The presidential election of 2012 presented a clear choice between love and hate.
Dylan Byers of Politico reports that Karl Rove appeared on Fox News two days after the election and asserted:
This will be the first president re-elected to a second term with a smaller percentage of the vote than he got in the first term.After his national television debacle disputing the clear result in Ohio on election night, one would think that Mr. Rove would strive for a little accuracy - particularly with respect to a discrete and easily checked fact that is at the core of his area of expertise, presidential election results. But he did not.
In the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, the Court will have to decide whether the remainder of the Act, or certain provisions of the Act, are "severable" from the individual mandate and therefore constitutional. A number of organizations have filed amicus briefs asking the Court to spare specific provisions of the Act. The number and significance of these provisions remind us how vast and encompassing this law is, and how unlikely it is that the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.
Over the course of three days conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh repeatedly defamed Sharon Fluke, a third-year Georgetown law student, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute." If found guilty of slander or intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), Limbaugh would be liable to Ms. Fluke for millions of dollars in actual damages, and his potential liability for punitive damages would be astronomical. Is Limbaugh liable to Fluke for defamation and IIED, or is he protected by the First Amendment? Limbaugh's only defense would be to compare himself to pornographer Larry Flynt and the homophobic Westboro Baptist Church.
It is imperative to place the importance of the public option in perspective. The public option represents only a tiny fraction of what will be accomplished by health care reform.
Senator Edward Kennedy has proposed legislation that would prohibit the expenditure of federal funds to support any increase in the number of troops stationed in Iraq. While I enthusiastically support this legislation on policy grounds, I reluctantly conclude that it is unconstitutional.
I opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was morally wrong as well as contrary to America’s national interests. I oppose the President’s proposed "surge" of troops into Iraq for the same reasons. However, as wrong and as unwise as the proposed escalation is, the Congress cannot, by law, prevent this escalation from taking place. Its choices are to either repeal the Iraq War Resolution, or to cut off any and all funds for the Iraq conflict.