I had thought to make this a very slow blogging week. I’m finishing up research on another chapter of my dissertation–and am learning what a true and utter geek I am. When I discover a good book of scholarship on the Iliad, I find myself reading the whole thing, even the chapters not entirely relevant to my project. And while a lot of the scholarship is indeed jargon, given how much there is (on that great epic), it’s easy to weed out the crap and focus on the good stuff.
But, given that this is yet another week for the Democrats’ health care endgame, a game which responsible politicians would have ended five months ago, there could be some interesting blogging ahead.
For now, I’ll make this observation: the Democrats can still win this battle legislatively, but no matter what the outcome, they’ve already lost it politically.
If they pass the bill, they will have done so, not in an open process, but through devious means, crafting the bill in secret, offering payoffs to wavering Senators to get that chamber to pass it and using procedural shenanigans to force it through the House. They’ll have exposed themselves as putting legislative victory ahead of all other considerations, even and especially the “good government” issues they ran on in 2006 and 2008.
And if they lose, well, David Freddoso says it best:
Consider: If Obama wins, he gets a very unpopular bill whose higher taxes and Medicare cuts materialize immediately, years before its benefits kick in. If he loses in the coming weeks, he doesn’t even get the satisfaction of blaming the Republicans. He’s already past the stage at which a GOP filbuster can stop this thing. Instead, he will have lost in a House vote, with members of his own party striking the death blow against his top legislative priority.
So if this passes and SCOTUS strikes down part or all of this, will NDT & American Elephant start screaming about judicial activism as well as how a majority are allowed to do whatever they like, Constitution be damned? Just curious.
The question I have on this bill: does it have the whatchamacallit – a severability clause? Where, if part is struck down, the rest of the bill is still effective?
Or, will the nullification of part of the bill, say the unequal treatment of the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisana purchase, or the Florida Medicare Advantage continuation, will that nullify the entire bill?
2: Not sure since not even Madame Speaker ain’t sure what’s in the bill. If there is a severability clause it could make things very interesting.
“If Obama wins, he gets a very unpopular bill…”
The delusion here is just stunning. Go to pollster.com and look at the numbers. If you take out Rasmussen, the GOP outlier, and PPP a Dem firm (just to be fair about it), then the summary of all other polls is 45% in favor, 46% opposed.
And that, of course, as I have argued to you people a dozen times already, includes those who oppose the bill because it does not go far enough. IF you put those people on Obama’s side (as they will end up being, certainly by election day), then there is easily MAJORITY support for the bill already.
Even if you leave Rasmussen and PPP in, the average is a net 5 points negative (down from a net negative 10-15)- easily within the range of being flipped once you accept that the “doesn’t go far enough” crowd is virulently anti-GOP, anti-conservative, and will end up being supportive of the bill once they accept it is the best that O could get.
Yes Tano, we know how smart and intelligent you are, and how dumb we are, you’ve been screaming it for a long time now. So answer a question, if this bill is so well liked and so wanted by the people, why has it taken the better part of a year to even get this far, with Obama and Pelosi constantly failing to get it passed?
Methinks Obama would have been far better off if he had concentrated on creating REAL jobs instead of spending his political capital on this crap sandwich. Odd, it took George Bush 6 years to drop below 50%, Obama did it in less than 8 months. And ain’t it interesting to see how all the Dems in MO avoided him yesterday?
Hey Tano……
What are you talking about… what’s popular? The damn healthcare bill is so noxious no Democrat wants to put his/her name on it. Enter Louise Slaughter, she’s come up with a scheme to create a rule that deems the Senate version of the bill as being passed. The Congresswoman is trying to say not one vote in favor is needed, House Democrats will just say the bill is considered to have been passed in a specified way. They’re assuming no one will be the wiser in their home districts… and when Democrats run for reelection this year, in almost any district they’ll try and claim plausible deniability about voting for the bill……….. News Flash Tano…Elephants Have a Long Memory…so do the American people.
And Tano, also note that pollster uses some polls with dubious methodologies, throw those out and the margin of opposition grows. . . significantly.
