Congress's monstrous legal legacy

[Cancel8]

"The historians will long be fighting over the legislative legacy of the 111th Congress. As to its legal legacy, the only real question is whether this just-finished Democratic Congress was the most unserious in decades, or the most unserious in history.

That much is clear from the recent ObamaCare court proceedings. Federal Judge Henry Hudson, responding to a lawsuit by the state of Virginia, last week struck down the core of the law, the individual mandate. His decision came the same week that a coalition of 20 states presented oral arguments against the health law in front of Florida federal Judge Roger Vinson. In October, Judge Vinson ruled against the Obama Justice Department's motion to dismiss the states' lawsuit.

The law professors and think-tankers and media folk who initially ridiculed these lawsuits have now had to dream up sinister reasons for why they are succeeding. Judges Hudson and Vinson, we are told, were both appointed by Republicans and obviously can't be trusted to fairly interpret the law. Some commentators have gone further, suggesting that we are witnessing a cabal of right-wing activists, lawyers and judges conspiring to kill not just ObamaCare, but the entire New Deal. If only.

What the observers seem not to have done is read the briefs, arguments or rulings. Had they done so, they'd see a far simpler explanation for what's going on: Congress earlier this year punched through audacious yet unvetted health legislation, a slapdash political product that is now proving to be an historic embarrassment in its legal shoddiness. The Justice Department is in fact having to play games to defend it, which has only further provoked the courts.

And really, is that such a surprise? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of the bigger, more complex pieces of legislation in U.S. history. Yet Democrats never gave it the respect it deserved..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035810749744494.html

 

[apple0154]

"The historians will long be fighting over the legislative legacy of the 111th Congress. As to its legal legacy, the only real question is whether this just-finished Democratic Congress was the most unserious in decades, or the most unserious in history.

That much is clear from the recent ObamaCare court proceedings. Federal Judge Henry Hudson, responding to a lawsuit by the state of Virginia, last week struck down the core of the law, the individual mandate. His decision came the same week that a coalition of 20 states presented oral arguments against the health law in front of Florida federal Judge Roger Vinson. In October, Judge Vinson ruled against the Obama Justice Department's motion to dismiss the states' lawsuit.

The law professors and think-tankers and media folk who initially ridiculed these lawsuits have now had to dream up sinister reasons for why they are succeeding. Judges Hudson and Vinson, we are told, were both appointed by Republicans and obviously can't be trusted to fairly interpret the law. Some commentators have gone further, suggesting that we are witnessing a cabal of right-wing activists, lawyers and judges conspiring to kill not just ObamaCare, but the entire New Deal. If only.

What the observers seem not to have done is read the briefs, arguments or rulings. Had they done so, they'd see a far simpler explanation for what's going on: Congress earlier this year punched through audacious yet unvetted health legislation, a slapdash political product that is now proving to be an historic embarrassment in its legal shoddiness. The Justice Department is in fact having to play games to defend it, which has only further provoked the courts.

And really, is that such a surprise? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of the bigger, more complex pieces of legislation in U.S. history. Yet Democrats never gave it the respect it deserved..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035810749744494.html

(Excerpt) The administration believes its best shot is to drag out the litigation, and hope that time pressures the courts to leave the law alone. (End)

For sure it's best to drag it out as more and more benefits will come on line and once the people realize what medical care should be they, just like the citizens in every other country with government medical, will demand it stays and will push for further improvements.

 

[Cancel8]

(Excerpt) The administration believes its best shot is to drag out the litigation, and hope that time pressures the courts to leave the law alone. (End)

For sure it's best to drag it out as more and more benefits will come on line and once the people realize what medical care should be they, just like the citizens in every other country with government medical, will demand it stays and will push for further improvements.

"...Obama even in his more accommodating moments, has signaled he's not interested in significant (or frankly, any) revisions in his signature legislative accomplishment.

But we're going to test just how attached to ObamaCare the rest of his party is, especially red state senators up for re-election in 2012.

The House will hold an up or down vote on repeal. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will have a problem: does he allow a vote, thereby exposing his members to the wrath of voters?

And if so and a number of those moderate Democrats bolt, where does that leave Obama's argument that there is broad-based support for his legacy legislation?

