November 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

About that individual mandate

“Fla. judge sides with 26 states, strikes down Obama health care plan as unconstitutional”.

Onward to the Supreme Court…

****
update: From the ruling:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

My. Is it me, or does this example seem rather a bit…pointed…

Also? The judge ruled no injunctive relief is needed, as the entirety of the law is now deemed unconstitutional.

(thanks to Bob Reed)

****
update 2, the very very civil update: “White House Fires Back at Ruling Declaring Obama’s Health Care Law Unconstitutional, Calls Decision ‘Judicial Activism'”

— Which, if you think about it, is essentially correct: appealing to the text of the Constitution rather than to the various ongoing expansions of the Commerce Clause as determined by incestuous judges who hump each other’s prior rulings like West Virginia hillfolk hump their cousins, is the kind of judicial thinking that we don’t see much of these days, outside of many Clarence Thomas dissents…

107 Replies to “About that individual mandate”

DarthLevin says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Fla. judges are racist. Who knew?
Squid says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Judge Vinson? They should name an aircraft carrier after that guy!
Bob Reed says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Sweet.

And imagine the bonuses that the whining by the left about this finding will deliver in the coming weeks.
cranky-d says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm

Why do all of you hate children?
bh says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Can anyone give me a quick explanation of what this means?

What’s Ocare’s status between now and the Supreme Court? Does this mean it’s more likely to be fast-tracked onto their docket? Does this ruling mean anything for when the Supremes do look at it? Etc, etc.
Spiny Norman says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:50 pm

What’s this now? 3 for 3 rulings against Obie’s “reform”?

It’s dead, Jim.
Bob Reed says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:53 pm

From Vinson’s finding via Weigel ( http://tiny.cc/0e51l ):

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

[…]

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Money.

Of course, because of this analogy, he’ll be decried as being an obviously partisan filthy teabagger. Just wait for it…
sdferr says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:54 pm

From the opinion, P. 74:

In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably “evident,” as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently. I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed. This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the “normal rule” that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute, but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.
Spiny Norman says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Can anyone give me a quick explanation of what this means?

Previous ruling(s) declared the “individual mandate” as unconstitutional, but Judge Vinson ruled the whole 2,600 page monstrosity as outside “the bounds established by the Constitution”.

Here’s hoping that the Roberts Court uses ObamaCare as an excuse to throw out years of wildly imaginative judicial overreach regarding the Commerce Clause…
McGehee says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Obama announces proposal to add 12 new seats to the Supreme Court in 5… 4… 3…
Bob Reed says:

January 31, 2011 at 1:59 pm

Here, here, Spiny Norman. I’d love to see the often over-used reach of the commerce clause reigned in.
Spiny Norman says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:00 pm

McGehee may be joking, but anything’s possible.

Then again, FDR wasn’t able to do it, even with a cheerleading rubber-stamp Congress. In the end, though, the threat was enough to cow the Court into seeing things his way…
McGehee says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:09 pm

McGehee may be joking

I’m not. At least not in the “let’s all laugh at what a ridiculous development that would be” sense so much as the “he thinks he’s the second coming of FDR, so why wouldn’t he try it?” sense.
weimdog says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:11 pm

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pablo says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:25 pm

What’s this now? 3 for 3 rulings against Obie’s “reform”?

Actually, I think they’re 2 for 4. Liberty wins this one and Virginia, filthy socialisms won in Michigan and one more I can’t recall at the moment. But this is the big one that will make all the others moot.
Bob Reed says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:27 pm

I would have been more concerned before the November 2010 elections, but since then I can’t see Obama trying to load the court in order to protect Obamacare, all while trying to sell the public on his new and improved “modern day Reagan” pose.

I’m thinking there might be a whole new wave of tea-party protests if he did.

And that wouldn’t be very conducive to his re-election plans. Nor turn out well for Democrats as a whole in 2012.

Which might in turn lead to the law’s repeal anywhere, which would make for spent bullets on his part.

