…before I head out for the day, let me just note that, as I suspected, the White House has intimated that it will ignore Judge Vinson’s ruling and proceed apace with implementation of ObamaCare.
The final outcome of this case in a very real sense is a referendum on our Constitutional republic — with one man, Anthony Kennedy, eventually going to decide the fate of our experiment in self-governance. That fact alone is deeply troubling, and points to the fundamental structural problems we’ve allowed to take root in our thinking: having built a society around a document that was written to constrain government and institute a society premised on an idea of natural rights, we then undermined the entire enterprise by adopting an idea of language that replaced what the Constitution meant with what it can be made to mean — that is, we replaced a society built on the rule of law with a society that is run on a rule of judicial activism, which naturally over time has grown demonstrably and frighteningly politicized.
Just how we came to have a Supreme Court so perfectly split along partisan lines — particularly on questions of Constitutional principles whose originary intent we know — is a signal that we have debased our language, and changed what it means to “interpret” to include not simply an attempt to decode an utterance as transmitted from sender to receiver(s), but all possible variations on that utterance a receiver can reasonably suggest the marks themselves, once resignified, can be shown to “say.”
Couple such linguistic irresponsibility with the over-reliance on precedent — which allows bad law to become “settled” law — and a country founded on the bedrock of legal equality devolves into just another society built on the quicksand of political expediency.
— Only, having kept certain trappings for show, it pretends to be otherwise.
If that happens, I’ll expect Boehner to begin impeachment proceedings.
And no, the fact that the Senate won’t uphold the Constitution is not reason for the House not to either.
“Whose constitutionality is it? It’s really in the eye of the beholder . . . ” said Erin Billings last night on the FNC roundtable panel. Honest.
Why bother writing the fucking thing down at all, if that’s where we’re going to start?
propaganda whore Viv Schiller’s National Soros Radio says that “what has people scratching their heads is that Judge Vinson found that without the individual insurance requirement, none of the rest of the law should stand either and… that flies in the face of decades of court precedents…”
and then they quickly run through the talking points like good little obamawhores.
So what’s interesting is how ready they are to ditch the mandate themselves and argue that the rest of their perverted socialist scheme should stand.
Just make sure Boehner keeps the impeachment bill at arm’s length. It’s bad form to submit a tear-stained document to the House Clerk.
They really do not like America’s quaint little system of government.
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:
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.
“I think Vinson’s ruling doesn’t fall into the category of “judicial activism”, “
Do judges have to take the oath to defend the Constitution? ‘Cuz I see Vinson’s ruling as “judicial duty” myself…
that replaced what the Constitution meant with what it can be made to mean
I think we’re beyond the attempt to “make” the language mean whatever they want it to and have entered the realm of ignoring the text entirely.
They’re not even trying to lie about the meaning anymore: they’ve got people convinced that the text is outdated and quaint and irrelevant.
They’ve dropped the charade of conforming with a “living document” and are now asserting their power to do whatever they damn well please.
…
I was gonna try and be coherent here but I think I’ll just settle for DO NOT WANT.
fffuuuu–
That great Constitutional scholar of our age, Ezra Klein, has determined that the Constitution has no binding power on anything. Besides, it was written over 100 years ago, so it’s confusing and hard to understand. Makes you wonder why they don’t just do away with the whole silly thing….
I always love when people (like Klein, assuming he’s people) declare something confusing, then pretend to be an expert despite their apparent confusion.
If they decide they are no longer bound by the constitution, are the states bound by their agreement to join the nation in the first place? I should think not.
I would expect to see lawsuits on this basis.
Is this a crisis like the last time we had one? I think it could be.
The last time it was over whether this country would continue to allow slavery to exist. This time it’s about whether this country will continue on its current path towards full socialism or pull back from that destination. I would prefer we pull all the way back, but that isn’t likely.
Well, that’s not what they’re arguing in court, dicentra. They’re arguing from CC precedent, and they are seating judges who they believe clever enough to manipulate language — and “academic” enough to argue for a bracketing of intent.
It’s extraordinary that this needs even be said. The left’s running fusillade of bullshit requires it, so…
Sigh. Politics are asymmetrical. Leftism is a disorder.
I think we’re dealing with stare narcissus
Cranky, according to the ruling by Vinson, Obamacare should be full stop at this point. The White House is ignoring the ruling and going forward anyway.
Mark Levin comes very close to labeling the actions by the White House as sedition.
http://www.therightscoop.com/levin-obama-cannot-continue-to-implement-obamacare
The really scary part? The White House can threaten to use force (arrests, detainments, IRS audits, etc.) against States or people that decide they no longer need to keep implementing Obamacare.
If the Feds start using force against the States, things get ugly in a hurry.
The pushback against the Feds could get ugly in a hurry. Really ugly.
An hopeful essay by Roger Kimball, Liberty vs. benevolence, ends this way on the question of an “[…]’alteration of the character of the people’ that extensive government control brought in its wake. “:
Judicial activism would have been to attempt to re-write the legislation in the absence of a severability clause.
