Tuesday, March 23, 2010

An Infinity Amount of Dollars

Just go see the OC Weekly for some Orly yuks. No squeeky yet unfortunately.

13 comments:

mikey said...

I CAN'T. I've just discovered that on the BIG monitor the pope and the ghost jump out in time to the music.

I may have to get out the bong early tonight. But in any case, Orly and Squeeky will have to wait.

J— said...

I love it. Check the comments 'cause she's back!

SIGHNING

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is aware of all internet traditions.

*sigh*

J— said...

Taitz in that complaint doesn't ask the court to make the defendant pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs. Bill McCollum does in his health care suit.

Substance McGravitas said...

8. Such bill will subject her to threat of multiple Medical-Dental malpractice legal actions as standard of care will clearly go down.

Hard to drill when you're SHAKING WITH RAGE!

tigris said...

And when burocrats are de-facto forcing you to de-facto kill granny by not allowing you to fix ol' chomper.

Dragon-King Wangchuck said...

In ORLY's defense - #7 seems totes valid. Seems like Orly honestly believes those things are going to happen (she should have used death panels instead of trying to speel beer-o-craps). Since Orly honestly believes that HCR means she has to ration care and disregard the Hippocratic Oath and Death Panels argle blarg - that's the type of service she'll provide. Wait, bad phrasing - I meant, that's the standard of care she'll maintain.

Substance McGravitas said...

So #7 is totally valid in the sense that she's cuckoo.

J— said...

Number 9 is my favorite. Too much interstate commerce violates the commerce clause? The interstate commerce that would occur under this new law would be too much for her local practice and therefore it violates the commerce clause? She wouldn't get work as a dentist if this thing passes and that's not the spirit of the commerce clause hence it's violated? I'm still trying to figure this one out.

Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

She wouldn't get work as a dentist if this thing passes and that's not the spirit of the commerce clause hence it's violated? I'm still trying to figure this one out.

She still has her legal and realty careers to fall back on...

Substance McGravitas said...

Are dentists mentioned in the constitution? NO. Therefore dentistry cannot be regulated.

J— said...

Are dentists mentioned in the constitution? NO. Therefore dentistry cannot be regulated.

McCollum includes a version of this reasoning in the lawsuit he filed yesterday:

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Dentistry is theft, anyways.
~

Another Kiwi said...

You know who had wooden teeth? Washington, that's who!!
So maybe dentists are in the constitution Smarty McSmarty.