In fact, I don’t think the President alone has the authority to expand the court unilaterally anyway, but, in keeping with the origianl establishment of the judiciary, is probably the purview of Congress instead…

But I could be wrong.
Matt says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:28 pm

I’ve been in front of Vinson. He’s a tough sell but once he makes up his mind about something, he absolutely will not let go. I was pleased to see him get this case in the first place and even more pleased at his ruling and opinion.
Bob Reed says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:35 pm

I hate it when filthy socialisms win.
cranky-d says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:35 pm

There is nothing holy about having nine justices, and historically that number has been different. He could nominate some more people if he wanted to. I believe that the Senate would have to consent, though. At least, that’s the way it’s been going for a while.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:51 pm

United on Repeal
January 31, 2011 4:32 P.M.
By Andrew Stiles

It’s official. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) says he has all 47 Republican Senators on board as cosponsors of his bill to repeal Obamacare.

link
The Monster says:

January 31, 2011 at 2:56 pm

In fact, I don’t think the President alone has the authority to expand the court unilaterally anyway, but, in keeping with the origianl establishment of the judiciary, is probably the purview of Congress instead…

There is nothing holy about having nine justices, and historically that number has been different. He could nominate some more people if he wanted to. I believe that the Senate would have to consent, though. At least, that’s the way it’s been going for a while.

Well, a quick perusal of Wikipedia gives you the answer:

The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but Article III authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: the court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863.

At the request of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) which provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court should have eventually reached seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the Judiciary Act of 1869,[74] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937, seeking to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement; under Roosevelt’s proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but the President’s actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support New Deal policies and legislation.[75] This plan, usually called the “Court-packing Plan”, failed in Congress and proved a political disaster for Roosevelt.[76] The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of Willis Van Devanter and the confirmation of Hugo Black in August 1937. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[77]

The key here is that “Congress” means both the Dem-controlled Senate and the Rep-controlled House. So there won’t be any packing.
McGehee says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:00 pm

In fact, I don’t think the President alone has the authority to expand the court unilaterally anyway…

That’s correct. And FDR’s plan was to do it through legislation — but ever since “Stroke of the pen, law of the land — kinda cool,” other options may prove too attractive to at least attempt.
McGehee says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:00 pm

…other options may prove too attractive <bNOT to at least attempt.
mojo says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:02 pm

Pointed? Oh, just a tad. Hell, even Weigel noticed it (“subtle”, he say).

Subtlety is not called for when smacking Congress in the mouth.
McGehee says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:04 pm

When I lived in Alaska, I got into an argument with a friend who was convinced FDR’s court-packing scheme was implemented. The worst part of it was, he was a district aide to Rep. Don Young.
Mueller says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Don’t you wingnuts know anything? “Promote the General Welfare” is in the CONSTITUTION!!!
TaiChiWawa says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:24 pm

Don’t you wingnuts know anything? The Constitution is old and hard to understand!
Spiny Norman says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm

When I lived in Alaska, I got into an argument with a friend who was convinced FDR’s court-packing scheme was implemented.

In reality, FDR was in office long enough to replace virtually the entire Court, which is probably where your friend got that notion.
bh says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:43 pm

Here’s something:

I read the section on “Injunction” and could scarely believe my eyes. Was the judge ordering the government not to enforce ObamaCare in all 26 states? Oh, yes, indeed.

Robert Alt of the Heritage Institute e-mailed me, “The judge noted that declaratory relief is the functional equivalent of an injunction, and applied the long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.’ So in the case, the judge asserted that the declaratory relief should bind the parties. If the Obama administration wishes to impose the requirements of Obamacare upon the states, it will need to seek a stay of the opinion either from the judge, or from the 11th Circuit.”
Pablo says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:47 pm

It’s official. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) says he has all 47 Republican Senators on board as cosponsors of his bill to repeal Obamacare.

Sweet. I guess the last 3 decided they’d rather not ensure a primary challenge.
JD says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:49 pm

The scheadenfuckyou is quite pleasant today. ;-)
bh says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:55 pm

More: “Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing Obamacare”.
Carin says:

January 31, 2011 at 3:58 pm

Sweet
sdferr says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:00 pm

That last at 32 says both the WaPo and NYT are falsely reporting the judge has stayed his own order, where he’s actually saying to the contrary:

Stop. Stop it right now.

These newspapers are just boffo, aren’t they?
weimdog says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm

Pointed? This is pretty pointy:

““I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
JD says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm

way off topic, but our weather forecast is calling for ice, measured in inches. Inches of ices. Ugh.

