle with the Black Panthers.
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:02 pm
Doggone, the justice department has not prosecuted Obama
Frankly, if we had an honest lawful country anymore, they would
We now live in a country where the president is apparently above the law
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:04 pm
“Sorry, he is violating his oath as the chief law enforcement officer of the land when it comes to both including that Detroit debacle with the Black Panthers”
His oath does not require him to defend the Constiutionality of a law, period. It does require him to enforce it. He has not said he would not enforce it…he said his justice department will not DEFEND it.
What Detroit debacle conserning the Black Panthers?
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:05 pm
Doggone concern is spelled with two c’s
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:07 pm
“Doggone, the justice department has not prosecuted Obama”
So do you think a sitting President should be presecuted for issuing orders in a war that are intended to increase the security of the USA?
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:11 pm
“Doggone concern is spelled with two c’s”
You understood it…that’s all that matters.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:11 pm
Doggone:
“It does require him to enforce it. He has not said he would not enforce it…”
1) “President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260494/breaking-obama-administration-declares-doma-unconstitutional-wont-defend-it-court-dani
2) “The Civil Rights Commission is investigating claims that the Justice Department inappropriately dropped an investigation into alleged voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0924/New-Black-Panther-Party-voter-intimidation-case-Bombshell-for-Obama
Doggone: I’m tired of doing all of your research. You need to get out a little more.
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:14 pm
“to stop defending ”
DEFENDING damn it, not ENFORCING it. Check the dictionary you idiot.
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:15 pm
Scout. Changing most liberal minds is impossible since they don’t acknowledge facts
They prefer being ignorant
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:15 pm
“idiot”
Classy language from doggone
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:19 pm
Doggone:
“It does require him to enforce it. He has not said he would not enforce it…”
I am not discussing “defending” in your 5:11. I am discussing “prosecuting” and you agreed the Constitution required him to enforce it and that he had not said he would not.. YOUR WORDS.
The opposite is true.
Don’t get angry with me. You voted for him.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:20 pm
Jm:
I got him good on that one.
stands for decibels
March 24th, 2012
5:21 pm
, U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall of Georgia this week introduced an amendment that stripped H.R. 5 of the language cited above.
Rob Woodall? “Fair Tax” Linder’s butt-boy turned Congrefsman is stuck trying to get this abortion? THAT Rob Woodall?
Jay, methinks you might be enjoying this a bit too much.
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:23 pm
“The Civil Rights Commission is investigating claims”
Since when is an investigation proof that a law was not prosecuted that should have been? Isn’t that sort of what the investigation is supposed to check into? And a report that is 18 months old doesn’t prove anything either. What were the RESULTS of the investigation?
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:24 pm
Doggone/GA:
Someone throw Doggone a life preserver. He’s struggling and going under.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:25 pm
P.S.
Please do your own research.
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:26 pm
“I am discussing “prosecuting” and you agreed the Constitution required him to enforce it and that he had not said he would not”
Where is the quote where he says he won’t enforce it? The one you provided said he would not DEFEND IT. And, BTW, the only thing I posted at 5:11 concerned a spelling error. I fail to see how that addresses enforcement of a law.
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:29 pm
“Please do your own research”
I have. it is you who has made some claims you can’t prove. You do your own research.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:31 pm
Doggone:
You’re wearing me out. You really DO need to stay current.
Headline: “Obama Refuses to ENFORCE (ENFORCE – ENFORCE – ENFORCE) DOMA”
“In a move that sent shock through the legal system and created an instant buzz amongst pundits (former presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee, said this decision may “destroy Obama”), President Obama today ordered the Department of Justice to no longer ENFORCE the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Section 3. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a memo to Speaker of the House, John Boehner, this morning explaining the move. This is unsettling for many, as the President seems to have unilaterally decided what is constitutional and what is not. DOMA was duly enacted and passed into law in 1996, and for one man to decide which laws the government will enforce and which they will ignore is beyond arrogant, it is scary. As expected, gay rights groups applauded the decision, but this move is more than one’s stance on gay rights. This should send a shiver down the spine of any who value the rule of law, and the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch. This move, which was conveniently done during unrest in the middle east and union bickering in the mid-west, will not go away quietly and could hurt Obama deeply come next year’s election.”
http://lawriot.com/2011/02/obama-refuses-to-enforce-doma/
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:32 pm
Doggone he proved his point
You haven’t
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:32 pm
If you ask me, that should be an impeachable offense.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:33 pm
Jm:
Getting funny isn’t it ?
ragnar danneskjold
March 24th, 2012
5:33 pm
No disagreement that Congress can regulate any industry, including the judicial industry, under the commerce clause. However Congress cannot regulate any individual – breathing is not an industry – and cannot compel any entity to participate in any industry. A la ObamaCare.
