“We’ll tell you how you’re supposed to work.”
Elections have consequences. But if the rule of law no longer applies for this administration — you don’t get to pick and choose which court rulings you wish to follow — by what authority can they insist any law is binding on us?
Smoke ’em if you got ’em, people. Preferably inside a government building. While eating a bag of heavily salted potato chips and wearing an ammo belt stuffed with incandescent light bulbs.
“Hey, livin’ Constitution. If you wanna go on livin’ you’ll do like we tells ya.”
This post is raaaaacist.
Anyone who’s surprised at the lawlessness of the Obama administration is probably still planning to finance his/her retirement fund with unicorn futures.
Reached for comment, Gov Mitch Daniels declared the Administration’s actions “not particularly lawful” but suggested that “if you give me a few, I can maybe whip up something that keeps health care under the control of the federal government, but has, like, market stuff and private companies in there, too, to appease the ideologues and purists.”
Oh yes he DID go there…!
Oh SNAP!
I gotta go pick up sick kid number 3 from school. 102 fever. Serves me right for not getting out of my PJs today.
Is anybody actually surprised here?
Next, when the Republicans controlling the House of Representatives refuse to appropriate any money for implementation of ObaminableCare, the Administration will try to take the issue to court, to declare that it’s now an entitlement, and the money is automatically appropriated, as it is in Social Security, and there’s nothing the Congress can do about it.
link
Not only that, Dana. But it’s not like it’s a law that has to be followed or else why would even GOP Governor Mitch Daniels be suggesting tweaks? See? Even the Republicans know nothing is settled.
So we’re just going to keep implementing and taking our time filing appeals, etc., and then when the time comes, we’ll argue that so much of the legislation is already in place that we can’t really remove it, and besides, even GOP governors have found ways that they believe we can make this work, through some legislative adjustments, so shouldn’t you really not be so activist, Mister Supreme Court, and let us lawmakers figure this thing out? I mean, that’s our job, right?
Desperate aren’t they.
Now that Gibbs has made his White House declaration, are the AG’s moving back to the court to seek contempt charges?
3rd Dr.: I’m sorry. He’s dead.
Wife: Well, the first two doctors said he’s alive so I’m going to sit him at the dinner table just like every other evening.
3rd Dr.: He might start to stink.
Wife: And that’s different because……….?
What, by the way, does anyone know of the 12 cases Gibbs claims were dismissed? I know nothing of them outside his claim. Don’t know why they were brought, don’t know why they were dismissed, don’t know whether they should have been, don’t know whether the plaintiffs are still seeking remedy, don’t know diddly. I’d almost be willing to bet that Gibbs doesn’t either.
Is this a lie or telling a very selective truth?
21 states said they wouldn’t implement Obamacare unless it was a conservative’s wetdream. That’s not tweaking. Which is why they’ll never agree to it. They said this after first successfully suing to overturn the entire thing (for now). Not before.
Whatever misgivings people have about Daniels specifically have to be tempered by the fact that the most conservative governors across the country also signed this letter to Sebelius.
Well. At least we know what 2012 is going to be about.
geoffb, here’s a link to the pdf of the Virginia Bill, hb 2434. It appears to be a preliminary step, not appropriating a cent that I can see.
21 states said they wouldn’t implement Obamacare unless it was a conservative’s wetdream
respectfully bh, that’s a maximalist reading of the letter to Sebelius.
I disagree, Ernst.
From the letter:
“While we hope for your endorsement, if you do not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts regardless and HHS should begin making plans to run exchanges under its own auspices.”
Well, it looks like Judge Vinson screwed up; he trusted them…
He thought he was dealing with honorable individuals, and forgot they were part of the “by any means necessary” crew.
He should have issued the usual and customary injunction.
Now the question becomes, as sdferr said upthread, will he cite them for contempt if the AGs ask him to?
Surely this has to add fuel to the fire to put this case on the SCOTUS fast-track.
