February 2, 2011

Party lines

47-51.

The way forward is now clear: the House must work on refusing funding; the states given injunctive relief need to stop complying, in lieu of the federal government getting a stay; the GOP must bring the vote in both Houses consistently; and in the run-up to 2012, the defeat of ObamaCare needs to be tied to the defeat of Obama and any Democrats in the Senate.

The electability question as pertains to the kinds of “moderates” and “independents” we conservatives / classical liberals hope to attract? Should be answered, on their part, with “anyone but Obama or the Democrats.”

Posted by Jeff G. @ 4:42pm
163 comments | Trackback

Comments (163)

  1. Lindsey Graham.

    “If we’re going to vote on naming a post office this year, you’re going to be voting on this,” Graham said. “We’re going to bring this up every time we can.”

    Ben Nelson.

    “The vote to repeal healthcare is largely symbolic because the Supreme Court is going to have to be the one to decide this matter,” Nelson said Wednesday. “We ought to do the right thing and ask the high court to rule quickly so we don’t keep arguing over this for the next several years.”

    So, who sounds confident and who sounds scared, of voting?

  2. John Kroger, Oregon’s attorney general, argued that those who oppose the individual mandate ignore the fact that when any of the nation’s 40 million or so citizens who lack insurance get sick or injured, hospitals are required to treat them — at a cost of billions of dollars borne by others.

    “There is no constitutional right to force other people to pay for your health care,” Kroger said — no protections for “freedom to freeload.”*

    But this John Kroger piece of shit can find a constitutional right for the cowardly failshit brokedick government of the once-respectable United States of America to force people to buy health insurance?

    Seriously?

  3. Bill Nelson as per my being corrected by sdferr.

  4. a surfeit of Nelsons

  5. Kick ‘em both the fuck out suits me.

  6. here’s a discussion of vulnerable dirty socialist senators with a link to a National Journal article

    It’s a path that goes through a number of states, including Nebraska, Montana and Virginia where, respectively, senators Ben Nelson, Jon Tester and Jim Webb face super competitive re-election contests.

    alternatively (I guess) though…

    Voting for McConnell’s amendment could also open Republican candidates, such as Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine), to political scrutiny.

    “They are going to have a hard time explaining why they voted to repeal the most popular consumer protections in the law,” said a Senate Democratic aide.

    Scrutinize away you want a tasty beverage while you scrutinize? I get it for you.

  7. If a freeriding problem can’t be solved for something in the range the freeriding actually costs, but demands a solution four orders of magnitude more expensive (hypothetically speaking), is solving that problem still worth doing? I haven’t seen any clarity on this question from the people hollering it must be acted on! Right now!

  8. “that when any of the nation’s 40 million or so citizens who lack insurance get sick or injured, hospitals are required to treat them — at a cost of billions of dollars borne by others.”

    so hospitals don’t have billing departments, don’t give delinquent accounts to bill collectors, don’t ding people’s credit history. ok

  9. because they dinged my credit history because i thought the company i worked for was responsible for the on the job accident and the medical treatment needed.

  10. I hate them

  11. When you look through the possible pickups, it’s pretty easy to imagine a few of them simply not running again.

    Webb. Kohl. Nelson. Which could be quite informative if it does starts happening.

    David Obey announcing his retirement before ’10 was fairly predictive last cycle.

  12. This has nothing to do with health care. It’s about power, control, and creating a client state from the ruins of a representative democracy.

  13. In some cases Sens. choosing not to run again have picked a lame-duck freedom to burn the house down behind their escaping selves. Such behaviors warrant cudgels.

  14. In that case, they’ll be burning their own house as our house is now protected by the House.

    We should leave some matches laying around, just to tempt them.

  15. hold tight we’re in for nasty weather

  16. Kroger does know that the reason that many of these debts are not collected is because the amigo what went to the hospital didn’t have any fucking right to be standing where he was when he got sick or got injured. Right? And these little amigos probably picked up and moved as soon as the first bill came in. If they didn’t just give them some bullshit information upon admittance to the hospital whereas the bill was returned with a stamp from the post office. Do they have a return stamp labeled “suckers!”? Anyways they should.

    Real Americans would just declare bankruptcy and then the debt is chapter 11′ed to a % of whatever the good judge decides. Hospitals are not lined up for 100% reimbursings in the bankruptcy code ahead of usbank or visa or the plumber next door who got stiffed. IOW they are a creditor just like all the others. If he’s got a problem with that, he should take take it up with congress.

  17. “I hate them”

    i thought $800 for couple of stitches a little steep.

  18. Althouse has conveniently embedded Durbin’s hearing on the constitutionality of the mandate. Haven’t listened to the whole thing yet, but can recommend right off listening to Michael Carvin followed by Randy Barnett, starting their oral testimony around 31:00 mins in.