If Congress has the power to micromanage an entire industry such as healthcare, is there any reason it cannot heavily tax any particular procedure, such as breast augmentation or abortion, so long as the tax is levied only against providers?
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:35 pm
ragnar danneskjold :
There is a point on the Niagra river (it’s marked) that no matter how hard you paddle, etc. ………… you’re going over the falls.
I think we have long reached that point in our country.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:36 pm
Jm:
I can hear Doggone’s keystrokes from here. He’s frantic !
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:37 pm
Scout
Yes, doggone is ridiculous
ragnar danneskjold
March 24th, 2012
5:37 pm
Dear 0311 @ 5:33, agreed.
barking frog
March 24th, 2012
5:38 pm
The government can do
whatever it wants if it
has the firepower to
do it. -A. Lincoln
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:39 pm
Jm:
If he comes back take over if you can. I have to go for awhile but will be back.
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:40 pm
Sorry scout
Gotta boogy myself shortly
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:42 pm
Frog
We need to take away that firepower
Doggone/GA
March 24th, 2012
5:44 pm
“President Obama told Holder that the Executive Branch of the government will continue to enforce Section 3 “consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.””
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/president-obama-instructs-justice-department-to-stop-defending-defense-of-marriage-act-calls-clinton/
Have you checked the dictionary yet for the difference between enforce and defend?
Jm
March 24th, 2012
5:47 pm
Obama’s government is out of control
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74414.html
Oscar
March 24th, 2012
5:57 pm
If Congress has the power to micromanage an entire industry such as healthcare, is there any reason it cannot heavily tax any particular procedure, such as breast augmentation or abortion, so long as the tax is levied only against providers?
_____________
The reason is that is they try to, they will not be re=elected. The limit of power of congress is the voter’s choice not to re-elect them.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
6:02 pm
Doggone:
“It does require him to enforce it. He has not said he would not enforce it…”
“Have you checked the dictionary yet for the difference between enforce and defend?”
I have but apparently you haven’t. He may think DOMA is unconstitutional but he is supposed to “enforce” it.
AND …………… that’s what you said above.
You are arguing against yourself because he has chosen not to defend OR enforce it !
TaxPayer
March 24th, 2012
6:10 pm
Poor scout. He passed the point of no return whilst going down one of his dark rabbit holes that light cannot escape from. We’ll miss you scout. Have a safe journey. Maybe you’ll pop out in an appropriate place. There you are.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
6:14 pm
TaxPayer:
Hey ………. since you’re here have you seen this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SazBzvQ0ZAM&feature=related
getalife
March 24th, 2012
6:14 pm
scout hole.
TaxPayer
March 24th, 2012
6:19 pm
I don’t jump down scout’t rabbit holes. Too dark.
Jack
March 24th, 2012
6:20 pm
Let’s not forget: If this Obama welfare package becomes law, the IRS is to police the lack of health insurance. That agency is having a tough time handling its workload as it is. And if an employer has to pay the premiums to cover all employees, a lot of employees are going to lose their jobs or else the employer will close its doors.
getalife
March 24th, 2012
6:20 pm
The reelection campaign for our President is going smoothly.
Smooth operator.
TaxPayer
March 24th, 2012
6:23 pm
Hey scout, since you’re here, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYaosyR4bE&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLE175D501F60907A3"How about an old Porter Wagoner classic.
TaxPayer
March 24th, 2012
6:24 pm
Oops. Let me try that again.
Hey scout, since you’re here, How about an old Porter Wagoner classic.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
6:37 pm
Wingfield had a good piece on Ryan’s budget. He could be right that it might be the definable issue in the general election. Romney stepped up in endorsing it. Obama and the Democrats are doing nothing to address this critical issue of the deficit. If this can be a campaign focus and it appears to be a concern among the electorate majority Democrats will be playing defense with a weak hand.
getalife
March 24th, 2012
6:44 pm
del,
wingnut chose the newt so………..
carlosgvv
March 24th, 2012
6:47 pm
Members of the New Black Panther party have offered a bounty of $10,000.00 for the capture of George Zimmerman. Just out of curiosity – isn’t this illegal?
getalife
March 24th, 2012
6:49 pm
del needs to talk to his party about exploding the deficit.
We balanced it before.
getalife
March 24th, 2012
6:50 pm
carlos,
It is in the NFL..
Brosephus™
March 24th, 2012
6:58 pm
carlos
Illegal AND stupid. That does nothing but create more drama and tension. Somebody needs to serve them a warm carafe of STFU for that one.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
7:00 pm
carlosgw,
If true it’s sadly defining this unfortunate incident as a racial issue instead of a legal issue.
getalife
March 24th, 2012
7:05 pm
It is about the “stand your ground” law.
