"There are countless horrible things happening all over the world and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible." -Auberon Waugh
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Reid's Gambit
The attempt by Senate Democrats to lock in certain provisions within the health care legislation (i.e., make them unrepealable) looks like a non-starter. The superbly-named Arts & Ammo has the details.
A non-starter! It's in the Senate version of the health care bill. It will probably survive the conference committee and therefore become standing law. Ensign and Kyl are on the Senate floor, at this very minute, arguing the very same thing and the Democrats are about to tell them to go bleep themselves,albeit in a bipartisan tone.
They said the same thing about the campaign finance reform bill and look where that is now. That eminent domain case was clearly unconstitutional and look where that is now.
The Democratic Senate is the modern version of a successful Guy Fawkes
If the Republicans regain control(?) and they are smart(???) they will stick an amendment dumping this puppy in a budget bill subject to 51 vote reconciiation.
Yojimbo: Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is that any attempt to crystallize legislation, or freeze super-majorities that would be required in subsequent congresses to repeal legislation, will probably not survive if Republicans ever again establish a majority (a big if, I know). It is, of course, possible that the Supreme Court will somehow invent a constitutional right for this kind of thing, but I'm betting not (or rather, I'm hedging my bets by investing in golds, guns and canned goods).
Paco, I've read that there will be lawsuits filed over the constitutionality over this crap sandwich -- and that was BEFORE Reid slipped this particular stinker in.
I'm not a lawyer (Praise Be!), but with existing case law, I presume that any lawsuits will have a solid footing in court. If I read A&A's post rightly, the Supreme Court would be asked to reverse itself by the O!bama Administration. While that COULD happen, the journey to that point will be entertaining. To say the least.
And delay is America's friend. Every day that O!bamaCare is put off is another day that we have to save this country.
This assumes that this all happens prior to 2010. Seeing as O!bama hisself just delayed any joint Hill discussions February, there's a fair chance of that NOT happening.
Yup, The Once™ just blinked. Again. Pathetic; the dude can't even stand up to his own effin' party.
The Bush Administration relied on standing law to duck responsibility for vetoing the McCain-Feingold bill. We are but one Supreme Court appointment away from sheer tyranny.
That is really good news on the delay! The later the better!
I guess Obama can't puff up like that Italian dictator in his State of the Union speech. I feel his pain.
Jeff: I'll check out those freeze-dried foods. As we've been running low on provisions because of the snow, the dog has been looking kind of nervous.
Yojimbo: One of Bush's most bone-headed moves, to be sure, and one of the least defensible. He apparently disliked that bill, but assumed the Supremes would throw it out. The joke, of course, was on him (or us, rather).
That is really good news on the delay! The later the better!
Alas, all too true, Yojimbo. But I was thinking more of the 2010 elections than the Supreme Court.
The Dhimmicrats are going to get SOMETHING labeled "Healthcare Reform" passed. It'll be a spectacularly bad crap sandwich, of course, but our best shot is throwing enough of the communists out of Congress to at least slow down their march.
Oh, and Paco, better tell Mabel to learn how to hunt! If she can bring home the bacon (literally), she stands a better shot at not being the guest of honor for dinner one night.
Pacosan: Bush laid out a number of criteria for signing that bill. It flunked most or all of them yet he still signed.
I still like my idea of subjecting that section to a budget reconsiliation vote needing only 51. I don't know if that's Kosher but hey, in addition to a living Constitution we have a living Congress.:(
Yojimbo: I see nothing wrong with your plan. You obviously possess some pretty good "inside-baseball" savvy on the legislation process, and the plan sounds feasible.
Jeff: So far, Mabel has shown a great interest in the many animal tracks she has discovered in the snow, but she has yet to bring back so much as a chipmunk.
My point in the Arts & Ammo post is simply this: (1) there is no logic in the notion that one session of the legislature can trump the constitution and deprive a subsequent session of its powers, and (2) the contrary principle has too good a pedigree, with Blackstone, Justice Marshall, Justice Scalia, and even leftist icon Lawrence Tribe cited in that one short paragraph.
What are the chances of the Supremes calling into question Justice Marshall and Marbury v. Madison? Virtually none.
Page 1020 is theatrics. The question is whether future senators will use it as an excuse to be as irresponsible as the current crowd.
Fitz: I believe your judgment to be sound. It will be interesting to see how this plays out (more than just interesting, actually; critically important).
I'll take my chances with the virtually none of Obamacare not passing over the virtually none of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also determined that separate is the very same thing as equal, that black men can be thought of in percentages(that would be another Chief Justice named Taney) and the right to life ain't really no right at all- Blackstone, John Marshall, Scalia and the little Harvard twerp not withstanding.
