President Obama’s claim that if the United States Supreme Court judicially strikes down Obamacare, this would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step.”
Since 1803, the United States Supreme Court’s main job is to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Oh, but this case would be unprecedented and extraordinary. /please read italicized words in the most sarcastic manner possible/
This is what happens when we keep ceding public opinion to the so-called experts.
Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
If the typical uninformed voter doesn’t understand why Obamacare is unconstitutional, we can understand why. The Constitution has been creatively interpreted to accommodate federal programs for a very long time, after all.
But that’s what makes the President’s statements so shameful. As a former student of law, he should know better than to stretch beyond the bounds of judicial interpretation.
So . . . with a hot mic, the President accidentally proves how comfortable he is with the idea of telling the voters he’ll do one thing, when he really intends to do something else.
Yeah.
In a sane world, this revelation would create more of an uproar than that Casey Anthony acquittal did.
Alas, we don’t live in a sane world. Outside the conservative blogosphere, mostly we just hear crickets chirping and frogs croaking.
Speaking of frogs, I recently checked out a collection of Aesop fables. One of the fables is called The Frogs Who Desired A King. Are you familiar with that one?
Here is Caxton’s original translation, circa 1484. It’s my favorite version, but man oh man that’s some crazy Olde Englishe. Let me rephrase:
There were once some frogs who lived in liberty, but they wanted a king. They asked Jupiter to give them a king. They asked in one voice–no dissent, so it was all democratic and everything. Now, Jupiter knew these frogs weren’t the smartest bunch. So to placate them, he sent a piece of wood which splashed loudly in the pond.
This commotion scared the frogs at first. They approached their king cautiously, to make obeisance to him. When they realized their new ruler was just an ineffective lump of wood, they weren’t happy. They went back to Jupiter and asked for a better king. Jupiter was like, fine. And he sent a Heron to be their king.
The Heron flew down and began to eat the frogs, one after another. The frogs began to cry, and they begged Jupiter to deliver them from the throat of this tyrant. Jupiter replied, tough. The king which you demanded shall be your master.
Today, I was over at Disrupt the Narrative, watching footage of demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court building. A group of folks were chanting “We . . . love . . . Obamacare” to the beat of a tambourine, and boy. They sure sounded like Aesop’s frogs. I just hope that Jupiter does not give them what they are asking for.
Caxton’s version is my favorite because of the way he phrased the moral of the story. I don’t think the Olde Englishe needs much updating to be understood:
For when men have that which men oughte to have, they ought to be joyeful and glad. And he that hath lyberte ought to kepe it well. For nothyng is better than lyberte. For lyberte should not be well sold for alle the gold and sylver of all the world.
“Let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. You know, the public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury auction goes. They shouldn’t. They’re worrying about their family, they’re worrying about their jobs. They’re worrying about their neighborhood. They have got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it.”
Aw, ain’t that thoughtful of our leader? He’s protecting us from worrying our purty wittle heads about Boring Stuff That’s Hard.
Also, being patronized is my #1 pet peeve. Well, maybe #2, right beneath disrespectful feral children in the neighborhood, whose parents get angry if you yell at their precious angel who actually needs scolding more often.
Ahem. Anyhow, on to the next class, Microeconomics 101. It’s not just any microeconomics class, though, because that would just be more Boring Stuff That’s Hard. (We’ve got paid experts to worry about that stuff, you know. Obama says so!)
This particular microeconomics class is A Very Special Edition For True Believers:
“A provision in President Barack Obama’s health-care law that requires small businesses to begin buying health insurance for their workers when they hire their 50th employee–or otherwise pay a penalty to the federal government–’will actually be a great incentive’ for businesses to grow, stated Sebelius.”
Did–did you catch that? When businesses who do not insure their employees are faced with a penalty for hiring the 50th employee, they have incentive to grow?
Oh, oh dear.
I’m going to have to cut our tutoring session short today, everyone. Terribly sorry, but I think my brain has finally exploded. I can’t see much, just a lot of red. Disorderly thoughts intruding . . . the chickens got loose from the pen. And wait ’til you see all them bats . . .
“What got our attention about this exchange as reported by Cantor is the president’s threat to take his case ‘to the American people.’ Would those be the same American people who aren’t paying attention and don’t understand all this complicated stuff?”