Back to laughing at Beelzebub, Pelosi, Reid, and the constitution hating leftists.
happyfeet says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm

more on topic we’re getting close to sun tea season here in LA, much like the tea what was so revoltingly taxed except slow brewed in the warm california sunshines
Pablo says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Don’t you wingnuts know anything? The Constitution is old and hard to understand!

No way, Dude! It’s really easy. The government is empowered to do anything it deems necessary or useful under the ‘good and plenty’ clause.
MCPO Airdale says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:33 pm

Let’s hope this makes it to the SCOTUS quickly.
Celtic Dragon says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:43 pm

Don’t you wingnuts know anything? The Constitution is old and hard to understand!

No way, Dude! It’s really easy. The government is empowered to do anything it deems necessary or useful under the ‘good and plenty’ clause.

I LOVE the ‘good and plenty’ clause! Yummy licorice candy for everyone! Sure beats those Skittles, they taste like shit…;-)
Celtic Dragon says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:43 pm

Damn, blockquote fail…
geoffb says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:46 pm

Your getting ice and I’m scheduled for 12+ inches of snow with winds at 25 with higher gusts. Glad I’ve nowhere to be till Wednesday night.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 4:57 pm

i guess the civility thing went under the bus

White House Fires Back at Ruling Declaring Obama’s Health Care Law Unconstitutional, Calls Decision “Judicial Activism”

link
Pablo says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:01 pm

From nr’s link:

They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on “anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis.”

WTF? What part of “unconstitutional” and “void” do you not understand?
Jeff G. says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:09 pm

time for states to start seceding.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:12 pm

“Calls Decision “Judicial Activism””

the constitutional lecturer calls it wrong
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:16 pm

“WTF? What part of “unconstitutional” and “void” do you not understand?”

– According to Bummblefuck and the Progressive pimple cult the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean. Anything else is unconstitutional all you racist, bible thumping, gun loving, christer Tea baggers.

– Did you imagine the MFM was going to report this massive setback factually?
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:20 pm

What we are seeing here today is something extremely rare — a humble judge. Instead of trying to salvage a law with no severability clause, he followed long held precedent.

Congress typically puts severability clauses in legislation so that if one part of the law is unconstitutional the other parts stand. Congress chose not to in this case. Instead of the judge deciding whether or not Obamacare could or should stand on its own, the judge has decided he is not a legislature. Consequently, he’s thrown the whole thing out instead of letting his own policy prescriptions stand in the law to hold it up.

If that is activism, give me more of it.

Ultimately we should not get too excited. In reality, there is only one person’s opinion on this matter that counts — the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

link
Ric Locke says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:25 pm

geoffb, JD:

Windy. Thunderstorms early, then colder after midnight with a mixture of wintry precipitation possible. Low 24F. Winds NNE at 20 to 30 mph. Snow accumulating 2 to 4 inches. Winds could occasionally gust over 40 mph.

…and Saturday was 72F and sunny.

Regards,
Ric
[who thinks it’s all futile until and unless Wickard v. Filburn is reversed or somehow ameliorated. but have fun, guys]
Pellegri says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:43 pm

time for states to start seceding.

At least Texas still has a “get out of the Union free” card.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:43 pm

for ric from decision

“The Commerce Clause originally applied to the trade and exchange of goods as it sought to eliminate trade barriers by and between the states. Over the years, the Clause’s reach has been expanded from covering actual interstate commerce (and its channels and instrumentalities) to intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. It has even been applied to activities that involve the mere consumption of a product (even if there is no legal commercial interstate market for that product). To now hold that Congress may regulate the so-called “economic decision” to not purchase a product or service in anticipation of future consumption is a “bridge too far.” It is without logical limitation and far exceeds the existing legal boundaries established by Supreme Court precedent.”
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 5:56 pm

““I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.”
Spiny Norman says:

January 31, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Ric,

[who thinks it’s all futile until and unless Wickard v. Filburn is reversed or somehow ameliorated. but have fun, guys]

Well, that is what I was referring to in my comment #9.

;^)
Lamontyoubigdummy says:

January 31, 2011 at 6:30 pm

Calls Decision “Judicial Activism”

The WH claiming judicial activism from the right…

Even their base has to give that shit the “side-eye”. But only for a sec. Before they dutifully begin to parrot it.

This is less a pathetic projection from the left than it is a claim that we, as of today’s ruling, now live in the Bizarro universe where the right is guilty of 40 years of appointing incompetent, ideologues to legislate from the bench.

