I spent most of the day opining in front of the Supreme Court and in studies on the 6-3 ruling in favor of the Obama Administration in King v. Burwell. I will not subject you to more of that analysis. I have previously indicated that I found the opposing view of the Halbig decision against the Administration to be compelling, though I have always viewed this to be a difficult question upon which people of good-faith could disagree. Yet, in both my prior congressional testimony and my columns, I have never accused the Administration of “jiggery-pokery” — largely because I was not sure what jiggery-pokery is. However, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has written a stinging dissent to King that contains the memorable accusation that the majority was engaging in “interpretive jiggery-pokery.”
Quite fittingly given his prior decision harkening back to the original intent of the Framers, the term originates in the eighteenth century and means a dishonest manipulation or twisting like what we would call a flim-flam today. It can be traced to the Scottish word jouk, meaning to skillfully twist one’s body to avoid a blow like a boxer or fencer. Joukery became a term for underhanded dealing or trickery which led to the association with the word Pawky (from the word pawk or trick) Thus, by the seventeenth century, the first combination of joukery-pawkery were heard and it came into vogue in the 18th Century . . . and now again in the 21st Century.
Very disheartened that the Constitution has been hijacked by activist judges and yes that apparently applies to Chief Roberts. SCOTUS has a sacred duty to use the past to apply to the present and secure the future of the republic. Justice Scalia gets that.
His dissent & yes anger is 100% justified
Stunning to me that these so called constitutional supremes really believe they are smarter than the 35 states who united on the 4 words.
Who then really is watching out for the everyman/woman/child American??? Justice Scalia, Alito,Thomas at least. No one else. Not the current president, nor congress.
Just dreadful & truly concerning that we now may not survive the century as The America foreseen by our founding fathers.
God Blessings on these United States. We need them.
Sent by Outlook for Android
Squeeky:
Technically, I didn’t brag. I merely suggested that I would graciously accept the recognition of others for the perspicacity of my observations. I will also boldly predict that Little Melvin’s case will go nowhere.
Heads exploding in the past 24 hours…………..
If Mike Appleton can brag about his prediction on Obamacare, then I can brag about mine on Gay Marriage where I said that warm and fuzzy would trump sound Judicial sense. The dissents are brilliantly written, and hopefully the sound reasoning presented therein will resurface one of these years. But I am not holding my breath. For the nation, I offer this poignant and heartfelt rendition, from one of the songs in A Little Night Music:
Meanwhile, I can’t wait for the cases to come up on appeal where Little Melvin, the teen-age homo, sues because sodomy and fellatio isn’t being taught in the Reproductive Health class at high school.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
hypocrisy has always been one of the hallmarks of antonin scalia. yesterday, in “burwell v king,” he wrote, “words no longer have meaning.”
he has deliberately forgotten that in the infamous gun case, “d.c. v heller,” scalia himself spent almost half of his 64-page opinion explaining why he could ignore the first thirteen words of the twenty-seven words in the second amendment.
as for “jiggery-pokery” (which supposedly is the key to this thread) see:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/blog/jiggery-pokery-one-interpretation.htm
It was put to the vote in California, it was rejected and the supreme court overruled this voter, “states rights” decision…death penalty is viewed as “states rights”, but sodomite marriage is endorsed by the highest court in the land…only in America folks…
Obamacare is flawed legislation that must be returned to the Congress.
Gay marriage must be put to the vote.
“LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH.”
“KING SCOTUS”
COUP D’ETAT IN AMERICA!
@Issac ~ “Who knows maybe the court will side with Hillary and start requiring background checks on every gun transaction as well as owner. There is nothing in the Constitution’s second amendment that applies to the insane, unstable, and criminal. Once there are structures in place to prohibit access to guns for the insane, unstable, and criminal then there can be an intelligent conversation.”. . . .
HIPPA ~ “In 1996, Congress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (Public Law 104-191). HIPAA was intended to improve health care efficiency and protect individuals’ private health information by requiring the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish three kinds of standards for handling such information: transaction standards for the exchange of health information (45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 162); security standards for electronic systems that create, access, transmit or receive health information (the “Security Rule,” 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162, and 164), and privacy standards for the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information (the “Privacy Rule,” 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164) and the establishment of certain patient rights.”
How about Hillary getting a background check on herself since she seems to engage in jiggery pokery by aligning herself to U.S. malignity minded foreign countries with their donations to buy favors in her official capacity. In other-words, she owes favors and to countries who think women are chattel. . . .
BILL, HILLARY & CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION
Fictitious Names – CLINTON CLIMATE INITIATIVE
Filing Number -100152168
Filing Type Nonprofit Corporation
Filed Under Act – Dom Nonprofit Corp; 1147 of 1993
Status – Good Standing
Address 1 – 610 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE.