Last time around, the White House and the Democratic leadership convinced their members to ignore the polls and vote for ObamaCare.

But in the wake of a midterm election wipeout, will Democrats again defy the will of the voters?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/voters_really_dont_like_obamac.html

 

[Good Luck]

Last time around, the White House and the Democratic leadership convinced their members to ignore the polls and vote for ObamaCare.

That's an interesting way of putting it.

What actually happened is key fence sitters in the democratic party were quite literally bribed through special considerations and/or exemptions from certain duties and requirements (in violation of Article I, section 8, paragraph 1 of the Constitution) to secure their vote. That alone should have invalidated the entire bill, for without those unconstitutional bribes it never would have passed.

 

[apple0154]

"...Obama even in his more accommodating moments, has signaled he's not interested in significant (or frankly, any) revisions in his signature legislative accomplishment.

But we're going to test just how attached to ObamaCare the rest of his party is, especially red state senators up for re-election in 2012.

The House will hold an up or down vote on repeal. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will have a problem: does he allow a vote, thereby exposing his members to the wrath of voters?

And if so and a number of those moderate Democrats bolt, where does that leave Obama's argument that there is broad-based support for his legacy legislation?

Last time around, the White House and the Democratic leadership convinced their members to ignore the polls and vote for ObamaCare.

But in the wake of a midterm election wipeout, will Democrats again defy the will of the voters?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/voters_really_dont_like_obamac.html

My bet is on more people supporting it come 2012.

Along with some benefiting from the changes as they come into effect there's also the economy to think about. When people see stagnant wages and job losses the assurance they will have medical coverage will look quite appealing.

 

[Cancel8]

My bet is on more people supporting it come 2012.

Along with some benefiting from the changes as they come into effect there's also the economy to think about. When people see stagnant wages and job losses the assurance they will have medical coverage will look quite appealing.

So the impoverishment of more Americans encourages optimism?

 

[apple0154]

Have you seen any trends developing that would encourage such optimism? So the impoverishment of more Americans encourages optimism?

(Excerpt) If there is a silver lining for the White House in the CNN poll, it is that although 54 percent oppose ObamaCare, that is down five points from a high in March, while support is up to 43 percent. Yes, those are still rather dismal figures for such an "historic" piece of legislation. (End)

Impoverishment doesn't encourage optimism but it can cause people to think clearly.

That has been a stumbling block, people convinced they could continue on the same road. Why would anyone worry if they had a job and benefits? If they realize they may be the next unemployed Joe their perspective changes.

 

[Cancel8]

(Excerpt) If there is a silver lining for the White House in the CNN poll, it is that although 54 percent oppose ObamaCare, that is down five points from a high in March, while support is up to 43 percent. Yes, those are still rather dismal figures for such an "historic" piece of legislation. (End)

Impoverishment doesn't encourage optimism but it can cause people to think clearly.

That has been a stumbling block, people convinced they could continue on the same road. Why would anyone worry if they had a job and benefits? If they realize they may be the next unemployed Joe their perspective changes.

Some have accused Democrats of using a poor economy to force people into accepting government programs that they might otherwise reject.

I don't know your political affiliation, but do you think this observation of yours is likely to strengthen that view?

 

[apple0154]

Some have accused Democrats of using a poor economy to force people into accepting government programs that they might otherwise reject.

I don't know your political affiliation, but do you think this observation of yours is likely to strengthen that view?

It's like anything else. No one wants to pay for unemployment insurance but they're glad they did when they require it.

I think most "thinkers" realize times have changed. While the economy will probably improve people's dreams are a bit more realistic. Also, as more people research government medical they'll see it's not about death panels and government dictatorship.

If anything, Obama is trying to ensure the American people don't get blindsided. Some will hit harder times and, at least, medical care will be there for them.

On that note it's nap time.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

My bet is on more people supporting it come 2012.

Along with some benefiting from the changes as they come into effect there's also the economy to think about. When people see stagnant wages and job losses the assurance they will have medical coverage will look quite appealing.

Yeah, a lot of people just love getting stuff cheap and/or free.
That way they have no reason to try and do better.