And if you do agree — at least, if you are prepared to compromise — we can talk. Because let’s face it, you don’t want to lose in the SCOTUS, and we don’t want to be painted forever as the party that repealed the law giving insurance to sick children.
plus if you don’t agree with the strategy behind the daniels letter and you think it sends the wrong message you hate Paul Ryan and are probably racist and homophobic too.
I was disagreeing with the notion that the 6 bullet point “conditions” are anything to get orgasmic about.
My governor was being painted as the guy who wanted to kill jobs, jobs, jobs in Wisconsin by killing the train project. He still told them to get fucked.
My feel is that the governors are in a different position than the national Reps. Most of them are in hard red states. They have little political downside to opposing anything involving Obama.
The 26 at suit: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Wyoming, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida.
Virginia pursued its own suit separately.
The 21 States signing the letter to Sebelius: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin.
Merge them, and we have 30 States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wyoming.
Leaving what, 27 other States not committed to opposition to ObamaCare in one form or another?
And where is the MBM on this? You know, the ones that are always claiming that the “hypocrisy” of conservatives is what “forces” them to focus on things like congressmen taking part in the congressional healthcare plan as “employees” while advocating against national healthcare.
It would seem to me that in this case, where Obama and his allies on the left are proponents of judicial activism-having spoke about the Marshall court not going far enough and such, that continuing to implement Obamacare in the face of this ruling should warrant a “Nightline”-esque daily scrutinizing of how they are doing so in direct contradiction of the ruling.
At the risk of resorting to an old saw, imagine if Bush had done the same thing.
Heh, also sexist, Jeff.
Okay, I hear that, Ernst. But, you have to recognize that some of those things actually represent a hard move to the right even pre-Obamacare.
I doubt we’d actually be able to get some of them even if ’12 went well for us. Scaled down plans mean not covering condition X and Y. Which means the Republicans hate sick people.
Paul Ryan is a running dog communist lackey intent on preserving the communist plot to subvert our precious bodily fluids through the Medicare-Medicaid-SocialSecurity reform complex.
I suppose I should reiterate that I don’t necessarily disagree with the strategic critique.
There’s not much they can do with the courts at this point so the focus — to my mind, anyways — should be on equating ’12 with Obamacare.
I don’t view this as problematic towards that goal as others but I don’t see how it contributes to that effort either.
i think that’s taking it too far but he did stick his dumb white face in the teevee cameras on obama’s night the opportunistic media whore so i’ve got my eye on him and if he shoots a wolf i will pounce pounce pounce!
He is awfully white. For a red.
So where does that put Rand Paul on the scale you are using?
Also is there something about the initials “P” and “R” or the name “Paul”?
I heard Paul Ryan listens to Celine Dion and feeds his kids store-brand hot dogs while him and his wife eat stuff they order from Omaha Steaks and give the leftovers to the dog.
I think rand paul is essentially calling ryan a red and how dare he criticize ours is not to question why. also he would kill mitch daniels in a duel i think.
Wait a minute…Ryan’s trying to subvert my precious bodily fluids?!?
Now I’m pissed. The feds have no place being involved in that; it’s exclusively within my purview.
Hey look, a new opportunity for capitulation!
Now there’s an effective sounding rhetorical thrust. One that frames the matter pretty starkly. And considering that the ever-increasing-debt is sentancing future generations to debt-slavery, it’s one you’d think the nuance obsessed media would delight in replaying endlessly.
Even if they were motivated by a desire to push the “conservative civil war” meme.
And I agree with Rand Paul; the house needs to be more aggresive on cutting spending.
Awesome isn’t a number but it still feels right.
Combine the two and you get Rand Paul Ryan.