City-State-ZIP Code – LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
Reg. Agent Name – ANDREW KESSEL
“Who knows maybe the court will side with Hillary and start requiring background checks on every gun transaction as well as owner. There is nothing in the Constitution’s second amendment that applies to the insane, unstable, and criminal. Once there are structures in place to prohibit access to guns for the insane, unstable, and criminal then there can be an intelligent conversation.”. . . .
I completely agree that mental issues need to be addressed in regards to owning a gun. As we know that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I have had a criminal background & an extensive mental evaluation done, required for the job, I had. But it will take changing the HIPPA laws for gun ownership and that could be a slippery slope as well. Mental illness is a subjective subject. However, it still won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
My opinion on the wording of Obamacare is that I believed that “states” (underscored) meant states and not the federal government. But Roberts also stated that this law was sloppily written and other issues are bound to come up and be challenged. However, there’s U.S. House of Representatives v Burwell yet to go. If SCOTUS rules in favor of Obama, then we have a major Constitutional crisis on our hands.
Mike Appleton: “However, in my opinion the decisions issued yesterday and today have made this a wonderful week for the future of the social contract.”
I.Annie: “Yes indeed it has Mike! It gives one hope.”
Agreed. It does indeed, I.Annie. Hear, hear, Mike A.
Too much fear, hatred, animosity…
Let it go. Live and let live.
The Sixteenth Amendment’s ratification history is ridiculous – criminal. Intuitively, who in the world would demand an income tax? The Reconstruction Amendments” were “imposed” without a quorum, through coercion and under the duress of war and its aftermath.
Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to conclude the founding documents and end amendment lest the Constitution itself be destroyed – the American thesis itself destroyed.
That has happened.
davidm:
I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I do not share your vision of the impact of these decisions. And I certainly do not believe that there are any historical analogies to be drawn between conditions in 1776 and 2015. Indeed, I believe that the reactions to the Court’s rulings will be substantially less intense than what the country experienced in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.
Mike Appleton wrote: “I believe that the reactions to the Court’s rulings will be substantially less intense than what the country experienced in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.”
Do you not recognize that we are still suffering from civil unrest caused by Brown v. Board of Education? Desegregation never worked. We just had a 21 year old by the name of Dylann Roof who killed 9 black people in a church racially segregated to be predominately black. How ironic that its pastor fought for desegregation but led one of the most racially segregated churches in America. Did you read Dylann’s manifesto, how his eyes were opened to the fallacy of the equality doctrine from the Trayvon Martin case? When a young man realizes that his government has been lying to him and misleading him on certain principles, it becomes a dangerous thing as he tries to decide how to react to this newfound understanding.
Olly:
I agree with your observation regarding rights of conscience. We will now enter a period of litigation over the interplay between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and the limitations imposed on both by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Our only hope to save our existing government is to repeal this Fourteenth Amendment which was never properly ratified to begin with. Lacking that, at least 30% of the country would probably support the idea that it is time to dissolve our entire federal government and start over. That is about the same percentage that pushed the American Revolution forward.
Yes indeed it has Mike! It gives one hope.
I am certain there will be a separate post on the same-sex marriage case for commenting purposes. However, in my opinion the decisions issued yesterday and today have made this a wonderful week for the future of the social contract.
Sherlock Holmes: “You are developing a certain unexpected vein of pawky humour, Watson, against which I must learn to guard myself.”
Correction: *…..heterosexual people to force them into marriage*
Is there anyone who has a shred of proof that gay marriage has harmed their heterosexual marriage? If so, please post your story.
old nurse wrote: “Is there anyone who has a shred of proof that gay marriage has harmed their heterosexual marriage?”
You are asking the wrong question. You might as well ask how gay marriage has helped someone’s heterosexual marriage, or how has same sex marriage harmed your dog. There simply is no connection because same sex unions and opposite sex unions are not equal. They are not the same thing.
The problem with the federal government forcing States to change the definition of marriage is that it effectively dissolves the meaning of marriage into something completely different. Furthermore, it is yet another plank where the federal government forces immorality upon everyone. When government sanctions immorality and gives it legal protections, it forces harm upon society. Whether it is forcing Americans to pay for other Americans to murder their unborn babies, or forcing Americans to approve and promote same sex marriages, the harmful effects create a sandy foundation for civil society. There is no doubt that civil unrest will be the result of these decisions. Many people will lose more respect for government. They will stop submitting to government over these kinds of decisions. Some will start waging war against the government policies that are immoral. The government will respond by arresting such individuals, which will lead to more individuals waging war against the government.
I just saw an article today where a man in Ohio was found guilty of disorderly conduct for preaching the part of the Bible that says homosexuals will go to hell.