Today is The Day – we’ll find out if our nine Justices can read the Constitution. If at least 5 of them can, then ObamaCare will be struck down because it is patently absurd that government can compel us to buy something (which, by the way, will pave the way to abolishing the absurd laws mandating auto insurance…what a scam that is: insurance companies got people to pass laws to force people to buy insurance). If 5 or more can’t read the document – and it is only a few pages long – then we’ll get some tortuous, involved opinion about penumbras and how if you have you Law Professor Secret Decoder Ring and read the Constitution in half-light with the Moon over your left should then you can see the fine print put in there by Madison which says “Congress shall make laws forcing people to buy stuff”.
I hope it is struck down – but, honestly, Obama has used the law already to insert a huge amount of ObamaCare in to our bureaucracy. The only sure cure is a complete repeal – with the repeal including a specific provision voiding all regulations implemented since passage under the authority of the ObamaCare statute. So, even if it is upheld, repeal is still the answer.
And repeal can only happen under President Romney – remember that if for a moment you lack enthusiasm to vote Romney on November 6th…only Romney means the end of ObamaCare.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the AHA this week, and the liberal universe is all a flutter over the possibility of the bill being struck down, which it should be. In my opinion, the personal mandate is not even close to being constitutional, and considering the severalty nature of the bill, if the mandate is struck down, the entire bill is struck down, which would be a good thing and may allow us to have an adult conversation about health care without the input from people like Nancy Pelosi. This current bill was put together behind closed doors on a highly partisan basis, by narrow special interest groups, and is still not universal, nor efficient, and is proving to be a typical government bureaucratic over reach. For example, if this bill were to pass, I would be required to obtain insurance that covers substance abuse despite the fact that I don’t do drugs, don’t smoke, and rarely even have a drink. But according to the ruling elite, I need to have substance abuse coverage within my insurance policy. Brilliant, right? Well that’s a good example of how big government, know it all liberals like to govern. Find a minor problem, and design a solution that impacts everyone. In this case, approximately 13% of the population is without health care insurance, so liberals have designed a program that adversely impacts 87% of us to accommodate that minority. Again, brilliant right? The reality is is that this bill is so convoluted, so awash in bureaucratic red tape and such an over reach response to what that actual problem calls for, that striking it down and starting from scratch would be just common sense. So what to do?
First of all, let’s first admit that the vast majority of Americans do have insurance, and according to recent polls, most of them are quite pleased with their coverage. So the issue is finding a cost efficient way to bring health care insurance to the 13% that either can’t afford insurance, or simply choose to go without, which is a reality liberals do not want to admit. Currently, the largest health care insurance provider in the market place is the federal government, so liberals are simply trying to resolve this problem by expanding the already sizable reach of the government, and considering the current problems we are facing with the federal government in the lead already, giving them a bigger role, hardly makes sense right? Wouldn’t it make sense to go the other direction and allow the free market place to fill the void, and allow consumers to make their own decisions? The free market place is an amazing mechanism, and consumers are a lot smarter than government gives them credit for. Despite the fact that cell phones were very expensive when they first came out, today, you can buy one for $10, and I would guess that the vast majority of those 13% of people without health insurance, have a cell phone. Let’s look at another example of car insurance. I will wager to say that a majority of that 13% also drive, and have car insurance which can be purchased for as little as $20 a month according to the commercials in my area, so that’s two examples of the free market bringing products to consumers and providing them at a cost that is universally affordable. How about if we try that with health insurance? If health care insurance providers were allowed to compete in every state, for everyone’s business, and were allowed to design their policies to meet individual needs, I can guarantee you that costs would come down, substantially. Combine this effort with tort reform, and get the government and lawyers away from the doctor patient relationship, and you will achieve universal health care.
And, as per usual, subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge:
…CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom. Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”
“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church. And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said…
Uh, Nance, old gal – ex cathedra is something the Pope does only very rarely and only to rule on matters of doctrine. The Pope does not rule on how we govern ourselves. The Church’s opposition to abortion goes back to the earliest days of the Church and thus requires no, new ruling from the Pope on whether it can ever be allowed – and, so, when 43 Catholic institutions sue the US government in order to fight against a government mandate to violate Church teaching then they are not doing something ex cathedra because they don’t have to…but they are very much defending the teaching of the Catholic Church you claim to belong to.
It really does make you wonder – how did someone this ignorant manage to not only get elected to Congress but manage to become Speaker of the House at one point? Does anyone on the left side of the aisle have any concern for intellectual ability? Was it really no more than she was a fountain of (sometimes illegal) fundraising and a sure vote for the left? Is that all it takes to rise high in the Democrat party? Basic knowledge and honesty play no role?