  19. Shoulda offered em $200 cash then filed the insurance later yourself. I find I often get better rates that way and the insurance does still pay the claim when you pay the doc first. Interesting that last time I did that, my rate was less than the one “negotiated” by the insurance company for their bulk business rate. They didn’t squawk and paid it right up.

  20. Excellent article hf. Bookmarked for later slammings in proggie blogs. I love hammers. Not that they work on mush, but still.

  21. The way forward is now clear: the House must work on refusing funding; the states given injunctive relief need to stop complying, in lieu of the federal government getting a stay; the GOP must bring the vote in both Houses consistently; and in the run-up to 2012, the defeat of ObamaCare needs to be tied to the defeat of Obama and any Democrats in the Senate.

    That’s part of the way. The state opt out bill is nice. Tying it to everything they can is nice. There are lots of weapons. Endlessly repeating the litany of ObamaCare horrors is nice. Use them all. Use them a lot.

  22. newrouter,

    Hypocrisy and thuggery, it’s the Union way.

  23. Juicebox mafiosi Ezra Klein believes the (un)Constitutionality of Obamacare is merely semantic.

    It’s true, words have no meaning in Ezra’s world of unicorns and skittles.

  24. a scotus ?:does kagan recuse?

  25. John Kroger, Oregon’s attorney general, argued that those who oppose the individual mandate ignore the fact that when any of the nation’s 40 million or so citizens who lack insurance get sick or injured, hospitals are required to treat them

    That’s one of the most specious, transparent, even dishonest arguments in favor of this latest round of tyranny, and from a payrolled public servant at that. The little man has no evident sense of place.

    As with all the left’s bullshit, just tell this clown and those who parrot this lie that had congress done the right thing and never forced the private sector to hand over their services, his point fall down go boom. The mewling child.

    As Stephanie notes, take it the f*ck up with Congress. They made the theft of services into law.

    Leftism deals in envy and theft. It is a disorder and should be excised from the system just as surely as thieves should be prosecuted. If charity is to be functional, dammit it needs to be charity.

  26. From feet’s link:

    Let that sink in for a second: the Constitutional justification of the individual mandate—that it is necessary to relieve the problem of uncompensated care—is an unproven, if not disproven, hypothesis.

    Constitutional law is supposed to be about the Constitution, not health care policy.

    Judas Priest. Are we really that dim that our entire federal legal community cannot put two and two together and determine that what Congress hath dicked up in 1986 with the EMTALA “mandate”*, Obama Care cannot remedy and be constitutional?! When the time comes, will the SCOTUS somehow not blow the uncompensated care canard right out of the water as at least part of their ruling?

    *it’s theft, dammit, and not a nice quaint little “mandate”. It’s few political thugs in a distant city who knew how this would end reaching out and taking from you to give to him.

  27. sortof ot

    The petitioning union is the Federation of Agents and International Representatives. [Yes, sometimes union representatives actually have unions represent them against their exploitive employers—the unions.]

    So, you might be asking, what’s the point?

    Well, apparently the employer (the United Food & Commercial Workers) has not agreed to card check, despite being a huge supporter of card check.

    Another example of another hypocritical union? It sure appears so.

    link

  28. So, Levin says the severability clause and the lack thereof are irrelevant, and that it should not be surprising to see a higher court reverse Vinson on those grounds. Still, that would not cause a reversal on the unconstitutionality of the mandate, and given that the gubmint’s argument is that the mandate is the core of the bill and it doesn’t work without it, that might lead them to not bother making that distinction. He refers to the fact that Judge Hudson in Virginia did sever the mandate and only ruled it unconstitutional.

    Hmmmmm….

  29. It’s almost as though were Hudson asked “well, what becomes of the remaining parts of the bill? Can they work?” his answer amounts to a shrug, and “What’s it to me?”

    Whereas, asked the same question, Vinson returns the reasonable answer “None of it will work of course. But since I’m a judge, it isn’t up to me to refashion the remainder to attempt to make it work. So, the whole deal goes out, and we let the Congress try to do better next time.”

  30. “the fact that Judge Hudson in Virginia did sever the mandate and only ruled it unconstitutional. ”

    well he ruled that it was unconstitutional and thought that without that provision the whole thing falls apart like taking the main beam out of a building. think of a ponzi scheme without step 1

    step1 force people to buy something
    step2 ??
    step3 make money

  31. 32. sdferr posted on 2/2 @ 7:13 pm

    Either judge’s response to the relationship of the individual mandate to the rest of the bill is defensible, depending on one’s view of the relationship between Congress and the courts.

    Vinson went by-the-book and snubbed the current deferential practice of treating laws that don’t have a severability clause as if they do. Hudson wasn’t that doctrinaire. Both rulings throw the problem back in Congress’ lap but in different ways. Vinson is telling Congress to go back to the drawing board because if they want to do this they have to do it right. from the start.

