The questioning that I heard (I’ve not listened to the entire six hours) from the conservative justices and Kennedy dealt with the constitutional questions surrounding the mandate and severability, and some practical limitations on the ability of the court to effective review 2700 pages of legislation should they elect to sever.

Would you share some of the questions that were asked that have caused you to bemoan “Most of the Justices are not acting as judges, but politicians. ”

As for the topic under discussion:

If the court does find the mandate unconstitutional I am certain that they will not sever it. Without a severability clause that states what congress intended to happen to the various part of the bill this event, the judges are required to review it literally paragraph by paragraph and determine what stays and what goes. In the real world that is an impossible task and there is no shortcut.

Given that Kennedy focused on the lack of a limiting principle if the mandate is up held and the complete inability of anyone to find one (since there is none) I am mildly hopeful that the entire bill will be found unconstitutional.

I hope all the Justices have tight, tight security and don’t take strolls after dinner in Georgetown or wherever.

That’s it. Game over for obamacare. There’s no way it is going to be upheld. By the time we’re done with this a 9-0 ruling wouldn’t surprise me.

a perfect illustration as to the game of using the defaults yet meaning something else in actuality. the default is the million is in some form that you can use… but unless stated, that may not be so. its this kind of thing that replaced competent debate and such in a socialist system as everything is about manipulation and not about winning a debate and agreeing…

Particularly since FDA lucked into that through sheer inefficiency. They were sufficiently dilatory in reviewing thalidomide (which in many respects is a wonder drug, still used today, but of course under very strict conditions) that by the time they were ready to approve it disturbing reports had begun to emanate from Europe.

So it wasn’t vigilance that saved FDA; it was inertia.

I asked my lib friend who’s an excellent maker of video presentations for corporations and government entities this same question. He just couldn’t make the connection that healthcare will suffer tremendously with govt takeover, just like video presentations would suffer ( and presently do big time) if/when they are in charge of that.

the Golos spy ring used Mary Price, Lippmans secretary, to garner information on items Lippmann chose not to write about or names of Lippmann’s sources, often not carried in stories, but of use to the Soviet Ministry for State Security.

Philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) agreed with Lippmann’s assertions that the modern world was becoming too complex for every citizen to grasp all its aspects, but Dewey, unlike Lippmann, believed that the public (a composite of many “publics” within society) could form a “Great Community” that could become educated about issues, arrive at judgments, and reach solutions to societal problems.

read about john dewey “the father of american education” the mass education kind..

they are all there for you to read and see.. no hidden at all… you just dont know them, and what you do know of them is not linked to the others…

some of the people doing their thing today are their children, or grandchildren…

rather than control its a rather wicked game of king of the hill..

interesting question, and by definition, we would not know (as they are hidden).

but everyone knows the answers to that, they just ignore it. Go read the list of the people who are part of the CFR (and its twin in the UK), the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg (who just got together)…

the people there kind of get their ideas aligned and then go out and kind of push in the same direction as they are in agreement where things should go and so do their part…

he earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of about 150 scholars, called “The Inquiry”

The Inquiry was a study group established in September 1917 by Woodrow Wilson to prepare materials for the peace negotiations following World War I. The group, composed of around 150 academics, was directed by presidential adviser Edward House and supervised directly by philosopher Sidney Mezes. The Heads of Research were Walter Lippmann, who was later replaced by Isaiah Bowman.

Mezes’s senior colleagues were geographer Isaiah Bowman, historian and librarian Archibald Cary Coolidge , historian James Shotwell, and lawyer David Hunter Miller.[1]. Progressive confidants who were consulted on staffing but who did not contribute directly to the administration or reports of the group included James Truslow Adams, Louis Brandeis, Abbott Lawrence Lowell and Walter Weyl.

Also included in the group were such academics as Paul Monroe, a professor of history at Columbia University, was a key member of the Research Division who drew on his experience in the Philippines to assess the educational needs of developing areas such as Albania, Turkey and central Africa,[3] and Frank A. Golder, a history professor from Washington State University specializing in the diplomatic history of Russia, who wrote papers on Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia.

Walter Lippmann.. the man who thought the press should tell us what to think not tell us facts? the man who invented the “cold war”?

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman used one of Lippmann’s catch phrases–the “Manufacture of Consent”– for the title of their book, Manufacturing Consent, which contains sections critical of Lippmann’s views about the media.

it was they who started it all and still meet and decide the fate through Manufacture of Consensus…

the book public opinion is an interesting read…

if you look up the others, and who else was involved (also involved in the UN) and many accused of helping that funky Austrian come to power… while others were very influential in changing our whole society based on ideas that were shared there…

the idea that if one cant find a child’s idea of rulership that could function across the sea of billions there must be none is not logical.

in this game the rulership is in whose ideas win and who has access to the people who when they like an idea then act on them..

its more a court of powerful people who others vie to influence. the CFR has been influencing them for just under 100 years…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_%28book%29

“The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance”, between people and their environment (reality). That people construct a pseudo-environment that is a subjective, biased, and necessarily abridged mental image of the world; therefore, to a degree, everyone’s pseudo-environment is a fiction. Hence, people “live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones”. Human behavior is stimulated by the person’s pseudo-environment and then is acted upon in the real world.</blockquote?

so when we are arguing about what is going to happen, we are really arguing from the pseudo realities we have constructed from the facts we have been exposed to..

the actual facts which tends to become evident the more you read the different abridgments people use to construct pseudo realities to get groups of people to act.

very few read it as they are looking to be entertained more than educated…

the more these pseudo realities are separated and disjointed by consciousness raising games of the different groups (ranging from feminism to race hucksters), the less we can be the peaceful society they are promising.

do they run the world? you tell me…
but the kind of power that is intimate and we imagine when numbers are small, is not the same as the more ephemeral illusory power that is large… and its fickle… just read history of groups and things… and note that around the main players your watching is a cadre of others who are not noted and who are all part of what happens from money to ideas.

It is a long game. It started here before Woodrow Wilson, it is still being played, and I submit most of our pieces are no longer on the board. GW Bush was a poor player of the game; the DOS civil servants clearly run the show at State, for example: bring 50000 goat-herding Somalis in, put ’em in Minneapolis, on the dole, etc., etc. Why, for Pete’s sake? Well, to weaken us from within. They surely do not strengthen our national balance sheet.

Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys on taking office. Alberto fired five, and he and W were utterly unable to cope with the Left’s vigorous response.
That’s the game we’re playing.

no… not at the moment…
ya got the drop on me 🙂

had to do some looking..

“Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott

and so i would guess your referring to George Soros – Economic Policy Institute…

also mentioned
Alliance for American Manufacturing
Campaign for America’s Future;
Apollo Alliance

I haven’t read the book or do i plan to…

dont bother going to the wiki, a search will show you that the wiki copies the Economic Policy Institute websites text.