Well, the President has certainly stepped in it this time.
The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called “judicial review:” It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years.
The president is entitled to his own opinions, just like everyone else is. He is free to argue and to predict that ObamaCare should and will be upheld. But he cannot seriously suggest, with intellectual honesty, that the Court is without lawful authority to invalidate an act of Congress that the Court determines is repugnant to the Constitution.
Nor can he, with intellectual honesty, issue veiled threats to the Court.
The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that.
Now the Judge says the President “knows” all this, which begs the question, why then did he say what he said? Is it simply his narcissism showing through? Did Justice Kagen already get word to him that ObamaCare will be struck down, and he’s just getting even — in a juvenile, school-yard sort of way. He could have just called the Supreme Court a bunch of poopy heads; it would have been about as effective and classy as what he said. I suppose this could, as a number of pundits have suggested, be a way of preparing his army of useful idiots to take to the streets in protest if and when the Court announces that it has found the law unconstitutional. And, of course, there’s always the possibility that he already knows the Court will uphold ObamaCare, and he will simply be able to say, “see, I told you they couldn’t strike it down”. I’m not betting the farm on that last option, but nothing this crew does surprises me anymore.
The interesting thing to take note of will be opinion polls over the next week or two as they relate to Obama’s approval by Independents. I can’t imagine a large percentage of Independents admiring this latest move by the President, and without a strong majority of Independents’ votes, he’s toast in November.
The Supreme Court is halfway through its 3 days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, highlighted by this reaction from Justice Anthony Kennedy:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a possible swing vote for the court, was rigorously challenging Verrilli. Kennedy said he needed to answer a “very heavy burden of justification” to show how the Constitution authorizes Congress to require that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty.
At one point, Kennedy said the mandate changes the relationship between citizens and the government “in a fundamental way.”
Lots of news on this, and judicial bloggers are having a field day. Good time for an open thread.
Direct from their Flat Earth Society meeting, congressional Democrats are claiming that the more Americans learn about Obamacare, the more they like it.
Of course, that completely contradicts virtually all polling on the matter, but since when has reality mattered much to the Democrats?
But, hey, let them believe what they want. If they want to go down with the ship, I won’t stop them.
Is Obama trying to lose the election? The current disconnect with reality and desire to pander to every far left cause has me wondering if Obama is trying to lose, is he just this clueless, or, as Rush noted recently, is he simply confident that he has bought enough votes to assure his re-election?
The keystone pipeline was a no brainer, and could have boosted consumer confidence to a new level resulting in higher approval numbers for Obama, not to mention bringing unemployment down, creating good paying jobs, and stimulating the local economy of many towns along the way, but Obama chooses to pander instead to environmental extremists.
The recent constitutional over reach with respect to religious liberties was another bone-headed move and not very well thought out, although it appears the move may be the first broadside in an effort to shift the political conversation away from abortion to “the GOP wants to ban contraception”. I guess we’ll find out in a few months if that’s a viable strategy.
The fact that Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth with respect to the individual mandate in Obamacare, on one hand calling it a tax, and on the other calling it a fine, depending on the audience, was largely overlooked by the MSM. But then his budget director got caught on camera saying this. So either the OMB Director committed perjury before Congress or the Solicitor General will be perjuring himself before the Supreme Court. Either way, it should be interesting.
Obama’s allegiance to AG Holder and turning a blind eye to Fast and Furious, would be a huge controversy were it not for complicity of the MSM. To date, no one has been fired, much less prosecuted.
The recent call for significant nuclear disarmament at a time when the threat level is at a post-Cold War high, and the continued indifference to the action in Egypt, Syria, etc., may pander to the far Left, but the majority of Americans have to see these actions as detrimental to America’s future.
Obama proves once again that he is not a serious president by submitting a budget with a deficit that adds another 1.3 trillion of debt, when it was just 4 years ago while campaigning he called Bush unpatriotic for much smaller deficits. When the GOP finally lands on a nominee, the conversation will be about Obama, and not only can he not defend his record, his own words will be used against him to a point that everyone will finally realize that he is not a serious president.
America is slipping into a malaise of mediocrity under his guidance and if he is reelected, we may have federal school officials checking our kids’ lunch boxes for the proper nutrition ……… Oh wait.
This president has abdicated leadership and is the most partisan president this country has ever had. The only things Obama has improved in the last three years are his bank account and golf game.