You can’t be the aggressor.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
7:12 pm
No getalife, it has nothing to do with the “stand your ground law”. Zimmerman has no legal protection under that law because he wasn’t protecting himself on his property. Self defense is his only legal stand and it appears from what I’ve read he’s on very weak ground in that area of law.
Typical White Person
March 24th, 2012
7:40 pm
The Trayvon Martin Story, My Son, and the White Code
I thought my son would be much older before I had to have ‘the talk’ about the White Code. He is still playing with hisTransformers, and listening to the Nelsons and Bon Jovi. But after the Trayvon story, I had to tell him why some people may be afraid of him. As we listened to the 6:00 Fox News, we heard the story of the shooting and the subsequent backlash against White people. My son couldn’t believe his ears. “A hispanic male shot a young Black teen, and Whites are getting dragged into it”, he said. Then, I knew it was time he heard the Truth. As I explained it, the Code goes like this;
No matter what happens son, White people will always get blamed. It is just a fact of life, you better get used to it. No matter what you are wearing, be it a letter jacket or your Beavis and Butthead t-shirt, people will see you as a danger. In the pizza joint, or at the Gap, people will assume you are discriminating against them. Even though you have no power over their life, their job, or that you cannot hurt them in any way. I will always remember the hurt in his eyes as it sunk in to his brain. No matter what he does, he will always have to bear this burden. The “Code” is hard to live by, no matter who or what you are.
getalife
March 24th, 2012
7:44 pm
cheney got a new heart.
Oscar
March 24th, 2012
7:49 pm
Recon 0311 2533
_____
That law does not require you to be on your own property.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
7:49 pm
“cheney got a new heart.”
Sounds like you may be making an attempt at a sick joke but I would hope not.
stands for decibels
March 24th, 2012
7:55 pm
cheney got a new heart.
Wow, I was going to say “you’re kidding me!” but ’tis true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57403969-503544/dick-cheney-receives-heart-transplant/
getalife
March 24th, 2012
7:56 pm
del,
Just came off the AP.
No joke.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
7:58 pm
Recon:
Nope. The former Vice President had open heart surgery today. Hopefully, doing o.k.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
7:59 pm
carlosgvv:
That would be conspiracy or aiding and abetting murder but I wouldn’t look for any prosecution.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
8:00 pm
TaxPayer:
I like old Porter but ………………
)
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
8:02 pm
Oscar, yes it does because your property in addition to your home can be the vehicle you own or lease, your camp ground space or the public space you happen to be on. It does not cover following a suspected criminal or engaging anyone in pursuit. Concealed carry only applies to protecting yourself or someone else from bodily harm. The laws do not transfer law enforcement responsibilities to weapons permit holders.
stands for decibels
March 24th, 2012
8:04 pm
Funny, I thought the former VP was older than 71. Here’s hoping the new ticker takes.
Oscar
March 24th, 2012
8:12 pm
Recon 0311 2533
———
He was on a public space when he was attached by the kid.
Adam
March 24th, 2012
8:15 pm
Of course it never mattered to them to cite Constitutional authority. They abandoned that in much of the legislation they passed. They also broke several of their other “rules” they said they would follow if they won back the House in their Pledge to America.
Don't Forget
March 24th, 2012
8:15 pm
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
5:31 pm
Doggone:
You’re wearing me out. You really DO need to stay current.
Headline: “Obama Refuses to ENFORCE (ENFORCE – ENFORCE – ENFORCE) DOMA”
BULLSHIP, BULLSHIP, BULLSHIP
First of all, this is not a current issue. This is over a year old, including the link you posted.
Second, lets look at the link you posted.
http://lawriot.com/2011/02/obama-refuses-to-enforce-doma/
While the writer of this “website”, a person named Scott W. who for some reason won’t even put his last name on the piece, claims Obama was refusing to enforce the law, the memo CLEARLY states that the administration will continue to enforce the law including section 3 as quoted below.
Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html
Now, having established that the administration will continue to enforce the law lets turn to his obligation to defend the law in court. There is nothing in the constitution that compels him to defend it in court nor is he the only one who can do so. Congress, for example can do so.
And if you actually think about it for a minute, it doesn’t make a lick of sense that the president, who is sworn to defend the constitution, would be compelled to defend a law he believes to be unconstitutional. Don’t hurt yourself trying to explain that one.
Adam
March 24th, 2012
8:17 pm
stands: In the end he’ll cost 6 billion dollars
Oh no, sorry, I forgot. He’s Darth Vader. He’ll be reconstructed as needed and the cost is irrelevant.