This is apparently the same universe where Joseph Stalin was suppressed, and the prisoners in the Gulags ruled the Motherland.

Anyway, do I have this right?. The WH now defines “judicial activism” as as any judge who applies the Constitution to a progressive loved law and rightly determines it’s unconstitutional, in that no Legislature may pass a law that says “government mandates are cool” by shaking the Commerce Clause like it’s a Magic 8 Ball until they think it says, “As I see it, Yes”.
serr8d says:

January 31, 2011 at 6:46 pm

That’s good news. But don’t ask Mirengoff at Powerline for his opinion, you won’t get it; he’s been forced to quit blogging.
Jeff G. says:

January 31, 2011 at 6:49 pm

Yeah, serr8d. I have a whole post on the subject, below.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 6:50 pm

alas no more powerline paul. such a k street loss.
serr8d says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:15 pm

Oh. Yeah, no one tells me these things, really. )
geoffb says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:30 pm

Jennifer Rubin “Left unprepared for ObamaCare ruling“
geoffb says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:33 pm

Curiouser and curiouser. Perhaps “flatfooted” would describe the administration on this.
RTO Trainer says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:48 pm

“I hate it when filthy socialisms win.”

Yep. Almost as much as I hate Illinois Nazis.
Pablo says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Speaking of being caught flatfooted…

Will happyfeet fall in love or hate? These are the Days of Our Lives.
happyfeet says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:53 pm

I think I bought my car insurance from that dude
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm

– At some point the body politic Left is going to start feeling like a birthday party pinata, and over react.

– I can’t wait until their true inner selves comes spilling out like an overrunning toilet.

– Lock and load.
Bob Reed says:

January 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm

Yep. Almost as much as I hate Illinois Nazis.

This brings to mind a good question. Since Mr. Obama is a true believer, proponent, and would-be practitioner of liberal fascism, and declares Chicago his adopted home, would that then qualify him as an Illinois nazi?

Or is he just a good old fashioned Hawaiian communist. Or both. Or neither.

Or something else entirely?

I know…I know…Godwin and all…

DENOUNCED!
sdferr says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Just read that Jen Rubin piece geoffb, thanks for the link. At this point, if not at some earlier point, I think we are justified to believe the left truly is as stupid as we’ve long thought but have persuaded themselves that they’re oh so smart (owing to their stupidities, I guess) and merely have a compliant press to play along with the gag.
happyfeet says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:12 pm

I’m sure somebody already linked this

President Obama’s top science adviser said there’s a need to “educate” GOP climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill as the White House seeks to advance its green energy agenda.

“It is an education problem. I think we have to educate them,” said John Holdren, who heads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in an interview broadcast Sunday.

just for appointing this fraudulent vagina Obama should have to go back to college and actually study a bit of science instead of just smoking weed and dreaming of his drunk-ass daddy what never loved him
sdferr says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Yoo comments, as does Epstein.
Big Bang Hunter says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:44 pm

– One word feets. GiGo.
Stephanie says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:47 pm

Coulter has weighed in on Hannity…

“So right now federal officials are not allowed to enforce Obamacare. Though, I am torn, because on one hand the law is clearly unconstitutional. On the other hand, I just got my White House waiver…

I must say, there are two court opinions on each side. Obviously, I find the two that find the two that call it unconstitutional more compelling for logical reasons. There’s no point in having any limits on Congress’s authority if they can force all citizens to buy a product. And, by the way, if this is constitutional then Republicans should turn around and mandate that all citizens be force to purchase a gun and a Bible. And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to buy health insurance.”
Stephanie says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:48 pm

BBH try MiGo Marxism in Garbage Out

Distinction with a difference.
Stephanie says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Isn’t it rather ironic in Pat’s starting off a post over there with the caveat (I’m breaking the boycott to provide a link so you can see it with your own eyes.)

Intentionalism. Giggle.
happyfeet says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:57 pm

why do you want people to shoot the bible
geoffb says:

January 31, 2011 at 8:57 pm

Maybe Holdren is auditioning to be the straight man in a duo with Biden.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 9:17 pm

“why do you want people to shoot the bible”

shoot the “bible” of the goddamn islamists and their cult
McGehee says:

January 31, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Huntsman has as much chance of winning a republican primary after serving in Obama’s administration, as I have of being Playmate of the Year.
Pablo says:

January 31, 2011 at 10:20 pm

Huntsman can play the just serving my country and reaching across the aisle card. As long as he doesn’t have his prints on the dirty socialisms, he can sell it to everybody. Plus, how can he be a racist against a guy he went to work for?

