You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Justice Scalia to Obama’s Solicitor General: ‘We’re not stupid’
2012-03-28
Posted by:Besoeker

#11  swksvolFF - I am flat out allergic to cows milk and chicken eggs. The fricking FDA had no problem with adding those two ingredients to everything under the sun. In all fairness would it not even out the score to demand soy for folks like me everywhere milk or whey is used and say almond or coconut for those allergic to milk and soy? BTW... look at the price of almond and coconut milk ice cream or drinking milk.... (triple or more than subsidized cows milk)...
So up the subsidies on everything to equalized all products and create huge costly bureaucracies of illiterate Democratic workers to smother whole fields.
Posted by: Water Modem   2012-03-28 23:54  

#10  What if I'm lactose intolerant? I'm not, and I do not consume milk outside of an ingredient such as cheese, butter, so forth...so shall I be forced to purchase milk at a rate where it would be as if I drank 8oz of milk per day even if it goes to waste?

Lack of commerce is still affecting commerce? So every time I walk by a store I must go in and purchase something because not to do so affects that store's commerce?

What about auto insurance, certainly automobiles enter someone's life at some point, should I have auto insurance so that, at some point in my life, I buy a car?

Some people do not have phones; they have only their cell phone or smart phone. Should they also have to pay for a physical landline?

Television. Should every household have to have a TV service?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2012-03-28 23:08  

#9  Got Flood Insurance?

• The federal government provides flood insurance because no in the private sector will, because not enough people buy flood insurance.
• Hoping to entice people to buy insurance — which proves cheaper for everyone after a disaster — the government subsidized many rates. Many homeowners still choose not to buy.
• After paying out claims on many of those subsidized premiums in recent years, the government says it has to raise rates.
• Higher premiums might force people to drop their insurance. Those who keep their policies could pay a higher price for being responsible.

Posted by: DepotGuy   2012-03-28 20:06  

#8  Thank God for the wisdom He gave our Founding Fathers for setting such a system of checks and balances..
Posted by: George Ebbeamp4828   2012-03-28 16:50  

#7  ...which is why some of the hospitals in San Diego have gone under.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2012-03-28 13:46  

#6  Mandated for anybody and everybody, Besoeker. If you can get across the border the hospitals will take care of you. They can't even ask where you're from.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2012-03-28 13:45  

#5  The phueching REASON people can walk into hospitals and get FREE CARE is that the federal government has MANDATED it!!!!

The government has created the problem. Of course the hospital must pass along the costs, just as 'uninsured motorists' fees are passed along!
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-03-28 13:21  

#4  Just listened to audio of Verrilli trying to make his argument. It was so painful I couldn't get through the whole thing. He's not good at defending the indefensible like some of them are. Ginsberg and Kagan had to speak up and make his arguments for him.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2012-03-28 11:35  

#3  ...but the reality is youÂ’ve got to go to the store and buy milk...

Who says? Where in the Constitution does it guarantee that you will always find milk on the shelves? Butt out, moron. Let the market take care of itself. The market is smarter than you are.

Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2012-03-28 11:28  

#2  Justice Alito on Monday:

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”
Posted by: newc   2012-03-28 10:32  

#1  "If you're not stupid, how come our man got elected?"
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2012-03-28 08:50  

00:00