I don’t mind this at all, so long as they come out if it with a workable compromise plan on health care. If only someone had written one down as a kind of starting point for negotiations…
Compromise only works when both sides agree that compromise is better than any other alternative. In politics compromise usually means kicking the can down the road and letting somebody else deal with the problem. Sooner or later you run out of road. And when one party thinks yesterday’s compromise is today’s problem, you run out of that road in a hurry, even if it only seems like you’re creeping along.
I’m trying to understand your concern here, Jeff. On balance, you think a soft politician sees greater political opportunity in trying to make Obamacare palatable rather than using it as a political issue to hammer the Dems on?
Given the town hall meetings, the ’10 elections and the current polls, wouldn’t that represent them actually acting against their own personal interests as politicians?
Obamacare has their constituents fired up, volunteering and voting. Even the most craven politician must see that.
Rand Paul
Anybody know if Ron named his boy after Alissa Rosenbaum?
I’m beginning to see Jeff’s side here. They’re going to push obamacare as a civil rights issue. They can use anything the states do to legitimize it to push it through. They have to stop talking about changing it and more about dismantling it. Which is what I thought Daniels was trying to do. But obviously, if he was, he did a shitty job.
I think we’re coming up quick on the end of that road Ernst is referring to.
Some folks are yelling, “THERE’S A CLIFF UP AHEAD, STOP NOW!”, and others are saying, “Punch it, we can jump that Canyon-a fellow named Knievel told me so…”
I rest my case made in an earlier thread.
Arent’ Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and Jeb Bush pushing for comprehensive immigration reform? Didn’t Ryan begin with over $100 billion in cuts, and now has pared it back to $32 billion — about half of what the new high speed rail proposal will cost? Doesn’t Sensenbrenner want to control web info?
It’s almost as if some of these politicians were convinced that some of us would go away after the elections — or at least, calm down enough to recognize that compromise is how you get things done in DC!
Hmmm…
Point taken.
*Leaving what, 27 other States not committed to opposition to ObamaCare in one form or another?*
And I’d be interested in how many of the AGs in the states that are not participating are democrats. My guess would be most if not all.
Here be the Democrat Governors of the Democrat Governors Association.
I wonder what sort of primary bloodbath will be required to kick all those guys in the ass. Or, just kick them out period so we don’t really have to worry about them either way.
Okay, later. Meeting beckons.
McCain taught them you only have to speak TEA Party for the few months leading up to the elections. After that? Six more years of MAVERICKINESS!
I think its going to take secondary and tertiary bloodbaths before the political class starts to get the message.
Impeachment now.
That’s on the Arizona voters Jeff. I’d have voted for the Democrat. It was the only way to be sure.
It is clearly Mitch Daniel’s fault that Barcky Obumblefuck is ignoring the Federal Courts.
Ernst, Democrats are the socialist party now. If you can’t stomach the RINO on the ticket, at least vote for an independent or libertarian.
Not clearly JD, but it’s a theory…
the real question is does mitch even know obama is ignoring the ruling? cause you wouldn’t know from his very helpful suggestion that if the feds are going to control health care, they are going to have to use the free market some, and give the state governments some share of the control.
I looked.
it’s not my fault obama is ignoring the federal courts yet I keep trying to point it out and i don’t even have the wsj to do it in but still.
That’s what happens when you take a stance instead of making a stand.
i don’t think i’m very electable but i can do a reality show if y’all would like…
anybody want to see video footage of me making really big sandwiches and watching Dollhouse?
Lee (That is what the L stands for isn’t it?)
Nope. Naht gonna doit. Wouldn’t be prudent. If the choice is between a Democrat and a Democrat, I’m voting for the Democrat. For the clarity.
The worser the better!
Are there no judges willing to issue warrants for contempt? Federal Marshals with the stones to walk up to 1600, knock on the door and present an arrest warrant while staring the SS boys down? Is the President above the law?
I will use my pronouns as I see fit and you can’t stop me.
the real question is does mitch even know obama is ignoring the ruling?
Except for the fact that he addressed the pending court cases and his desire to see them succeed, and his desire to see it repealed. But we can safely ignore that.
