Daily Musings - 5/13/2016 - WAPO Petraus

WAPO: Anti Muslim-bigotry-aids-Islamist-terrorists- David Petraeus

I hate to criticize General Petraeus, but he left the internal political situation of the US out of his review.
If you attack me, kill my children, kill my wife and family, and do it in the name of Allah, I will hate you, and this focused hate is spread out to the religion who carries the name of the prophet.  I will also try to prevent your from being able to attack me, and stopping you at the borders may not be the best policy, but it certainly looks that way.
The political argument became, as usual, about the tone, not the content of Trump's speech. He said, very clearly, we must stop any Muslims from entering the country until we figure out how to separate out the terrorists. (Until we figure out what is going on.) This was converted into a racist comment, and you get the result our General speaks about.
Even immediately after his comment, when asked about whether he intended to allow Muslim members of the armed forces to return home, he said: Of course, they don't represent a danger.
So please, don't throw around racism, and then accuse Trump of causing a furor that helps the Terrorists. The media, and the "outraged" are responsible for that reaction.

==========================================

WAPO: Judge Strikes Down Obama Health Law Insurance Subsidy in victory for House GOP -- By Spenser S. Hsu, Greg Jaffe and Lena H. Sun

Roberts: Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter

This person was considered a "conservative"? It's the job of SCOTUS to divine Congressional will and fix their errors of law creation through interpretation? I though Congress could simple change the laws they screwed up in order to fix them!

I am be naïve. I thought SCOTUS would review laws against what is stated in the Constitution and find them OK or flawed.

After Rowe v Wade, and after LGBT, I should have known better.

What is funny is that in this case, the administration says, if the laws can't be interpreted as I interpret them, change them, overcome my veto, and then they will be changed. So the president has a 2/3 voice in how to interpret the law, even though he is supposed to apply them as Congress intended them.  POTUS has a veto over law interpretation! Great separation of powers.