    Hudson is telling Congress, “Guess what? This piece of shit law you passed can’t work, and needs to be repealed. Maybe you hoped we judges would relieve you of that responsibility, but I ain’t gonna.”

  32. well he ruled that it was unconstitutional and thought that without that provision the whole thing falls apart like taking the main beam out of a building

    Yes, and that’s the government’s argument, which might make the distinction irrelevant. But there might be a reversal on Vinson’s voiding of the entire bill. I suppose the question we should be asking is whether there’s any way to prop the rest of the thing up without the mandate.

  33. Vinson went by-the-book and snubbed the current deferential practice of treating laws that don’t have a severability clause as if they do.

    According to Levin, judges have been doing their own severing regardless of the presence of a clause for 200 years. That’s what pricked my ears up. He was perfectly clear that the severability clause doesn’t matter, which is not what my understanding had been.

  34. Whereas, asked the same question, Vinson returns the reasonable answer “None of it will work of course. But since I’m a judge, it isn’t up to me to refashion the remainder to attempt to make it work. So, the whole deal goes out, and we let the Congress try to do better next time.”

    The question is, is it in his purview to chuck the whole thing when only part of it is found to be unconstitutional? Levin seems to think Hudson got it right, and Vinson could be reversed. Which would leave Congress to try and fix it, which, heh.

    It was the last segment of his show tonight, so if a podcast or summin goes up, it’s probably worth a listen.

  35. “I suppose the question we should be asking is whether there’s any way to prop the rest of the thing up without the mandate.”

    all the cbc’s “analysis” of the budgetary neutrality of the bill falls by the wayside w/o the mandate’s revenue.

  36. Thanks for the heads in regards to severability, Pablo.

    If anyone comes across the relevant segment of the show, do us a favor and throw a link into the comments.

  37. Heads up, that is.

  38. They’ll post it here when it’s up, later tonight I’d guess. Anyhow, once up we can just pull the slider to the last hour or so I reckon.

  39. It’s up now.

  40. Good news… except that the attorney fees will come from the public coffers instead of their own fucking pockets…

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12827405

    Expect Vinson to follow suit in a few weeks re Healthcare. These fuckers are like kids and cookie jars.

  41. Couple related questions if anyone can put me to some knowledge:

    Has the government filed/applied/asked/[insert correct term] for a stay yet?

    If they haven’t, does that tell us anything? Is it possible that they might not apply for one simply so they don’t have to admit they do in fact need one? What’s the judge do then? Contempt? What would that entail when we’re talking agencies rather than individuals?

  42. Get out of my mind, Stephanie. You have spooky brain powers.

    Thanks, sdferr.

  43. the baracky ignore the “drilling” thing so this is no problem

  44. According to Levin, judges have been doing their own severing regardless of the presence of a clause for 200 years.

    Then I’m mystified as to why Congress has ever bothered with a severability clause.

    I’m not sure Levin is quite right on this one. Which comment upthread has the link?

  45. the baracky ignored the “black panther” thing so this is no problem

  46. Ah, there wasn’t one yet. Okay.

  47. “According to Levin, judges have been doing their own severing regardless of the presence of a clause for 200 years.”

    bad interpretation of levin?

  48. The first references to the Vinson decision seem to begin a little after 3 mins in. Haven’t got to the severability business yet at 4:50 + so far.

  49. Errrr…. Does Levin ever post transcripts, for those of us who can read faster than he talks?

  50. bad interpretation of levin?

    No.

    Anyhow, once up we can just pull the slider to the last hour or so I reckon.

    Last 10 minutes, maybe 5 will do.

  51. :grin: Maybe you’re one of my kids from another dimension or something as my kids swear that – in addition to knowing what they are thinking – I have eyes in the back of my head, too.

    I saw that.

  52. Come to think of it, I have a very clear recollection of con-law professors telling undergrad classes I was in, that a severability clause was necessary to prevent the entire law from being struck when an essential part of it (as opposed to an amendment dealing with something unrelated to the core of the bill) is unconstitutional.

  53. It seems to me that, if the Obots continue to act like the courts didn’t say what they said, the courts can impose additional remedies in addition to fines. Wasn’t there a case in Missouri or somewhere that was education related where the judge wasn’t satisfied that the school board wasn’t doing what he said and he ruled that they had to submit all activity including time sheets and spending bills to him so that he could verify that they were doing as ordered.

    It’ll be real funny when the marshalls show up at Interior or EPA or wherever with a search warrant for the goods.

  54. I’m only seeing 101 minutes. Is it not a 3 hour show? I caught it on XM, just before he signed off at 9, and the end of that clip is not the end of the show.

    OK, now it’s at the end and still running, past 101. That player is goofy.