Thanks to Cluster for most of the content for this post.//RS
I am a Catholic– A fallen-away Catholic, but a Catholic, to be sure. I believe in the infallible tenets of the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, and other Church doctrine; but I could no longer abide the turn for the worse in these past four decades in how the middle-heirarchy of the Church, mainly Bishops (and errant Priests) led the Flock astray, by promoting a godless, unattainable socialist utopia on earth via the “social justice” movement. They would get in bed with anyone to make it happen, including the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. They were more than willing to walk over the corpses of dead babies if it were to achieve their godless, earthly dream–
And then I saw this article, on Red State this morning, and I said AMEN!!! Someone gets it and isn’t afraid to excoriate the Bishops who have led their flock astray–
These are just a few of the paragraphs– I encourage everyone to read the whole enchilada– this NEEDS to be said to save the Catholic Church!
- Quote:Back when there was a New Ledger, I wrote a now long-forgotten piece excoriating the Bishops in this country for complicity in its passage, for not speaking up, for not excommunicating the public officials who actively fight for the abortion license despite the infallible teachings of our Church — and by extension, for enabling a culture of license that enables the Culture of Death. (Piece stolen here; TNL no longer publishes essays.)I stand by every word, and would like to add a few things. Let me start with the most basic one.
You can all, each of you, and I say this after a week of prayerful meditation and with all of the respect I can give, go straight to the darkest pit in the lowest valley of the Ninth Layer of Hell and burn there.
It was easy to sell out the unborn, wasn’t it? To just wish away an infallible teaching that — let’s be honest — has been such a headache since a Catholic Supreme Court Justice helped its mass breaking, and Catholic Democrats abandoned everything else to protect that breach, right? To let others commit a sin that our Church treats as so grave that it incurs the automatic sanction of excommunication? All in return for a goal you’ve shared with your Democrat masters since the 1940s — a chance to drive healthcare costs through the roof with the fig leaf of social caring. All so you could work with the sorts of people who are elected to office by publicly calling you theocrats and misogynists for more-or-less upholding the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of our Church.
Thirty pieces of silver must buy one Hell of a lot more for you than it does for me.
Who among you has stepped forward to say, Whoops! Or, We are infallible on matters of faith expressed through the Tradition or through an ecumenical Council, but we can err on policy, and hoo-boy, did we blow this one. Who among you spoke out last week and said, Attention my flock: I must now inform you that the Democratic Party has proven once and for all that if you vote for a Democrat in this country, you engage in material cooperation with evil. We will now be holding weekly mass Confession to handle the backlog until it clears.
Because that is truth. In 2009 and 2010, nominally faithful Catholics who value all of the policy choices you do — labor unions, forced charity, high rates of taxation, urban ghettoes, and of course, universal “health care” — and who claimed to be ardent defenders of the unborn sold out to a one, sacrificed millions of babies and betrayed the infallible teaching of their faith so they could get one gigantic step closer to the social justice you so crave.
And for that, for that moment when they put aside their baptismal and confirmation vows, repeated every Easter, and their recitation of whatever version of the Nicene Creed you’ve settled on this week, your response was … applause. Silence. Satisfaction. A professed willingness to work with the Administration.
You made all of this possible. For almost my entire life, you have given my fellow Catholics every reason to believe they can freely sin, and hey, no problem, so long as they favor higher taxation and government spending. They can murder the unborn, and I have had all of two homilies, two, in my entire time as a Catholic, which is to say from birth and for the thirty-five years after, in parishes and dioceses across the country, in which a priest has said, If you have had, caused, or aided in obtaining an abortion, and you take communion today, you will go to Hell. You look out into your emptying pews, terrified of the wood you see and the flesh you don’t, through families of one, two, or sometimes amazingly three children, and think, Well, at least they’re still coming, as if you do not understand the connection between these things.
This–the ENTIRE ARTICLE– is what should be read from EVERY pulpit this Sunday!
See, this is scary.
As part of its implementation of Obamacare, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a new federal regulation to require private health insurance companies to give the government all of the health records of every person they insure. The rule is shrouded in the usual bureaucratese, but, as Huelskamp pointed out in a Washington Examiner op-ed, “abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which ‘option’ is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American — including you.”
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claims the government must have the records in order to evaluate the performance of health insurers. Aside from the absurdity of having federal health bureaucrats judge the job performance of anybody else, the proposal raises a gigantic red flag: Federal and state governments have proven repeatedly in recent years that they are all but incapable of fully protecting sensitive records of individuals.
Seriously, who can read this and think Obamacare was a good idea? How much more Orwellian nonsense is there?