Adam
March 24th, 2012
8:18 pm
Don’t know why people are up in arms about the justice department not defending DOMA. It’s just wasted tax dollars if they do.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
8:18 pm
For all of us who have legal permission to carry weapons the laws are vague when it gets down to an actual circumstance. There was a series of articles and a few in particular from a highly respected authority on the subject of deadly force that described the legal position for those who encounter that unfortunate circumstance. He’s an Arab American whose name escapes me but he’s also a Christian and highly regarded by law enforcement within federal, state and local government. Because of his expertise on the subject, I don’t carry when I’m by myself but do carry when I’m with my family to protect them. I’ll have to try and find the links, so i can share it with y’all.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
8:23 pm
“Free Men and the Right to Defend Themselves”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
8:24 pm
Oscar, If he was attacked on public ground and defended himself in accordance with the law, he’s home free.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
8:26 pm
Don’t Forget:
Thanks for your input.
Agree to disagree.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
8:26 pm
Good advise from the experts.
http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/Article-JudiciousUse.htm
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
8:28 pm
Recon:
The problem there is the “degree” of force used. Depending on the jurisdiction you can’t just shoot someone because you’re getting an a** whoopin.
It depends. That’s why this will be so interesting to watch.
Oscar
March 24th, 2012
8:36 pm
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
8:24 pm
Oscar, If he was attacked on public ground and defended himself in accordance with the law, he’s home free.
________
I was just se4ting out a possibility. No one really knows the facts. That’s why it’s a difficult case. Few in any witnesses.
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
8:37 pm
O.K.
I’m going to the store. You guys have me so “psyched up” that I’m carrying both my Glock .45 and my little Ruger .380.
The Publix I shop at has an armed “off duty” so I’ll let you know how it goes.
Lock & load.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
March 24th, 2012
8:39 pm
cheney got a new heart.
Well, my buddy Jim Earl swears it was because he was picked by a secret committee that met in the VP’s office and the public will never ever know their names. Even tho he’s 71 and too old according to the guidelines.
Anyway, I’ve been sipping PBR up here at Billy Bob’s and going thru all the online accounts of the operation. Most of the stuff being said about it can’t be put into a family newspaper—everything from “I never knew he had a heart to start with” to “Die, sucker, die.” I read somewhere that
Richardhead’sMr. Cheney’s favorability rating right now is 9%, which is even lower than Congress and used car salesmen.People sure can hold a grudge a long time. Have a good night everybody.
Don't Forget
March 24th, 2012
8:39 pm
Cheney finally has a heart, lol. Hope he does well.
barking frog
March 24th, 2012
8:43 pm
No comments on the
17 year old sentenced
to life without parole
for killing a Tampa cop.
Brosephus™
March 24th, 2012
8:44 pm
Scout @ 8:28
Exactly!!!
Don't Forget
March 24th, 2012
8:45 pm
0311/8541/5811/1811
March 24th, 2012
8:37 pm
O.K.
I’m going to the store. You guys have me so “psyched up” that I’m carrying both my Glock .45 and my little Ruger .380.
Don’t forget to drive safe. As good as those weapons are they won’t defend against an idiot driver.
Brosephus™
March 24th, 2012
8:56 pm
frog
I saw that, and I have split emotions on that. I’m not to keen on locking young kids up for life. However, at some point you have to consider the risk to the rest of the society. If that kid had no issue with shooting an officer, he’s definitely not gonna flinch at shooting any regular citizen. Add the possible gang affiliation, and there is the potential for having someone who is a danger to society walking around at 21 if you put him in juvie.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
9:02 pm
“The problem there is the “degree” of force used. Depending on the jurisdiction you can’t just shoot someone because you’re getting an a** whoopin.’
Scout, the key operative words are “depending on the jurisdiction”. If you’re being threatened with physical injury regardless of a weapon in someones hand and believe you can only defend yourself through deadly force, you have justification in most jurisdictions. Depends a lot on the D.A’s and again jurisdictions.
barking frog
March 24th, 2012
9:06 pm
Brosephus,
A bad thing but the
sentence is automatic
and the young man
was only 16 when it
happened.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
9:13 pm
When I carry it’s a Springfield Armory .45 Cal. XD or a 40 S&W short barrel XD, which is my wife’s. We’re an XD family. I do have a backup 9 Mil. military issue Beretta along with a Remington 870 12, extended magazine for home defense. For extended social work I have a Ruger 556 with a Trijicon ACOG scope. Yaps y’all.
Recon 0311 2533
March 24th, 2012
9:14 pm
Opps, Taps y’all.