  55. OK, I’m getting the Go To Meeting commercial I heard when I jumped in the car. 10 minutes more or so, after the liquor store and a pack of cigs. :-)

  56. It pops at 108:00

  57. OK, 108:30ish

  58. Hmmm. I really think the amount of time he gave to the matter is somewhat short shrift, and anyway if you get five lawyers together you’ll end up with eight different opinions.

  59. Sure, but he’s awfully clear that it doesn’t matter.

  60. “Sure, but he’s awfully clear that it doesn’t matter.”

    severability clause?

  61. Hudson: Virginia vs Sebelius (pdf)

    Vinson: State of Fl. vs USDHHS (pdf)

  62. I listened to Levin’s show live. His point seemed to be that the severability issue wasn’t as big a deal as it was being made out to be because, eg., it wasn’t necessary to reach the conclusion Vinson reached, as was made clear in its difference to the decision Hudson reached.

    If you want to listen to Levin on the decision, try yesterday’s show, where he had on the lead council for the plaintiffs, and listen to the two of them discuss the verdict and the law as written. Or try Monday’s show, as he analyzed the decision in close to real time. He was baffled that FOX and Washington Times were suggested the judge had stayed his decision, for instance.

  63. Why are you bothering with this question? In this Washington nothing committed to paper matters. It’s only what was said today. Why should a little severability matter?

    Anywhooo, activist judges have been making severe use of ignoring and applying as necessary. Conservatives usually follow the tradition of it needing to be there, but some are forced to ignore if the bill is one of those omnibus POS. Some of the judges say that since so many of the laws are passed now as comprehensive items with lots of shit thrown in that severability is required to separate out the wheat from the chaff and that even if the clause ain’t there they will treat like it is because of that.

    Which could by why all the confusion on this bill. This bill included some stupid shit add ins too like the nationalization of all student loans that can be forgiven if you work for govt for 10 years and some other hinky shit.

    Which since he threw out the whole thing puts another industry in the WTF? category now. What’s FAFSA gonna do?

  64. Ignore my run on sentences in that last. I didn’t get my exercise today.

  65. P. 40, Hudson: “Moreover, without the benefit of extensive expert testimony and significant supplementation of the record, this court cannot determine what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survive independently.”

    Accordingly, “Therefore, [etc.]”

    Which, I freely interpreted as a shrug. Or, in the parlance of our dishwasher when asked to pitch in with the vegetable prep “Noy, mon, iss not my yob.”

  66. “it wasn’t necessary to reach the conclusion Vinson reached”

    my hearing was that he threw the whole thing out because the whole thing was too complicated for him to rectify in any way. for example: if i tear this thing out what happens to the tanning tax or 1099′s or keeping coverage til 26? start over is what i sense.

  67. Meanwhile Insty reports

    THOSE TOLERANT CANADIANS: Canada: ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal orders woman’s house seized after she said Muslim employee’s lunch smelled bad.

    It didn’t hold up in court — quite. Superior Court rules Ontario Human Rights Tribunal hearing was unfair.

    A Mississauga businesswoman whose home was ordered seized to pay an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal award to a former employee can keep her house — for now.

    The Superior Court struck down the “fatally flawed” decision as so unfair to defendant Maxcine Telfer — who represented herself in the hearing — that it was “simply not possible to logically follow the pathway taken by the adjudicator.”

    That October 2009 decision ordered Telfer to pay $36,000 to a woman who had been her employee for six weeks. Lawyers wanted the sheriff to seize and sell Telfer’s home to collect the money.

    Canada is overdue for a hardcore free speech movement.

  68. i’m still waiting for kagan’s recusal from this case.

  69. Moments before the vote, the Senate had agreed to make one relatively minor change in the law, voting to strip out a paperwork requirement for businesses. President Obama, who has vowed to veto any total repeal of his signature legislative accomplishment, has said he would accept that change. It does not directly affect health care.*

    wasn’t bumblefuck expecting something like 17 billion dollars from that provision? The dirty socialist Associated Press whore thinks that’s “relatively minor?”

  70. You’ll probably be waiting a long time newrouter, cause it looks like she isn’t going to recuse.

  71. mubarak kagan works

  72. my hearing was that he threw the whole thing out because the whole thing was too complicated for him to rectify in any way. for example: if i tear this thing out what happens to the tanning tax or 1099?s or keeping coverage til 26? start over is what i sense.

    Right. When I say it wasn’t necessary to reach the conclusion he reached, I meant that it wasn’t necessary as a condition for making a ruling on constitutionality that there was no severability clause. Hudson severed; Vinson didn’t. Both ruled the mandate unconstitutional; Vinson ruled the whole thing unconstitutional.

  73. “cause it looks like she isn’t going to recuse.”

    another front on this “war”. tea party folks outside the scotus.

  74. my hearing was that he threw the whole thing out because the whole thing was too complicated for him to rectify in any way.

