One Man Without Perspective Makes For Hilarity

Print This Post

56 Responses

  1. Jack B. says:

    I'd add Buck v. Bell to the list.

  2. Ken says:

    As a Harvard man, I find this….actually I find this entirely predictable and appropriate.

  3. Chris says:

    I didn't think that one should win until I got to the last sentence: "No exaggeration." Until I read that, I just assumed he was exaggerating.

  4. Beej says:

    Well, that was quite a let-down. Especially if you're actually familiar with the Act and know what's coming. And I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro is.

  5. Patrick says:

    I'm sorry Beej, entries are closed!

  6. Rusty says:

    I'll second Jack B.; Buck v. Bell has got to be at or near the top of the list.

  7. Tony says:

    Ooh! Ooh! I know what's coming! It's death panels, right? Right???!?

  8. Random Encounter says:

    So disappointed, but the one I posted didn't go up until after the bell anyway.

    It was inevitable, however.

  9. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Another one after a few more seconds: Buck v Bell

  10. Jack B. says:

    That "The Day When Freedom Died" graphic is a little too nuanced, so some people might miss the point. I fixed it.

  11. Gal says:

    It is one of life's greatest tragedies that we won't be able to see Ben's face when he learns what he has won, and how.

  12. Ken says:

    "No exaggeration" is sort of like "LITERALLY," isn't it? It's the illiterate cherry on top of the emo sundae.

  13. Xenocles says:

    Wickard and Raich are pretty odious.

  14. leo marvin says:

    Figures that in this post-apocalyptic lawless dystopia I'd be deprived of my rightful prize (not that I understand how any decent, sensible person could not already have a copy of Wrath of Khan).

  15. Robert White says:

    I had wished I was a Democrat who could get air and audience time when the "Death Panels" thing first came up.

    Death Panels would be a -great- improvement. Right now the person who decides whether you get medical care under your insurance policy is a random not-medically-trained accountant or actuarial who looks at your file and says "nope, to expensive, denied"

    Actual death panels would mean there would be some sort of process, and accountability, reasonable expectation, and appeal involved in the otherwise random and arbitrary decision to kill you by withholding treatment.

    If I'd been in front of those audiences I would be "Death Panels? Oh I wish! We should be so lucky!"

  16. Xenocles says:

    I think it's cute that you're assuming there would be accountability.

  17. Lindsay K says:

    To correct a minor pet peeve- Patterico is quoting an account of the tweets that is wrong. More accurate account is here-

    Several conservative blogs are reporting that the "I got over excited" tweet occurred BEFORE the "it's constitutional. bitches" tweet, but I suspect the person who first said that doesn't understand how twitter feeds work. The screenshots on Blaze show that the not-quite-apology happened about half an hour AFTER the bitches tweet.

    Like I said, minor error, but I do like my factual accuracy. ;)

  18. nlp says:

    I can't remember the name of the case, but it was decided around 1942. A farmer was not allowed to raise hay to feed to his own cows. I remember looking at that one during my paralegal training and thinking, "that right there. The government went nuts, right there."

  19. Xenocles says:

    @nlp – That's Wickard v Filburn

  20. David says:

    @Ken: As a Yale man and futurist, I heartily register my concurrence. Not surprising in the least. Now where's the Armagnac?

    @Patrick-ad-Beej: Hilarious!

    @Jack B.: Well played.

  21. nlp says:

    @Xenocles, yes, I finally located it, and was just coming over to clarify.

  22. sta says:

    Your totally awesome paralegal skillz make me damp.

  23. Patrick says:

    Jack B., I've already given the prize, but I promoted you to the front page.

  24. Jack B. says:

    Thanks, Patrick!

    I'd have to disqualify myself from the prize anyway, because I totally forgot to add "No Exaggeration." to the image.

  25. JW says:

    Someone with good Photoshop skills should replace that green background with a tattered, dirty American flag.

  26. Adam O. says:

    Pace v. Alabama (1883). Anti-miscegenation laws a-ok.
    Breedlove v. Suttles (1937). Poll taxes a-ok.

  27. Jacob W. says:

    You forgot to add the decision where the SCOTUS decided that money=speech. That seemed a bit worse…

  28. Adam O. says:

    I also feel compelled to note that the picture is based on the Cloverfield poster. No apes were appropriated.

  29. Luke says:

    I am kind of impressed that the Lexington Herald Leader had a quote like that which was not related at all to UK basketball.

  30. MET says:

    Always a day late and a dollar short…because I definitely read some calls to arms that might have been competitive. And possibly treasonous, which is always entertaining. And terrifying. Enterrifying? Territaining? Enterrifitaining!

  31. Random Encounter says:

    @Lindsay K. Good thing I wasn't drinking when I clicked that, or I'd need a new keyboard.

  32. @Lindsay K. Quick! Credit The Oatmeal for the art! Otherwise you may find yourself having to threaten to sue him for defa… for viol… for… um, wait, what do they call it again when you have to punish somebody for being your victim? I'm sure Mr. Carreon could provide a technical/legal term for it.

    Also. @Ken… sorry to go all fan-girl yet again, but I have to say that comparing "No exaggeration" to "literally" with "it's the illiterate cherry on top of the emo sundae" has to be up there among the top epigrams EVar. Ruling the internetz again – I keep reaching for the damn Retweet button.

  33. @Lindsay K. Quick! Credit The Oatmeal for the art! Otherwise you may find yourself having to threaten to sue him for defa… for viol… for… um, wait, what do they call it again when you have to punish somebody for being your victim? I'm sure Mr. Carreon could provide a technical/legal term for it.