I'd rather take my chances with "A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself." That would be Madison in Federalist Papers 41 for all you name droppers out there.
And then he adds. I don't know how theatrical a piece of standing legislation is. 60 senators and whatever that stupid number is in the House, 225 or 6 or something,aint no soliloquy. I'd rather be out of town when that troupe hits. In fact, I'd rather be out of this town anytime, but y'all knew that anyway.:)
I agree that pinning your hopes on the wisdom of the Supreme Court is a foolish strategy, but it is less foolish than Reid et al pinning their hopes on a feckless provision saying the bill can't be repealed.
The issue gets teed up only after a public revolt ushers in a new Congress willing to repeal the thing. At which time, the minority Democrats will repair to the courts as they always do. If their argument is that the healthcare act says it cannot be repealed, I predict they will lose even among some of the dimmer lights currently on the court, and perhaps among even dimmer lights yet to be appointed by Obama.
I find all this hand-wringing about the bill being unrepealable counter-productive. People will come to believe it's true. Then, representatives who would rather avoid hard choices can simply throw up their hands and say there's nothing they can do.
If we can't defeat it in this Congress then we should work to elect a new Congress willing to repeal it and to give Reid's poison pill all the credit it deserves -- none.
Well, arguing over this stupid provision is about as productive as answering the old Aquinas question about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. Judicial remedy is years away while this commission will be up and running in 2010, rendering any future remedy basically worthless. There is no injunctive relief possible, and good luck with that anyway, since it will not affect the origination date of the commission. The best judicial avenue available is a not so surgical strike at the heart of the whole bill centering on the mandatory requirement for insurance and the uneven application of rules and taxes between the states vis-a-vis the various programs. I don't know what the effect is on the various taxes already collected before relief arises but you can blunt the onset of the programs in the future years.
The best way to go about this would be to install a new Congress that bounces this thing right out the door, but I'm not really so sanguine on that front. The House is easily turnable. Either you get an outright majority in the House or you can partner with whatever so-called conservatives there are on the dem side. That is not a problem. The big problem is the hard reality of the Senate. We won't get a 51 seat majority let alone 60. This is a very small year for dem senators and some like Schumer and Leahy are untouchable anyway. I just don't see a sea change happening in the senate in this cycle.
A non-starter! It's in the Senate version of the health care bill. It will probably survive the conference committee and therefore become standing law. Ensign and Kyl are on the Senate floor, at this very minute, arguing the very same thing and the Democrats are about to tell them to go bleep themselves,albeit in a bipartisan tone.
ReplyDeleteThey said the same thing about the campaign finance reform bill and look where that is now. That eminent domain case was clearly unconstitutional and look where that is now.
The Democratic Senate is the modern version of a successful Guy Fawkes
If the Republicans regain control(?) and they are smart(???) they will stick an amendment dumping this puppy in a budget bill subject to 51 vote reconciiation.
Yojimbo: Poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is that any attempt to crystallize legislation, or freeze super-majorities that would be required in subsequent congresses to repeal legislation, will probably not survive if Republicans ever again establish a majority (a big if, I know). It is, of course, possible that the Supreme Court will somehow invent a constitutional right for this kind of thing, but I'm betting not (or rather, I'm hedging my bets by investing in golds, guns and canned goods).
ReplyDeletePaco, I've read that there will be lawsuits filed over the constitutionality over this crap sandwich -- and that was BEFORE Reid slipped this particular stinker in.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lawyer (Praise Be!), but with existing case law, I presume that any lawsuits will have a solid footing in court. If I read A&A's post rightly, the Supreme Court would be asked to reverse itself by the O!bama Administration. While that COULD happen, the journey to that point will be entertaining. To say the least.
And delay is America's friend. Every day that O!bamaCare is put off is another day that we have to save this country.
This assumes that this all happens prior to 2010. Seeing as O!bama hisself just delayed any joint Hill discussions February, there's a fair chance of that NOT happening.
Yup, The Once™ just blinked. Again. Pathetic; the dude can't even stand up to his own effin' party.
And might I suggest some freeze-dried foods? They're a bit spendy, and the taste ain't perfect, but they do store for a long time.
ReplyDeleteIf you want a bulk source, try www.costco.com, and do a search for "emergency food kits".
The Bush Administration relied on standing law to duck responsibility for vetoing the McCain-Feingold bill. We are but one Supreme Court appointment away from sheer tyranny.
ReplyDeleteThat is really good news on the delay! The later the better!
I guess Obama can't puff up like that Italian dictator in his State of the Union speech. I feel his pain.
Jeff: I'll check out those freeze-dried foods. As we've been running low on provisions because of the snow, the dog has been looking kind of nervous.