I wouldn’t want to be accused of willfully misconstruing your intent.
The bracketing is mostly an affectation of mine anyways. Just trying to keep in practice.
I’m not ignoring that. However, you seem to be ignoring the fact that pending cases don’t matter: the law is unconstitutional now.
I’m pretty sure that when the supposed blue-dog Dems voted against repeal recently, they said the same thing: the courts will ultimately decide. And we (rightly) called them cowards.
Letting the courts decide is how we got McCain-Feingold.
I criticized Bush at the time for not vetoing that. Which was the same as my calling him a socialist, I’m pretty sure.
No biggie. Having a laugh. Or trying to. Think I got the Hungarian death antelope flu coming on thanks to these walking petri dishes. They’re like rats. They carry disease and eat every fucking thing in the house. Seriously. Bananas? When have you ever seen a teenaged boy eat a banana?
Outside of church, I mean.
There are also 2 rulings in their favor.
Nevermind. Apparently I am a compromising pragmatist that likes his statism with a side of free markets.
I know exactly what you mean about bananas. I don’t have kids, I have chimpanzees.
Doesn’t matter. That’s not how the law works. Obamacare is invalid now. You’re accepting the Administration’s (legally erroneous) spin.
It doesn’t have to be that way. You could just say no. It’s liberating, really.
And after your epiphany, write Daniels he’s not helping. Also liberating.
That was unnecessarily snarky. My bad.
snarky is almost never bad. if it were, i’d be on an express train to hell.
Ernst, the L is my first initial. Lee is a derivative my middle name (that I actually prefer), and lee used to be my internet handle before my bold and dramatic switch. Impulsive and mostly unnoticed switch? Whatever.
Call me what you like, just be careful around the women and kids.
Can I call you “daddy,” or would you prefer “dirty sonofabitch?” (reference to one of my favorite John Waye lines)
Who knows, maybe Congress will make that express train to hell a high-speed one! Another shovel ready project!
Paul Ryan scales back his cuts for this year to 32 billion, which greatly disappoints me-though not as much as his obviously communist plot to subvert my precious bodily fluids, and Obama pushes to add 50 or 60 billion back for this boondoggle. All while Amtrack has required billions in subsidies for ever…
“Doesn’t matter. That’s not how the law works.”
Yeah, else why even have appeals courts?
I’d be pissed if they refused to let me out of prison after a higher court found me innocent and reversed my sentence, because a lower court found me guilty in the first trial.
“Can I call you “daddy,” “
I ain’t yer pa! (The Outlaw Josie Wales)
Slippery? Sagacious? Sobriety? Sacrilegious? Scooter?
Oh, SCRAPTACULAR SCRIMSHAW SENSIBILITY!!
Bow your head …
If I remember my Intro to Con Law, court rulings only apply to the jurisdiction of that court, (i.e. whatever Federal Circuit Vinson is in) which is why lower courts are reluctant to issue blanket sweeping rulings, and which goes to show just how egregiously unconstitutional ObamaCare must be for Vinson to rule the way he did.
But what the hell do I know?
Jeff – I did not say that well. I know that is not how the legal system works, and I reject Barcky’s position out of hand. I just said that as a way of noting how this is headed straight to the SC due to differing District rulings. I am going to go have a tasty beverage. My frustration is much like bh described previously.
Succulent? Sanguine? Salacious? Sycophantic?
Tell the truth …
There’s an old joke about a wealthy old lecher and a young ingenue, the punchline to which is “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of lady you are. Now we’re settling upon a price.”
In my humble, inexpert opinion, Daniels has placed himself in the same position as the ingenue. I don’t know if that was his intention or not. I suspect not, but nevertheless I worry. There is a keeping options open quality about the WSJ piece that weakens an otherwise strong argument. It cedes rhetorical ground that it doesn’t need to.