I seem to recall something to beat him up for, but I can’t recall the specifics at the moment. He’s got good genes and perhaps a shitload of money, though. And he ain’t Mitt Romney.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 10:25 pm

Grateful Dead Uncle John’s Band 8-30-70

link
Pablo says:

January 31, 2011 at 10:26 pm

I’d sure like to hear Dicentra’s take on him.
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 10:38 pm

Thelonious Monk – Don’t Blame Me
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 10:45 pm

Thelonious Monk – Jazz 625 – part 1/4 – Straight, No Chaser
newrouter says:

January 31, 2011 at 11:33 pm

if you ever played the piano?

Thelonious Monk – ‘Round Midnight – 1963
alppuccino says:

February 1, 2011 at 5:44 am

…..as I have of being Playmate of the Year.

Kinda depends on the publication, doesn’t it McGehee?
TRHein says:

February 1, 2011 at 6:33 am

Humm… 73 to 70 proves 66. Who would have thought?
Matt says:

February 1, 2011 at 6:45 am

They #!@#’d themselves with the severability provisions. It makes me laugh.
ThomasD says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:38 am

Pulling the severability clause was the left’s big gambit. They (correctly IMO) feared that making the act severable could lead to the courts (as is their want) to temporize and compromize. Slowly morphing the effects of the law into just another expansion of the current entitlement system; as opposed to the more radical and transformative change the left intended.

The Hillarycare debacle told them they were only going to get one bite at this apple for a long time so they went all in and now are counting on Scotus to get cold feet at the prospect of having to gut the thing instead of just tinkering at the margins.

Showdown at high noon.
McGehee says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:41 am

“Huntsman can play the just serving my country and reaching across the aisle card. As long as he doesn’t have his prints on the dirty socialisms, he can sell it to everybody.”

Not everybody. taking that job proves he was one of those New Tone “He’s a GOOD MAN” idiots.
Pablo says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:45 am

taking that job proves he was one of those New Tone “He’s a GOOD MAN” idiots.

How? Is Petreaus one of those idiots?
Pablo says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:49 am

Further, Allah makes a pretty good point:

“Betrayal”? One of the reasons they made him ambassador was to take him out of the field for 2012. They tried to use him, and instead he used them to burnish his foreign policy cred. Turnabout, fair play, etc.

That’s a sweet little bit of political ju jitsu.
McGehee says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:50 am

Petraeus, if I’m not mistaken, was a holdover, and active-duty military to boot. The difference between that and leaving a governorship to take an ambassadorship is so obvious that I’d rather assume you’re trying to make a bad joke.
McGehee says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:51 am

One of the reasons they made him ambassador was to take him out of the field for 2012.

And he went along with it.
McGehee says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:52 am

It’s “sitting down with Pelosi to preach about global warming” bad, Pablo.
McGehee says:

February 1, 2011 at 7:53 am

As far as I can tell the only non-Democrat who ever considered Huntsman a contender for 2012 was Huntsman.
Pablo says:

February 1, 2011 at 8:25 am

And he went along with it.

How’s that working out?

The difference between that and leaving a governorship to take an ambassadorship is so obvious that I’d rather assume you’re trying to make a bad joke.

Petreaus has 40 years in. If he said on 1/21/09 “You know what? I’m retiring.” the only thing anyone could have said about it is “Thank you for your service.” He doesn’t have to carry out Obama policy, and I don’t think he’s doing it because he thinks Obama’s a cool dude. Nor did I think Judd Gregg thought that when he initially accepted the Commerce appointment.

It’s “sitting down with Pelosi to preach about global warming” bad, Pablo.

I’m not seeing it. We need an ambassador to China. We don’t need Newt and Nancy sitting in a tree…

Redstate, May 2009.

By all accounts, Huntsman stood a good chance at securing the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, if only for the fact that he is the conservative antithesis of Obama: He’s a moderate, young, and attractive politician. Those are the grounds on which Obama won, and those are the grounds on which they fear he’ll lose it in 2012.
Pablo says:

February 1, 2011 at 9:44 am

Here’s a good reason to kick him in the nuts.