    But it’s not his task to rectify anything. His job is only to determine what’s legal and what’s not.

    I do not want judges trying to fix things. We’ve been down that road and it leads to bad places.

  75. Now that you mention it, what is to become of the tanning taxes already collected as of July of last year?

    I’d like to see one of the big insurance companies send out a letter lowering premiums 15% or so of the 60% increases seen this year mentioning that once the ruling becomes final refunds will be coming for another 15-20% of the remainder of the Obamacare mandate taxes.

    Sebelius’ head would not just explode but probably cause a nice little wormhole the rest of the gang could get sucked into.

  76. Vinson himself noted on the question of severablility virtually the same thing Levin does, p. 67:

    Although it is true that the absence of such a clause, in and of itself, “does not raise a presumption against severability,” [New York, supra, 505 U.S. at 186], that is not the same thing as saying that its absence is irrelevant to the analysis.

  77. Or, in the parlance of our dishwasher when asked to pitch in with the vegetable prep “Noy, mon, iss not my yob.”

    Right. Is no his yob.

  78. “Vinson ruled the whole thing unconstitutional.”

    it is my sense that he did this because once you start pulling threads, being a judge on the outside, who knows where it goes. better to say start over.

  79. a scotus ?:does kagan recuse?

    If I’m Judge Roberts, I pull Kagan aside and counsel her on the ramifications of her not recusing herself.

    Possibilities include:

    Getting his clerks to dig up every precedent they can find regarding judge recusals.
    Warn her that the other judges (I’d get committments and name names)will be going out of their way to blast her decisions (both against recusing herself and her opinion in the case) in the write ups following the decision.
    I’d also name the judges that are committed to dismissing (and maybe in the case of Scalia – mocking) any input she attempts to inject into the debate.

    If that didn’t work I’d refer all of the her conflict of interest information to the House judiciary committee to review.

  80. i’m still waiting for kagan’s recusal from this case.

    I think I would actually masturbate to that. But she can’t be forced to do so. Which, if Kennedy does his job I can live with because I’m not sure I could live with myself if she does.

  81. “I do not want judges trying to fix things. We’ve been down that road and it leads to bad places.”

    i agree. i’m just stating his rational was that “IT IS NOT THE JUDGE’S PLACE TO LEGISLATE”

  82. it is my sense that he did this because once you start pulling threads, being a judge on the outside, who knows where it goes. better to say start over.

    Well, that, and because the administration has said without the mandate the whole thing falls apart. He essentially just said, yup, you’re right.

  83. If I’m Judge Roberts, I pull Kagan aside and counsel her on the ramifications of her not recusing herself.

    That’s not happening. Nor should it really. These people have to be trusted to be decent. Otherwise, where does such a step end? Roberts, for instance, would only be opening himself to query on every such decision he makes for himself. No way he doesn’t see that.

  84. Didn’t the government take the position that the whole fuckimg monstrosity would collapse without the unconstitutional mandate?

  85. “That’s not happening. Nor should it really.”

    can citizens ask her to not participate?

    “These people have to be trusted to be decent.”

    that’s a nice thought. i like unicorn farts too. green energy dontcha know.

  86. The administration argued in Vinson’s court in front of him that it couldn’t be implemented as written if the ind mandate was severed. It was a large part of the arguments and a big blurb in the opinion. One of the reasons cited IIRC was that the $$ would be screwed up and that massive taxes would be required to make it work. Which then brought in the other problem of them labeling it one thing and arguing “well yeah we called it that but that was for the dog and pony show before the public” it’s really what we call it now.

    He wasn’t buying what they were selling back then, either.

  87. it is fun to watch the rube goldberg left self destruct on the “holy” grail of “universal” health care. are you serious?-pelosi.

  88. That’s not happening. Nor should it really. These people have to be trusted to be decent. Otherwise, where does such a step end? Roberts, for instance, would only be opening himself to query on every such decision he makes for himself. No way he doesn’t see that.

    Actually, I’ve seen MBM reporting dialed up to eleven at the circuit level that finally forced a judge to recuse. And I think Roberts have a tet a tet would not be out of order contrary to sdferr’s comment. Recusal due to being involved in the case before it reaches you is substantially different that calling one of them aside to argue the merits of a case with or without a backscratch involved before they are supposed to argue the merits of the case.

    One is a sidebar prior to arguments, and one is a pre argument argument, if you get my drift.

  89. “He wasn’t buying what they were selling back then, either.”

    this scam was manufactured many moons ago. they just needed a messiah and a majority to set it in motion. their problem was that there was no “intelligent” discussion of what they thought. if you are on journolist just do talking points memo.

  90. “That’s not happening. Nor should it really”

    sdferr,

    I agree with the 1st part but I’d have to at least quible at the second part.
    If recusing is the right/correct thing to do then encouragement from the Chief Justice IS the appropriate thing to do.

