Obamacare lives. (For now)

It looks like the supremes upheld the most important portions of the ACA today, and that's a big win for this president.

Now, as is to be expected, the right wingers are losing their collective minds.

"an act of judicial activism" from the Supreme Court designed to "protect the Affordable Care Act." ~Karl Rove~

"With today's Obamacare decision, John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself. He is a disgrace. That is all." ~National Review~

"[Roberts] will undermine his own credibility as a fair-minded jurist, because he has reached to bizarre and odd contortions in order to save this statute twice." ~Andrew Napolitano, Fox News~

 "an absolute disaster" and wondered "what does [this] mean for the rule of law?" ~Rush Limbaugh ~

"I braced for this decision by SCOTUS still shocked....folks country has fundamentally changed...another giant step toward Banana Republic" ~Fox's Charles Payne~

And on and on it goes.

It seems like only yesterday that Chief Justice Roberts was a darling of the right wing. But this just goes to show you how dangerous it is to throw all of your eggs in one basket when it comes to politics.

Of course this decision will never cause me to change my mind about Chief Justice Roberts. That Citizens United decision will forever tarnish him and his legacy in my book.

 "I am disappointed in the Burwell decision, but this is not the end of the fight against ObamaCare "

Jeb, I am sure you are.

"Five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate," the law is finally and firmly entrenched, Obama said, .....Health care, he said is "not a privileged for a few, but a right for all.".... The setbacks I remember clearly." However, "as the dust has settled, there can be no doubt that this law is working."

Show off.

He thinks that the "tree of liberty" needs watering.

Wingnuts love the latest essay from FOX NEWS legal analyst, Andrew Napolitano. Mr. Napolitano wrote a passionate plea for the right to bear arms in the Washington Times.

The gist of his rant was that automatic weapons are needed to shoot tyrants and not just game. To Napoliatano, and others like him, the right to keep and bear arms "is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty." He goes on to write the following: "it is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny." That all sounds great, but I have a question for Mr. Napoliatano and the rest of his gun loving friends: Who, exactly, are these tyrants? Is it the government of the democratic party with whose policies they disagree? Is it their fellow citizens who they perceive as different?     

This is the danger extremist like Napolitano present. When you start throwing around words like tyrants when referring to a democratically elected government, the slope down to anarchy starts looking steeper and a little more slippery. You get guys like Gregory Gawrysiak who no doubt (assuming he knows how to read) would praise Napolitano's article.

Would Mr. Napolitano have written such a passionate defense of his right to bear arms if a republican government was in power? Somehow I doubt it. I know that poor Fred Hampton and the Panthers who armed themselves after his assassination would not have gotten his support.

"The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust."

There is an anti aircraft missile and drone detection radar coming to a trailer park near you. (Psst, wingnut, the government will not attack you with a gun.)  

 "As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us..." [Article]

Yes, for Jesus loved his Uzi.