Frankly, if Sebelius is smart enough to respond with a counter-offer in a similarly public venue, I fear it will become a momentum killer, at a time whem all of the momentum is on our side.
Maybe I fret too much. Our side is after all represented by the Stupid Party.
Gibbs: “….So now what…?”
Obama: “…..hmmmm….well….crap…..Say we just ignore it and press on like nothing has changed…sight a few red herrings and just blow it off….I mean what the fuck they gonna do, arrest the President?”…(typical shit eating grin of his as he cackles)…
Gibbs: ….Heh…::snort::….yeh….bitches ain’t gonna do nothing anyway…”
“Frankly, if Sebelius is smart enough to respond with a counter-offer in a similarly public venue, I fear it will become a momentum killer, at a time whem all of the momentum is on our side.”
I’m pretty sure Sebelius will be advised by better tacticians than our side ever seems to produce.
That was a good observation Ernst, and kinda put the finger to the bad feeling I got from the WSJ piece Danials did. Why expose your flank like that?
As a governor it’s true that what you want to shoot for is not having any options open – the best way you can do this is of course by quitting – otherwise you will be expected to govern and such, which is the awkward situation Mr. Daniels and his 20 governor friends find themselves in today.
Perhaps it’s unwise for them to take such a defiant tone against the federal government, but there was a time in America when tensions between states and the federal government were simply expected, and these tensions were expressed in many different ways – such as the letter that these governors sent to Sebelius telling her that her obamarape health care plan sucks ass.
So yes, by all means a tasty beverage such as an illy issimo caffe italian expresso style coffee drink is definitely not malapropos.
[…] like what Protein Wisdom had to say about it: Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, people. Preferably inside a government building. […]
Why expose your flank?
Makes plenty of sense if you’re a trimmer with an eye for the main chance.
That’s a good way of encapsulating my own criticism Ernst.
And what I don’t understand is how being critical of the op-ed’s timing or rhetorical styling somehow automatically means the critic is hating on Daniels or writing him off as a squishy RINO socialist.
It’s not like they are broad-brush personal attacks or anything.
I know that it’s difficult to see a person one is fond of being criticized for what may seem capricious, inexplicable, or irration reasons; sometimes there’s an almost tribal protective response.
I’m surprised to see that here among such a rational and intelligent commentariat, especially when the criticism in question was so specific and, I thought, well articulated.
I guess it’s just frsutrating, as bh noted.
Rick Perry:
That strikes me as a Stand.
A rigid, off-putting, unhelpful glorious stand.
It’s sure to offend somebody though, and only make it harder to find a solution we can all agree upon.
You know, I haven’t thought enough about Danials to form an opinion on him before now. I was aware of the earlier flap involving him and the social cons, but didn’t see enough validity on either side to care.
Adding this incident to the picture, it’s beginning to seem to me that were Danials a NFL coach, he would just go ahead and email the New England Patriots his playbook.
the best way you can do this is of course by quitting
Drive by pot-shots aside, I’d respect a principled mass resignation quite a bit.
T’were I a senator I wouldn’t last a week. They’d pass something like O-Care and I’d be all like ‘Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, DeMint you’re cool, fuck you I’m out. Peace!’
By choosing to play the game you consent to the rules. Sanction of the victim and whatnot.
*
“Perhaps it’s unwise for them to take such a defiant tone against the federal government, but there was a time in America when tensions between states and the federal government were simply expected”
Sooo, you’re saying talking publicly about you plans for retreat is more defiant than saying no way no how are we going to implement any residue from Obamacare in our state?
Not staunch in my book.
Except that most of the parties to the case in which he ruled, are in other circuits.
Under ordinary circumstances, Vinson’s ruling would be limited, I believe, to his district, and the first appellate ruling on appeal would apply in the whole circuit. But with 26 plaintiffs scattered across the country, Vinson’s ruling has to apply in all 26 states, regardless of district or circuit.
By choosing to play the game you consent to the rules. Sanction of the victim and whatnot.