    However the extent of that “encouragement” is certainly a matter worthy of debate and measured consideration.

    Maybe somebody with a considerable amount of media influence will right an Op ed on the subject.

  91. Thanks for all the info on this guys.

    This whole topic seems a bit off to me. If you’re a legislator, how do you decide whether or not you can vote for something if an element or two that pushed you towards a yes could later be stripped from the statute? (With a severability clause, you know this beforehand and vote accordingly.) Without the mandate, this wouldn’t have passed, they wouldn’t have had the votes.

    Further, under the Byrd rule, you can’t use reconciliation if something is going to change outlays or revenues.

    So, we have a bill that wouldn’t have gotten the votes required without the mandate and it would have run afoul of parliamentary rules as well. Yet they’re pretending that something that never could have happened is the end product.

    This is just fundamentally strange.

  92. Didn’t the government take the position that the whole fuckimg monstrosity would collapse without the unconstitutional mandate?

    Yes, which is why Levin argues that the severabilty clause question is pretty much moot.

  93. “I’ve seen MBM reporting dialed up to eleven”

    make believe is a good epithet to hurl at katie and chrissy and joe s.

  94. If recusing is the right/correct thing to do . . .

    And where is this knowledge to be gotten? Is there a box somewhere with the stuff written down so the CJ can just reach in and pull out the answer? No, there isn’t. So the decision is left to the self-knowledge of the judge to determine. ‘Sides, are there disciplinary powers vested in the CJ? I don’t think so. If there are disciplinary powers vested anywhere at all, those would be found in the US Senate wouldn’t they? I think so.

  95. “This is just fundamentally strange.”

    only if you discount the ideology of the far left of the demonrat party.
    otherwise ayers, dornan, alinsky make “sense”.

  96. Fuck it all I forgot the italics on the quote above….

    their problem was that there was no “intelligent” discussion of what they thought. if you are on journolist just do talking points memo.

    when you are putting together the most awesome of awesomeness and asking for input on it with your acolytes, you tend not to realize the stupidity of some of your output. WTF comes to mind for example. As does Moochelle’s wardrobe and the Office of the President Elect and greek columns and B+ and lots more shit that they thought was hunky dory.

    These guys need a good shitstorm to dissolve the smug cloud hanging over them. Unfortunately, I don’t even think that would do it for some. Don’t forget that Obama thinks he is would make the best choice for his own chief of staff.

  97. BTW I posted some more updates to the latest Egypt thread if anyone is interested.

  98. “If there are disciplinary powers vested anywhere at all, those would be found in the US Senate wouldn’t they? ”

    yes the political winds of the time gave kagan an easy hearing. how about now once she is in office? we the people can’t show her bias to a corrupt piece of legislation she defended? mubarak kagan.

  99. sdferr,

    Agreed there is no clear cut (to my knowledge) rule or example disqualifying her in this case. Only precedent and the judgement of the American people in response.

    One more small quible (and I hope you forgive me for bringing it up). Don’t disciplinary powers include impeachment which are initiated in the House.

  100. Not talking about confirmation newrouter, but conviction on impeachment by the House. Which, as it happens, has never taken place in the Senate with regard to a Supreme Court Justice. Only one has been impeached, and he was acquitted.

  101. oops forgot to end with this; ?

  102. On your reasonable quibble Danger, if we can imagine a false accusal resulting in an impeachment, for instance, would the person falsely accused consider themselves to have been disciplined?

  103. I was confused on the Byrd rule in #94. Exactly backwards, actually.

    Yet, I thought I remembered something about them needing some sort of CBO score to use reconciliation or something.

    Perhaps disregard all of this. I feel suspiciously like I’m talking out my ass.

  104. Impeachment with Alcee Hastings the ex judge who was impeached actually sitting in that august body? Fiddle dee dee.

    Impeachment has no meaning anymore. Unless as a credential for proving your worth to buy voters by bringing home the goodies to your friends er constituents er leeches.

  105. A little U.S supreme court impeachment history:

    I’m not trying to convince you that this case warrents that level of sanction. I am merely trying to discuss the possibilities among allies.

    We are allies; right?

  106. We are allies; right?

    Soitenly.

    Did not know that:

    [Hastings's] Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

  107. Perhaps this is the relevant section of the Byrd rule:

    …ineligible for reconciliation… if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit

  108. “would the person falsely accused consider themselves to have been disciplined?”

    Most likely they would feel unjustly disciplined. Impeachment is largely (unfortunately) a political tool that doesn’t always result in just decisions. One could also argue that a politician that is voted out of office based on lies of his opponent would feel the same way.

  109. “Not talking about confirmation newrouter, but conviction on impeachment by the House.”

    oh to heck with impeachment with these thugs. i want shame. maybe camels on the streets going against the thugs of some kind of uptodate statism.
    hell let us really abuse kagan and overload her twitter feed.