At the same link, Mr. Taranto provides extra nuance from a WSJ reader email:
“The correct quote is: ‘The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They’re worryin’ about their family; they’re worryin’ about their jobs; they’re worryin’ about their neighborhood. They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it.’
It may seem insignificant, but it should be noted that every single time the president mentions the great unwashed masses ‘out there’ he instantly drops his precise pronunciation of ‘-ing’ endings, and launches into what he imagines all those ‘folks out there’ talk like. We’re jes’ workin’ and hopin’ and waitin’ for him to help us out, y’know? He does it midsentence. It is quite jarring when you listen for it. It is also very telling and very insulting.”
Okay, well. We’re in Kansas now, and I’ve realized something. Geography will dictate my Halloween costume this year. Too bad Sussie won’t fit in a basket.
Things are moving fast. As in a total blur. We arrived last night and toured the available housing today. We chose place number four, an on-base condo unit. With new address in hand, we rang the storage company.
With typical “you-don’t-pay-us-the-military-does” brusqueness, the storage employee gave us a choice: receive our belongings in two weeks, or tomorrow.
Tomorrow it is. Gulp.
Meanwhile, the Time Warner Cable fellow can’t hook us up until Saturday. So here’s some bits and bobs while I enjoy the hotel WiFi for one night.
First, Instawife’s post How to profit from “death panels” is well worth reading and bookmarking. As you know, Dems stick like superglue to The Narrative: ”death panels” are a fictional product of right-wing fear-mongering. Yet, Dr. Helen runs smack into this frightening monster whilst fulfilling her continuing education requirements. Sure, the article she encountered deals with psychiatric issues–not life-or-death per se–but the implication is clear to anyone who values life and liberty: when healthcare is rationed, there might not be enough medication for Granny.
Next, in case you are not a comment-scroller like me, I am reposting all of Eric’s comment to Dr. Helen’s post. I have heard the “healthcare is already rationed by insurance companies” argument aplenty, and this response is spot-on:
Telling Dr. Helen that there is already rationing is to commit the equivocation fallacy.
Rationing is generally understood as a finite amount of something which is then split up amongst the population desiring it. So, if you have 10 meals and 20 people, you have to ration the meals.
Currently, in the United States, there is healthcare for everyone. No rationing required.
Just as there is water for everyone.
It doesn’t mean everyone gets health care, nor does it mean everyone gets water. Someone stuck out in the desert may not have access to water unless they can afford to have it brought to them. This in no way means the water is rationed.
Don’t let supporters of Obamacare pretend like healthcare is rationed and it will be rationed under Obamacare just like it is rationed now.
It’s not. It’s a lie. There is plenty of healthcare in the United States, just as their is plenty of water.
Under Obamacare, there will not be plenty of healthcare for everyone for various reasons. Healthcare will become scarce. Just as water would become scarce if we did the same thing to water that we’re doing to healthcare.
Just as gasoline became scarce when Jimmy Carter was president and gasoline had to be rationed. It wasn’t that suddenly oil vanished from the face of the earth. It was government intervention that caused it to be rationed.
In the same way, your healthcare will go away.
Water, gasoline, healthcare, these things are not rationed under our current free market system. And it takes a fallacy to argue that it does.
Moving on to item number three: you gotta watch these Croatian dudes, Stjepan Hauser and Luka Sulic. Innocent Bystanders posted the duet’s version of “Smooth Criminal” a few weeks ago. That’s right, Michael Jackson’s song.
I enjoyed it, but didn’t share it. Now the Innocent Bystanders have posted a newer video, Welcome to the Jungle. That’s right, Guns and Roses. It’s a must share:
BONUS JUST FOR DAD: I know you won’t fancy the vid above, so here they are playing Shostakovich:
Tax the Rich! Tax the Rich!
The fat sheep flee the herder!
Call your Senator! —sire or bitch—
They’re getting away with murder!
Letter the Editor! show your spleen!
Let’s stop this vile unfairness!
Boost their percentage to heights unseen,
(Be damned to fiscal awareness!)
Tax the Rich! Tax the Rich!
Demand a committee hearing!