ReplyDeleteYojimbo: One of Bush's most bone-headed moves, to be sure, and one of the least defensible. He apparently disliked that bill, but assumed the Supremes would throw it out. The joke, of course, was on him (or us, rather).
That is really good news on the delay! The later the better!
ReplyDeleteAlas, all too true, Yojimbo. But I was thinking more of the 2010 elections than the Supreme Court.
The Dhimmicrats are going to get SOMETHING labeled "Healthcare Reform" passed. It'll be a spectacularly bad crap sandwich, of course, but our best shot is throwing enough of the communists out of Congress to at least slow down their march.
Oh, and Paco, better tell Mabel to learn how to hunt! If she can bring home the bacon (literally), she stands a better shot at not being the guest of honor for dinner one night.
ReplyDeletePacosan: Bush laid out a number of criteria for signing that bill. It flunked most or all of them yet he still signed.
ReplyDeleteI still like my idea of subjecting that section to a budget reconsiliation vote needing only 51. I don't know if that's Kosher but hey, in addition to a living Constitution we have a living Congress.:(
Yojimbo: I see nothing wrong with your plan. You obviously possess some pretty good "inside-baseball" savvy on the legislation process, and the plan sounds feasible.
ReplyDeleteJeff: So far, Mabel has shown a great interest in the many animal tracks she has discovered in the snow, but she has yet to bring back so much as a chipmunk.
My point in the Arts & Ammo post is simply this: (1) there is no logic in the notion that one session of the legislature can trump the constitution and deprive a subsequent session of its powers, and (2) the contrary principle has too good a pedigree, with Blackstone, Justice Marshall, Justice Scalia, and even leftist icon Lawrence Tribe cited in that one short paragraph.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances of the Supremes calling into question Justice Marshall and Marbury v. Madison? Virtually none.
Page 1020 is theatrics. The question is whether future senators will use it as an excuse to be as irresponsible as the current crowd.
Fitz: I believe your judgment to be sound. It will be interesting to see how this plays out (more than just interesting, actually; critically important).
ReplyDeleteI'll take my chances with the virtually none of Obamacare not passing over the virtually none of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also determined that separate is the very same thing as equal, that black men can be thought of in percentages(that would be another Chief Justice named Taney) and the right to life ain't really no right at all- Blackstone, John Marshall, Scalia and the little Harvard twerp not withstanding.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather take my chances with "A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself." That would be Madison in Federalist Papers 41 for all you name droppers out there.
And then he adds. I don't know how theatrical a piece of standing legislation is. 60 senators and whatever that stupid number is in the House, 225 or 6 or something,aint no soliloquy. I'd rather be out of town when that troupe hits. In fact, I'd rather be out of this town anytime, but y'all knew that anyway.:)
ReplyDeleteI agree that pinning your hopes on the wisdom of the Supreme Court is a foolish strategy, but it is less foolish than Reid et al pinning their hopes on a feckless provision saying the bill can't be repealed.
ReplyDeleteThe issue gets teed up only after a public revolt ushers in a new Congress willing to repeal the thing. At which time, the minority Democrats will repair to the courts as they always do. If their argument is that the healthcare act says it cannot be repealed, I predict they will lose even among some of the dimmer lights currently on the court, and perhaps among even dimmer lights yet to be appointed by Obama.
I find all this hand-wringing about the bill being unrepealable counter-productive. People will come to believe it's true. Then, representatives who would rather avoid hard choices can simply throw up their hands and say there's nothing they can do.
If we can't defeat it in this Congress then we should work to elect a new Congress willing to repeal it and to give Reid's poison pill all the credit it deserves -- none.
Fitz: Well said.
ReplyDeleteWell, arguing over this stupid provision is about as productive as answering the old Aquinas question about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. Judicial remedy is years away while this commission will be up and running in 2010, rendering any future remedy basically worthless. There is no injunctive relief possible, and good luck with that anyway, since it will not affect the origination date of the commission. The best judicial avenue available is a not so surgical strike at the heart of the whole bill centering on the mandatory requirement for insurance and the uneven application of rules and taxes between the states vis-a-vis the various programs. I don't know what the effect is on the various taxes already collected before relief arises but you can blunt the onset of the programs in the future years.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to go about this would be to install a new Congress that bounces this thing right out the door, but I'm not really so sanguine on that front. The House is easily turnable. Either you get an outright majority in the House or you can partner with whatever so-called conservatives there are on the dem side. That is not a problem. The big problem is the hard reality of the Senate. We won't get a 51 seat majority let alone 60. This is a very small year for dem senators and some like Schumer and Leahy are untouchable anyway. I just don't see a sea change happening in the senate in this cycle.
Just my opinion.
Oh, and!
ReplyDeleteBear Down, Arizona
Beat Nebraska:)