  110. Wiki with bolding added…and posted to the correct freaking thread this time, d’oh!

    In 1981, Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

    On March 23, 1987,Rep James Sensenbrenner introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 128, againstJudge Hastings. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee.[194] On March 31, 1987, the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Criminal Justice met in executive session to discuss Judge Hastings’ impeachment inquiry.[195]

    In the summer of 1988, the full House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing five votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont voting to convict his fellow party member, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter voting to acquit.[196]

    The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[197]

    Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.[198]

    Sporkin found some “crucial distinctions”[199] between Nixon’s case and Hastings’, specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually “tried” his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

    The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin’s ruling was vacated and Hastings’ conviction and removal were upheld.

    Another reason to thank G*d that fucker Specter is out of the senate….

  111. I look at the impeachment part as merely an indictment unproved. So following that line of reasoning, until the trial is held and the indictment voted proved, no appropriate discipline can be considered to have taken place. Once convicted of wrongdoing, the trial enters the pointedly disciplining phase of punishment, redress, etc. Which is where I’d locate that part.

  112. “Perhaps this is the relevant section of the Byrd rule:”

    well the ex parrot/klansman/bygodwestvirginian isn’t my model for moving forward although i might lean that way

  113. I see your point, I was thinking of conviction. Although you’d think that some level of damage (to reputation at least) would occur just from the impeachment itself.

    Of course that was before Slick Willie came along.

  114. “I look at the impeachment part”

    i’m just trying to get kagan to recuse herself on factual grounds of her defending this pos. impeachment not so much. beside it will put 2012 in stark relief. all 23 of harry reid’s suicide bombers are doing what the one’s nancy pelosi lost in 2010.

  115. Just seems weird to me that they could avoid a filibuster with a section of a statute that was later ruled unconstitutional.

    It’s like a time travel paradox. How can a court go back in time, kill your father, and then pretend that you still exist? Without your father, you don’t exist. Without the mandate, this statute doesn’t exist. Definitely by votes, and maybe by parliamentary rules as well.

  116. “The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin’s ruling was vacated and Hastings’ conviction and removal were upheld.”

    Wow, a Court that voted to limit it’s power? Man those were the days;)

  117. Although you’d think that some level of damage (to reputation at least) would occur just from the impeachment itself.

    I agree Danger that being impeached can’t be any bed of roses. People, some people anyhow, will always look askance at somebody impeached, but not necessarily rightly so, ‘specially in an environment of political thwacking and so on. But once acquitted, they may simply go back to doing their jobs as before, right, though carrying the burden of accusal along. This was, in a way, the sort of shit brought down on the head of Justice Thomas, an act for which I for one can never forgive those who took active part in it.

  118. 51 US Senators voted to maintain a law that a Federal Judge ruled to be unconstitutional in 26 States.

  119. “Just seems weird to me that they could avoid a filibuster with a section of a statute that was later ruled unconstitutional.”

    bh,

    Rules are just for us little people. I’m sure some of the SCOTUS judges will rind riper cherries to pick when they decide on this case. Though, it sure would be nice if there was more accountabilty for these decisions.

  120. Those 51 should be targeted for removal.

  121. sdferr,

    Yup, though I don’t know which was worse treatment. Judge Bork or Judge Thomas?.

  122. http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/02/upton-investigates-obamacare-advertising-campaign-stimulus-funding/

    I’m liking this Upton guy so far. He’s also going after them for FOIA on the documents surrounding waivers.

  123. JD,

    Wasn’t it just Judge Vinson’s case that included 26 states? Cus there was also the Virginia case.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01ruling.html?_r=1

  124. 51 US Senators voted to maintain a law that a Federal Judge ruled to be unconstitutional in 26 States.

    Sweet, ain’t it? Electorally speaking, that is. Disgusting otherwise, but they’re better than the courts. Just ask them.

  125. Pingback: Obamacare Sucks...........And The Senate Votes Against Repeal - The POH Diaries

  126. Did those 51 fuckers take an Oath of Office that referenced anything like supporting or defending the Constitution?

  127. JD, go listen to the Durbin hearing. Take blood pressure meds first though.

  128. I cannot do it, sdferr. He is loathsome. Though I do appreciate him making a larger ass of himself in public.

  129. sdferr,

    Durbin found any Nazi’s or Khmer Rouge factions in our Military Forces yet?
    Or did they all retire with GWB?

    Rhetorical but deserving a response from that POS.

  130. “Those 51 should be targeted for removal”

    23 up in 2012. 28 losers left.

  131. In general terms, Mary McCarthy’s jibe at Hellman applies pretty well to Durbin and his ands and thes.

  132. With competition from Rahm Emmanuel, Carol Mosely Braun and Blagojevich, it really is remarkable how Durbin remains such a uniquely scummy individual.