I would say “unconstitutional” means.
I can’t speak to that of course, but let me say this: “judicial activism” has a meaning… It means, when a Court so tortures a relevant Constitution (state or federal) that it is no longer reviewing legislation for constitutionality (a.k.a. judicial review), rather, it is legislating from the bench. Thus, “judicial review” and “judicial activism” are objectively two different things, the former being a legitimate activity and the latter, not.
In this case, i.e. ObamaPelosiGreidCare, we have a bill with unconstitutional provisions (a federal mandate that citizens must buy a product), now to be passed by unconstitutional means (i.e., a critical bill in the process “deemed” to have been passed, rather than having been directly voted on in the House as required by the Constitution).
(my #8 continued) It fairly screams out for judicial review.
John,
Please link to ANYWHERE where I have said that the majority are allowed to do whatever they like. Especially since I just said the exact opposite in the other post, and you not only acknowledged that i said as much, but agreed with me. Just a few hours ago.
Then, when you find you can’t, because I’ve never said anything of the sort, you can apologize for knowingly, intentionally misrepresenting my position.
And if SCOTUS strikes this down because it violates the clear language of the Constitution of course I wont object. But that wouldnt be judicial activism.
What is judicial activism is what you advocate — claiming that the law must treat homosexuality the same as heterosexuality when there are 6.5 BILLION lives on Earth and heterosexuality is responsible for creating every single one of them and homosexuality is responsible for creating exactly ZERO lives in the entire history of the world.
And furthermore, claiming that recognizing that heterosexuality is responsible for all life on Earth throughout all of human history and homosexuality cannot create ANY life whatsoever is the same as discriminating against people because of their pigmentation is truly repugnant and makes a mockery of the discrimination that blacks faced which was truly based on characteristics that were entirely superficial and inconsequential.
A person would have to be pretty sick in the head to claim that the power to create all human life on Earth is of no more consequence than skin color.
But alas, that is just how sick in the head much of society has become.
So if this passes and SCOTUS strikes down part or all of this, will NDT & American Elephant start screaming about judicial activism as well as how a majority are allowed to do whatever they like, Constitution be damned? Just curious.
Tell us, John; did you decide to support the Kelo decision?
As ILC nicely points out, this bill is chock full of unconstitutional provisions and preparing to be “passed” by an unconstitutional method. It is the legislative branch’s power to “pass” it, and it is the judicial branch’s power to look at it, determine that it blatantly violates the clear wording of the Constitution, and strike it down.
I’m a bit more cynical than y’all about the courts.
As was shown in ‘cold cash’ Jefferson’s case, the conservative justices are prone to hold to the seperation of powers. Any court case on the slaughtering of the democratic process will likely result in the court saying “Congress is allowed to make their own rules, we can’t touch them.”
What’s wrong, AE? Not fond of having others using your tired old routine against you? Consider it an odd twist of the Golden Rule.
Indeed, especially should the so-called “Slaughter Rule” be employed.
#13: “As ILC nicely points out, this bill is chock full of unconstitutional provisions and preparing to be ‘passed’ by an unconstitutional method.”
…and ironically (the leftists inform us) to satisfy every American’s CONSTITUTIONAL right to healthcare insurance.
HARDLY! I never have done it and never would DESPITE the dishonest claims of others. Unlike people who try to redefine the English language in order to save face, I dont lie. I dont need to.
Every time i have characterized someone else’s opinion in a way they dont like I can back up every single word with their OWN statements and simple logic.
But thank you for your tacit admission that you just lied about what I said.
And the fact that you admit it, yet try to smear me instead of apologizing for it, speaks volumes about your integrity.
And once again the people who say the homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality and opposing gay marriage is like racism start getting nasty the minute you point out that heterosexuality has produced every life on Earth, that homosexuality has produced NONE, that ALL the courts disagree with them, biology disagrees with them, the people disagree with them and even the dictionaries disagree with them.
When all the facts are against them, all they can do is get nasty.
Its like clockwork.