With your percentage a chronic itch,
The fat sheep need more shearing!
For 92 years it is safe and sound,
Well known to Pol and staffer;
That “revenue lost” is patronage found
(Be damned to Arthur Laffer)
Tax the Rich! in your envy lies
The key to this populist racket.
While productivity brings; “surprise!
You’ve moved to a higher bracket!”
Be a careful chump in demanding who
And where a levy exacts,
Soon little old you will be subject to
The Alternative Minimum Tax.
Ya’ll have a good week. I can’t respond to comments for a few days, but your thoughtful contributions are appreciated. Hopefully, the spammers won’t hit too hard before the cable guy gets me my fix.
Nevermind. Linking to you early birds will hopefully generate a little more traffic. Sometimes it pays to procrastinate, you know.
I got email notification of this shocking new video straight from Erica Payne herself yesterday. Well you know I just had to watch it right that instant. Only a couple hundred views were clocked at that time. Today, the message is spreading fast.
Here it is guys, but I’m warning you. This video is soshocking, you really should prepare to be traumatized. I’m talking horrific images seared into your retinas forever. Even so, it’s important that you steel yourself and watch. As Ms. Payne explained in her personal email,
“Is it not far better to see a graphic representation of a possible reality, rather than to experience the actual reality that Paul Ryan, conservatives and some Democrats would like to impose on our country? I hope you will understand that we did not mean to offend any individual or group of individuals by creating this video. We hope it will serve as a catalyst for meaningful discourse on the moral document that is our nation’s budget.”
Ready for this shocking catalyst for meaningful discourse? Are you sure? Oh-kay, but get your hands ready to shield your eyes:
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha ha haha hahahhahahhahha! Oh my.
At first I couldn’t remember why I was on Agenda Project’s email list, and then it hit me. They were the evil geniuses behind the F*** Tea campaign, which gave me such a laugh that I wanted to stay abreast of their future efforts. So I signed up.
Totally worth it.
Isn’t it nice of the Agenda Project folks to work so hard just to give us a hearty laugh?
Because they can’t actually be serious when describing that comedy skit as shocking, can they?
Cuz dude. You didn’t even blow any kids up. You’re way behind the bell curve.
“It’s about two years since my old friend Damian Thompson approached me with a couple of yellowish rocks and a pipe and said: ‘Have a puff on this. I think it might really suit you.’
No, of course not. What Damian actually introduced me to was something far more addictive, expensive, energy-sapping and injurious to health than crack cocaine. He asked me to join his elite team of bloggers at the Daily Telegraph.”
Mr. Delingpole explains:
“I have a talent for blogging. . . . What I can do . . . better than most, is that mix of concentrated rage, flippant wit, irreverence, bile and snarkiness which many blog readers seem to think defines the art.
Again, I say this not at all in order to boast. Discovering in middle age that you have a rare gift for deriding idiocies on the internet is like suddenly finding you’re the world’s most accurate lichen-spotter or first-rate squirrel-juggler or that you can identify aircraft just by looking at the contrails. It’s not something that makes you go, ‘Thanks, God!’
Some may think this ungrateful of me. After all, thanks to my blog, I’m at least ten times more famous than I used to be — with readers all over the world who think I’m just great. But what most people don’t understand (only bloggers do, in fact) is the terrible emotional, physical and financial price you pay for this privilege.
I know lots of bloggers and I can’t think of a single one who makes even half of a living out of it.”
Ha. Yes, his rare talent is manifestly evident. Moreover, rage and snark seem almost a prerequisite to blogging, even if bloggers use these tools with varying skill.
This missionary zeal makes sense, too, given the current political circumstances. Do you realize that much of this nation’s future will be decided by the end of 2012? America’s survival may very well hinge on the following three things: the next set of federal elections, the make up of the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Court’s decision on Obamacare.
If you feel pressured to have a “Living Will,” but you don’t feel comfortable with the language within it, then don’t sign one. Or create your own “Will To Live” from the National Right To Life’s template.
Instead of saying the usual “In the event that my quality of life stinks because I’m hooked up to wires and tubes, unplug ‘em and let me die,” it says something more along the lines of, “Don’t unplug me! Don’t starve me!”