    Also. @Ken… sorry to go all fan-girl yet again, but I have to say that likening "No exaggeration" to "literally" with "it's the illiterate cherry on top of the emo sundae" has to be up there among the top epigrams EVar. Ruling the internetz again – I keep reaching for the damn Retweet button.

  34. (Phooey – Manual Dexterity FAIL. Accidental premature click of Submit button. Apologies.)

  35. Doublebonus says:

    Harvard Law school accepts legacies? I thought you had to be smart to go there.

  36. Valerie says:

    IANAL, but what about the governors like Bobby Jindal who are threatening not to implement the plan? That seems both overdramatic and unconstitutional.

    I seem to recall that the last time a southern governor refused to comply with a supreme court ruling President Eisenhower put a great big ol' federal boot up their ass in the form of the 101'st Airborne.

    I'm not suggesting this dispute is on par with that, because I'm not nuts. Still, do the governors have a legal leg to stand on?

  37. EH says:

    Valerie, I don't think it matters whether they have a leg to stand on (yet). It's just posturing, and in an election year to boot. I never discount the simple explanations of abject and opportunistic partisanship at times like these.

  38. Patrick says:

    Valerie, they don't have to implement the plan. It isn't unconstitutional for states to disregard the plan, as a reading of the opinion itself would tell you.

    The plan isn't a Supreme Court ruling. It's an act of Congress, a funded mandate which threatened to take funding from other programs away for non-implementation which no longer may (if you're speaking of the Medicaid expansion), or a voluntary insurance exchange.

  39. Jennifer says:

    @JW: It's not the greatest shop, but I gave it a whirl. :D

  40. Robert White says:

    @Valerie – I suspect it will turn out like one of those stimulus packages from back when, where all the Red State Governors were all "we aren't going to take that money cause its evil" but then once the news cycle moved on a bunch they all took the money.

  41. rhapsody says:

    Is that the Regretsy Crying Glitter Eagle? That just got 20% cooler.

  42. unicornpoo says:

    I hope I'm not too late to the linkpile.

    Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) was also a doozy.

    Longtime listener, first time caller. I love your work.

  43. Jober says:

    Thanks for the shout-out, Patrick!

    I explained this crushing – and, yes, humiliating – defeat to my wife tonight; she replied, "well…I guess we'll just have to watch The Wrath of Khan on Netflix.

    Truly this is a dark day for America.


  44. Deoxy says:

    Death Panels would be a -great- improvement.


    A)an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat at the only game in town (the government) decided you are not ALLOWED to have a procedure AT ALL

    is better than

    B) an accountant at one of many private firms (whom you could shop around for) deciding that their company won't PAY FOR a procedure, which you may then pay for yourself

    OK, then.

    And yes, I think the "accountable" claim is cute, as well. It makes me giggle.

  45. lemonade queen says:

    Wickard is my vote if we're talking "restricting personal liberties." I mean, you're a wheat farmer who can't make a loaf of bread out of your own wheat?

    Laws about sex and marriage and slavery and institutionalized racism abound and always have since there have been "laws". They must be viewed in the context of the culture that produced them. That's why I view Wickard as a special case.

    (And yes, I graduated from – not Harvard, but a pretty good law school.)

  46. lemonade queen says:

    P.S. Why waste time debating the fabricated paranoia-inducing fantasy of "death panels"?

    P.S.S. Governments have also been seizing personal property since – forever. Not that I don't think those S.Ct. opinions aren't despicable. Just, not special.

  47. Bob says:

    These look eerily like the responses to Citizens United.

  48. lemonade queen says:

    Bob: Are you surprised? Same court, same – ah, audience – so …

  49. mb says:

    We've had "death panels" once before in this country. Originally, we had a panel that was supposed to decide who would and would not get renal dialysis. Turns out, everybody got renal dialysis and we began funding it through the Medicare program for EVERYONE (regardless of age) who has end stage renal disease and who also is or will be (if they live to 65) eligible for Medicare. That is almost 100% of all U.S. citizens. Anyone not covered by Medicare would be quickly impoverished and qualify for Medicaid which generally pays for renal dialysis.

    This experience suggests that there is no existential threat from "death panels." Not to say there are no budgetary concerns.

  50. Piper says:

    Patrick, well done! KHAAAAAAN! in Blu is so much more early 21st Century, don't you think?

  51. Michael says:

    If “It's constitutional, Bitches" is the most histrionic thing said by a Democrat, you must be really disappointed, and if that rant from the Cato institute is “thoughtful analysis” then your critical reasoning is even more damaged by partisanship than I imagined. When you told AlphaCentauri “that’s not what we're looking for” you really gave your bias and lack of perspective away.

    I expected you wouldn't enjoy this as much as you thought you would, when the decision didn’t go as you expected and the real histrionics were on your side.

  52. PLW says:

    Michael, who is on which side again? I have no idea what policy position the various Popehatters take on ACA, but I'm pretty sure they are all on the side of whatever delivers the maximum hilarious non-self-aware histrionics.

  53. JWH says:

    I know this is a late entry, but I offer Ted Nugent:

    Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War. Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead.

  1. July 2, 2012

    […] survey detects the most hysterical overreaction to Thursday's health care […]

  2. July 2, 2012

    […] let us let tell us more about why this particular statement is flawed: Now, we didn't attend Harvard Law (well, one of us did, but he's a Stanford man at […]