  133. I want to invent a word for Sen. Grassley. He’s doofistick.

  134. 23 up in 2012. 28 losers left.

    Enough heat and the 28 might immolate (retire).

    Speaking of – ever seen a splodeydope sploydey his cocktail all over his ass?

    About a third of the way down…. http://theothermccain.com/2011/02/02/egypt-gets-violent-obama-gets-angry-networks-get-ratings-ill-pop-the-popcorn/

  135. bh,

    Is my count off or do the two Obamacare unconstitutional rulings cover 27 states? (26 states in the Pensacola case plus 1 in the Virginia case)

  136. I can only verify that 26 + 1 does equal 27, Danger. Anything else is above my paygrade.

  137. Okay, looking through the .pdfs that sdferr linked…

    Yeah, the one is for Virginia and the other is 26 states not including Virginia. 27.

  138. “Anything else is above my paygrade.”

    Fair enough bh, but can you tell me if the Cheese hat state has joined the home team?
    If not, you need to open up a can o somethin stronger than chedder up there Mister;)

  139. Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V:

    Virginia.

    Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
    Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada,
    North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
    Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

  140. Good work bh!

    Should never have doubted ya;)

  141. Is my count off or do the two Obamacare unconstitutional rulings cover 27 states?

    My understanding (which has been known to change, quite recently) is that as a party to the suit, the gubmint is bound by the judgment which voids the law, which ostensibly prevents them from enforcing it at all.

    We should keep in mind that all of this is spitballing, and the only opinion that really matters is Anthony Kennedy’s.

  142. Damn, it’s One Two thirty, time to hit the rack!

    G’night all
    and Keep Firing!

  143. Oh, we’ve been messing with Obama big time lately, Danger.

    You know those high speed choo choo trains Obama kept prattling on about in his speech? Well, they’re going to have to figure out a way to get them from Chicago to the Twin Cities without going through Wisconsin.

    Here‘s a fun quote, btw:

    “High-speed rail is coming to Wisconsin,” LaHood declared. “There’s no stopping it!”

  144. My understanding (which has been known to change, quite recently) is that as a party to the suit, the gubmint is bound by the judgment which voids the law, which ostensibly prevents them from enforcing it at all.

    Heh, see, what did I tell you? Above my paygrade.

  145. The “LaHood Express” like the “MTA”.

  146. Bats fill the air

    Stupid bats. Don’t they know that catastrophic Yasi is bearing down to drive them all batty? Great sport in the captionings. Enjoy in Aussietacht.

  147. How does high speed rail function in several feet of snow?

    Someone should make a tacky choo choo attached to a wall plaque thingy with the whistle his idiotic claim and send it to LaHood. Motion sensored so every time he walks into his office he can be reminded of what an idiot he is. Like that fish plaque thing that sang.

    Better yet, send one to the new gov of Wisconsin, too. Just so anyone entering his office can be reminded why his predecessor is gone.

  148. Unrelated to Ray LaHood, a couple of my friends used to do a punk cover of Tom Dooley, Geoff.

    The funny part? Don’t think any of us ever realized it was a cover. I didn’t anyways, until I came across the original on youtube years later.

  149. Not to imply that LaHood was his predecessor, but it was kinda ambiguous on re reading.

  150. For those of you who appreciate a little history in your Camelot, a tiny break in the Great Wall of Hollywood.

  151. How does high speed rail function in several feet of snow?

    Time for a research grant!

    You might have just saved or created a dozen jobs, Stephanie.

  152. 2:30am and it’s 68° and muggy with 93% humidity. We’re finally going to be getting 15 to 20 mins of rain out of that storm that nailed alls you northerners.

  153. I can’t believe you all are still yammering about politics while my Amuse Turbo is winning all sort of major Gran Turismo cash on the Japanese circuit.

    Suckers. I’m a rich man!

    In a Neal Stephenson novel, I mean.

  154. Spent almost four hours snowblowing my place and the pregnant lady’s across the street this morning… and I still think I’d take a blizzard over high humidity.

    Okay, later, folks.

  155. … on the Japanese circuit.

    Heh, and I can finally call it a night because it’s finally almost 4:30pm in Tokyo right now, Jeff.

    Neal Stephenson didn’t talk enough about the time zone differences in the gee whiz future. Turns out, they’re a bitch.

    Okay, later, again.

  156. Pingback: US Senate Rejects Obamacare Repeal Along Party Lines 51-47 | Scared Monkeys

  157. In a Neal Stephenson novel, I mean.

    Fastest Deliverator on the circuit, eh? Beware latchkey Kouriers, then. This one we know is out of a job…again.

  158. Pingback: Surprise: Senate Votes Down Health Care Repeal. What Was the Point? | Con Games

  159. Thanks for that link, Serr8d. It leads to this one as well from Razib of GNXP.

Leave a Reply