After I posted on the story of little Joseph Maraachli, the story hung heavy in my heart for the rest of the weekend. I kept thinking about what those parents must be going through, while I spent my weekend frolicking on the Wii, by the ocean, and at laser tag with my boys.
You see, it wasn’t a report on past events, but of what is to come. Today, Monday, is supposed to be the day that the hospital removes their child’s breathing tube without then performing a tracheotomy.
Today is supposed to be the day that Joseph dies.
But.
A Google search for the latest on Joseph Maraachli produced this:
LONDON, ON, Feb. 21 /CNW/ – The ventilator will not be withdrawn today from Baby Joseph at 10 am. He maybe transferred to a Michigan Hospital.
Yesterday, The Maraachli family hired expert lawyer Mark Handelman.
The parents of Baby Joseph Maraachli are having a media conference at 11 am at the Best Western Lamplighter Inn at 591 Wellington Rd. in London Ontario.
If you are the praying sort, do throw some words up for this family today, would you? Maybe even if you are not the praying sort. Regardless of what happens, this family sure needs it.
UPDATE: PJMom has a lot more background and information, including how to donate to the family’s legal expenses.
Maraachli and Nader fought to bring Joseph home so he could spend his last days surrounded by loved ones. . . .
[but] With all of their legal avenues exhausted, the family will have to say goodbye [at the hospital] Monday morning when his breathing tube will be removed. . . . The parents asked for a tracheotomy, which would open up a direct airway through an incision in Joseph’s trachea and make it possible to bring the baby home. But doctors refused to perform the procedure, citing serious risks of infection, pneumonia and other possible complications.
Yeah.
That’s right.
The baby’s condition is terminal, and he is going to die anyway.
All the parents want is a tracheotomy, which, as we’ve all seen on TV, can be completed with a ballpoint pen if necessary.
Nope.
One may not impose the risk of infection on a child facing imminent death, sayeth the Canadian government.
Risk is at issue, sure, but whose risk?
Therein lies the sleight of hand. The officials and/or article author want to sound like they are concerned about the risk to the baby.
But the risk is really that the baby will incur more costs than necessary, if the tracheotomy is performed.
The parents have no say in this. The government deems it so.
Meanwhile, south of the Canadian border the United States House of Representatives has voted to defund Obamacare, and that is all well and good. Yet, I am also told that
“Defunding ObamaCare was always symbolic because money has already been appropriated for that, in the last Congress, so only a positive law would stop that, and the Senate won’t agree to that, and Obama would veto it.”
“You’ve got to advocate for your kids. If there is something you want for your kids, don’t let anybody tell you differently, just find a way to make it happen, ’cause there’s a way.”
I invested a fair amount of time discussing the health insurance mandate with a leftist blogger. Surprise, surprise, I failed to convince her of anything except for how impossibly dumb I am.
Let’s say the worst case scenario happens, and the Supreme Court upholds the health insurance mandate in Obamacare as an appropriate exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.
Let’s say also that 2012 provides an even greater conservative majority in the House, as well as a GOP-controlled Senate and GOP Presidency.
Can we then pass a law requiring all able-bodied adults to purchase at least two firearms? And to pay a fine if they do not.
After all, the proponents of Obamacare’s mandate are claiming that the law needs merely to regulate any “activity or decision which significantly impacts the nation’s commerce and economy.” If the law fulfills this standard, then it is an appropriate exercise of Commerce Clause authority.
Hey, once that standard is coupled with Wickard, even trivial decisions which do not significantly impact commerce on their own can still be constitutionally regulated, if everyone’s decisions are significant when considered together.
Millions of people deciding not to purchase a firearm–well that has a direct, significant impact in and of itself. On top of that, an unarmed population risks burdening the nation with the catastrophic cost of injuries and deaths that could have been avoided with proper self-defense.
A decision with a significant impact indeed.
If we all stop brushing our teeth, that would significantly impact the interstate toothpaste industry too, wouldn’t it?
Can you think of any human decision which would not have a significant impact on interstate commerce, when considered in the aggregate?
This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like you to hazard an answer if you can.
DISCLAIMER: I am not claiming it’s a good idea for the right to embrace this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This is just an exercise in critical thinking.
Recent Comments