Somebody bought up ObamaCare as ass-rape the other day. It occured to me that asking “would you at least use some lube?” is tantamount to consent.
Or close enough to it for reasonable doubt.
The only good reason is to draw the enemy into a trap.
Now, if Daniels is swift enough to manage that, I’ll be happy to cheer his genius. But politicians don’t tend to have that kind of cunning in public.
True McGehee. If such is the case I will, with great humility, revise my estimations.
politicians don’t tend to have that kind of cunning in public.
I’d guess it has more to do with the concensus building necessary to get a letter 21 governors would sign on to.
talking publicly about you plans for retreat
That’s probably reading too much into the letter as well.
But that’s a problem you create for yourself when your stated position is “this is ass-rape! And I’m not going to take it up the ass for you!” And then follow-up with “But if you’re going to get all droit de seigneur on me I want a six-course meal at a 5-star restaurant, after which we’ll go to a luxury hotel; with a spa! And you’ll use a high quality lube….”
“That’s probably reading too much into the letter as well.”
I don’t. We are in the drivers seat at this moment, days after the relevant court ruling, and he feels this is an ideal time to write about what we’ll do in case of defeat of our current strong position?
Bob – I am sure that maybe you could see how people with differing opinions might feel the exact same way.
Just look how a consensus has formed around this being a compromise, a retreat, a concession of the legitimacy.
I liked Perry’s states right’s argument, and agree with a lot of what you blockquoted.
I just would have preferred that instead of saying this:
He’d said something like this:
Maybe I’m seeing threats where they don’t exist, but my concern is that by singling out the mandate, referenced when he said “force someone to buy health insurance”, he’s left room for the nit-picking-types among the Democrats to simply propose a compromise where the mandate is striken from the law and consider everything else to be jake. I mean, what do they care about what it costs anyway; they’re spending our money!
Some of the Dem Senators from red states that are up for election in 2012, like McCaskill, are already making noises about overturning the mandate as it is ( http://tiny.cc/md8rl )
Perhaps I’m seeing too much potential for skullduggery and demagoguery.
Disclaimer: Despite my criticism of Governor Perry’s rhetorical tack, I am in no way calling him a squishy, RINO, socialist bent on making a deal with the communist devil Obama.
If you’re right McGehee, I’ll happily join the chorus.
As bh said, it’s frustrating JD-for parties arguing either point of view.
And in the most general sense, while it may be off-putting in the short term, we shouldn’t allow heated discussion between articulate folks, ones that are capable capable of great flourish indeed, with strong opinions, to divide us.
Heck, the MBM works hard enough at doing that!
Besides, we should save the bare-knuckle stuff for 2012; and the sparring for the primaries :)
– What was telling to me, in respect to how cornered they feel, absent the tiniest indication of course, for which any staffer would immediately visit the street, Obama refused to even respond to O[Reilly’s continued queries on “What if it goes to the SCOTUS and it gets knocked down?”
– He knows fucking a-well what it means, so they won’t even accept the question. That’s raw political fear.
– Which makes you wonder why the R’s are being so damn timid.
With the exception of you, happy, sdferr, bh, and a few others who are more fence-sitting than accepting of my particular take on things.
But other than that, yeah, absolute mandated group think.
By the way, in addition to my now being exhausted and sick, my wife just reminded me that none of the high-end cars I’ve bought or won and then finely tuned into exacting racing machines in Gran Turismo 5, are in fact real.
She pulled a Lugar on me. Bitch.
Besides the options opened to Sebelius that Ernst mentioned @87, what is the famous undecided middle of the country to think? The ones the pragmatists drone on and on about?
They are unsure, both sides are persuasive, make good points, what’s a person to do?
Why, Danials says we can have Obamacare, with a few “fixes” (they will be worked out, I’m sure)and things will end up nice and tidy and both sides win. Yea America!
It’s simply bad strategy I think.