Q: What is your take on the stimulus? Will you take all the money?

A: It’s easy to criticize the bill and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to take the money. It’s pretty simple.

I guess in hindsight we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it. It probably wasn’t large enough and, number two, there probably wasn’t enough stimulus effect. For example, a payroll tax exemption or maybe even a cut in the corporate tax…for small and medium-sized businesses for three years, for example.

We will take the money.

Oy.
motionview says:

February 1, 2011 at 9:49 am

It probably wan’t large enough

That’s all I need. Goodbye Mr. Huntsman
Pablo says:

February 1, 2011 at 9:54 am

Yeah. Thing is, if jumps in, he’s going to be a player.
LTC John says:

February 1, 2011 at 10:15 am

#97 – I don’t know… I don’t think a younger, pretty McCain will fly this time. Romney, Rudy and this guy are too squishy to make it this go ’round.
geoffb says:

February 1, 2011 at 10:40 am

Republicans should turn around and mandate that all citizens be force to purchase a gun and a Bible.

In process.
Old Texas Turkey says:

February 1, 2011 at 11:02 am

~~Jon Huntsman~~
Old Texas Turkey says:

February 1, 2011 at 11:04 am

Potential GOP 2012 Candidates
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Rudy Guliani
Jon Huntsman
sdferr says:

February 1, 2011 at 11:25 am

So Durbin is going to hold a hearing to murder the Vinson decision in its cradle (he thinks). Seems dumb to me to get caught out gripping a bloody scimitar in this political climate, wot?

Cornyn on the other hand, thinks the Senate Repubs can force out a vote on the repeal Bill this week. Haz my doubts, but the optics of the Democrats resisting reconsideration probably won’t hurt in the long run.
Stephanie says:

February 1, 2011 at 12:26 pm

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/02/01/double-standards-for-powerline-blog-posts/

Oops. Ouch.
Stephanie says:

February 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Yippee!

The Democrat-controlled Senate plans to take up an authorization measure to fund the Federal Aviation Administration using an open process, which allows any member to offer amendments regardless of whether the proposal is related to the topic of the bill.

McConnell will introduce an amendment that includes the exact language from the House bill passed in January to repeal the health care law.

“Anybody can offer an amendment. It can be non-germane, it could be super, super non-germane,” said West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who introduced the FAA bill. “It’s open, it’s transparent, it’s on the floor, you can’t do anything behind closed doors. That’s good for us, as well as good for Republicans

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/health-care-repeal-measure-will-be-part-of-first-senate-bill/#ixzz1CjmfJ3S8
JD says:

February 1, 2011 at 12:37 pm

sdferr – I think we should encourage Durbin to make a larger ass of himself in a very public manner.
Kevin says:

February 1, 2011 at 12:37 pm

“Which, if you think about it, is essentially correct: appealing to the text of the Constitution rather than to the various ongoing expansions of the Commerce Clause as determined by incestuous judges who hump each other’s prior rulings like West Virginia hillfolk hump their cousins, is the kind of judicial thinking that we don’t see much of these days, outside of many Clarence Thomas dissents…”

Is this the best paragraph Mr. Goldstein has ever written? Because I think it is… BRILLIANT!
Bob Reed says:

February 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm

I’ve never been one for “judicial activism” as it’s come to be these days; with the subversion of the intent of the Constitution’s authors and the straining to find any crack in “consensus interpretation” of the meaning of words coupled with the accepted notion of Stare Decis that leads to false interpretations, flawed reasoning, and bad rulings taking on an intertia of their own based soley on momentum imparted by previous, incorrect, rulings.

All that said, in this instance, I think Vinson’s ruling doesn’t fall into the category of “judicial activism”, but actually adheres more closely to the ideal of the judiciary providing a check on any extra-constitutional actions of the other two branches of government; in this case a coordinated effort by the other two branches.

And I think Vinson’s sage inclusion of this observation:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Will make it more difficult, if only by a measure, for the Justices more disposed to a statist model of governance to justify the mandate in Obamacare. And short of that, it seems, the Pelosi-Reid Congress will have ensured their own demise by not including a severability provision in the final bill.

Comments are closed.

Search

Archive Calendar

Archives

Categories

Recent Comments

About that individual mandate

107 Replies to “About that individual mandate”