I’m a nobody. If you disagree it won’t hurt either of us, I promise.
Whaddya mean your take Kemo Sabe? You’ve been parroting my take!.
Damn! We can’t even do groupthink the right way!
I never said a thing about groupthink. I said a consensus seems to have formed around that position, one that there is a legitimate disagreement with.
Others wrote him off completely, that’s all I need to know, I don’t need to read any more of what he had to say, he is a willing assrape catcher, and the other 8000 perjoratives thrown at him.
This just strikes me as an extension of the BS of the unilateral truce previously, not from you, but from a great many on the conservative end of the spectrum.
Funny thing is, I don’t want him to run.
It’s more like major reconstructive surgery than a “fix” in all fairness Lee. But like I said, the problem with appearing conciliatory while making what you think are unmeetable demands is that the other guy can choose to negotiate, and then you have to decide whether appearances matter to you or not.
As I indicated in 103, I really don’t want to take it in the ass. But I gave the game away with droit de seignuer. Now Barry’s pulling a bubba, dropping trou while yelling “ius primae noctae bitch!”
I may want all that stuff, but I’ve acknowledged his unseemly interest in my ass is legitimate.
BOHICA
Talk about harshing one’s mellow. The way you mentioned them; they seemed so…real.
I would really like it if we didn’t have such an echo chamber here. It looks bad.
Scott first filed suit in 1846. The Dred Scott decision was entered by the Supreme Court in 1857. Civil War hostilities began in 1860, ended in 1865. Executive Order brought the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. The Supreme Court recognized the Dred Scott decision was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause in the Slaughter House Cases decision in 1878.
1846 to 1868. Scott died in 1858 of TB, though he was emancipated by his owner in 1857.
Here, it looks like we’ll be running that exercise in reverse, pressing the question whether the people will be made the slaves of the government or no. Still, we can look forward to a decision on the initial thrust one way or the other in a year or so at the Supreme Court. Then we make a decision whether to go to war over it.
“It’s more like major reconstructive surgery than a “fix” in all fairness Lee. “
I won’t even feign interest in debating that; of course you’re right. But “appearances” are what politics aspire to, yes? Especially to the squishy middle?
That’s not a happy assessment, but it’s a realistic one. The condition of the country at the time will definitely be part of the equation. If we see the monetary collapse that many think is just around the corner, then I think it much more likely that any further forced expenditures will light the fires.
sdferr,
There is a Tawney analogy that’s apropos.
In March or April of ’61, Chief Justice Tawney issued a writ of Habeas (don’t remember for whom –some Southern Sympathizer or other) and the President ignored it.
Obama! He’s Lincolnesque!
screw it. I’ll make it into a post.
what’s sad is that in the haste to paint Mr. Daniels as a superlatively diminutive quasi-statist obamarape-loving jelly-donut eating pansy the true meaning of Arbor Day is being lost
“what’s sad is that in the haste to paint Mr. Daniels as a superlatively diminutive quasi-statist obamarape-loving jelly-donut eating pansy the true meaning of Arbor Day is being lost”,/i>
You’re right, Arbor Day should be lost ‘cuz of the between the cheeks ass licking a truly great and infallible leader and perfect in every way tactician is due by being the pinnacle of human evolution like Mitch Danials, and the failshittyness that is Americas through worship of a sub-human snowbilly too.
Now that’s what’s a lost Arbor Day, dammit!
I really wanted to hit my shift key there…
Our esteemed host wrote:
Some of us don’t think that it’s the government’s responsibility to cover health care at all.
It doesn’t matter what form it takes, if the government can decide that we will have universal health care coverage, then the government will be ultimately responsible for health care, period, and that’s wholly wrong. It will lead, perhaps slowly, but eventually, to single-payer.
he was being sarcastical
it’s a thing
I among them. I was being facetious.
#24 sdferr
Heh, and here I was thinking 26 states with lawsuits were a majority :)