Having found an element of the act unconstitutional, tossing it in toto was the only responsible approach.
stare narcissus
Sooo stealing that!
If Vinson gets a strong enough whiff that the Obots are ignoring the ruling, can’t he implement the doomsday scenario and require all departments that are involved in implementation to submit their budget and time reports to the courts to certify that they aren’t circumventing the law? Several judges have required this of school districts involved in education related issues like busing and spending per capita redistributing of the wealth.
From Kimball’s
lipsfingers to God’s ears, sdferr.Pardon the God-bothery expression y’all, but that’s how I roll :)
We can add a failure to produce a Congressional committee’s rightful request for documentation to the growing list of the Obama admin’s arrogance.
I knew that was coming. Issa is the Obami’s worst nightmare. He’s been keeping track for the last 2 years.
In short: We’re fucked.
Plus, Bob, it appears that there is a mole in there feeding Issa inside info. Any bets that Issa has copies of massive amounts of info that they don’t know he has? Issa plays hardball and plays it well. They will produce something and Issa will produce a bunch of stuff that they “missed” and the fun will commence.
To tag a link to Jeff’s ABCnews link, here’s the White House response in toto, referred to in the ABC piece. Heaps of bluster but no evidence that I can see that the response even attempts to fairly represent the best arguments of the opposition to ObamaCare, and plenty of evidence that it resorts to sleight of hand tactics in citation of supporters. They are therefore, I must conclude, terrified in the White House. But read it yourselves.
They’ll go for a stay from the 11th Circuit, and it will be granted. That’s a no-brainer.
Then the fun starts. Appeals. You’re looking at 2-3 years before this hits the Supremes. And Bambi’s Buds will be making hay, as the saying has it, while the sun shines.
You mean a stay pending review Mojo? The 11th surely might see its way on review to agree with the Vinson opinion, no? After which, wouldn’t they remove their own stay, if they’ve concluded the Act is manifestly unconstitutional?
These people regard us as subjects.
I’d rather be an anarchist if forced to choose.
Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market.
The leftists always assert this, but if I decided to pay for my family’s health care out of pocket, I fail to see how that places a burden on anyone.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_story_of_the_egyptian_revo.html
Interesting read.
<"Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us statists."
– FTFT
“The leftists always assert this, but if I decided to pay for my family’s health care out of pocket, I fail to see how that places a burden on anyone.”
– People who practice individual freedoms by using the private sector for their needs places those services beyond the direct control of the gov you see. Ingrate!
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
inactivity is activity
As vindicating as Vinson’s ruling is in terms of establishing the unconstitutionality of the mandate, the Judge wrote some rather frightening caveats in his decision-
To wit: ” For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
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.”
Basically Vinson only believes the mandate is pushing things too far, and not the fact that Congress is attempting to “reform and regulate this market”. He even states that Congress has the right to address the “inequities” in the health care market. The idea that Congress can or should have the power to address “inequities” within the healthcare market is patently absurd from a constitutional standpoint, but here we have a conservative judge basically saying that not only is it ok for Congress to do so, but they need to find another tool besides the mandate in which to eradicate said “inequities”. This wasn’t a setback for Obamacare, it was legal advice as to how to make it constitutional.
We are DOOMED. DOOMED I SAY!!
I swear I could hear little feet stomping as I read that.
“Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us.”
that’s a nice theory. any proof that it is true?
– The entire mess started with a tacit acceptance of the idea that health care is “commerce”. Health care is not commerce, it’s a service.
– Secondly, Congress, nor the Prez can do anything they have not been given the explicit power to do. 9th and 10th amendments. Those were totally ignored with the passing of such a bill.
– Anything this far reaching should have to first be approved by Constitutional amendment/popular vote. Period.
Single young men have been not going to the doctor or looking after their health choosing to go without health insurance pretty much since there started existing a thing known as health insurance. Somehow society kept going.
In any case, the impact is not due to failure to acquire health insurance, it’s due to failure to pay health care bills. I’m sure putting it that way doesn’t poll as well.
It’s the flapping butterfly wing of inactivity that gets ’em. Somewhere, someone is having fun.
ot
link
Obama treads water directionally.
One thing though, seems to me anyhow, Mubarak’s long rule crushing secular democratic opposition means there aren’t well organized secular democrats in Egypt now, though there are plenty of secular democrats in general, dispersed and disorganized. Organization of these people into coherent political parties is now a thing we who look to Egypt’s peaceful future ought to put at a premium. This in turn militates toward a demand that the Egyptians be permitted to communicate with one another. So, Obama would do well, I think, to urge that the communications systems now denied the Egyptians be restored, sooner better than later.
ot
link
Mr. Allahpundit can’t seem to get away from the phrase “it is what it is” I’ve noticed.
That’s about right I guess.
it appears we’re dealing with a culture what mixes rice and pasta in the same dish
there’s just nothing remotely tempting about that recipe and I’m not a picky eater person
Don’t know why you’re wasting your time reading him, ‘feets. He’s of little use or value.
it is what it is
I’m putting out a call in my house: “Who wants chocolate mousse?”
Here to answer me, am I: “I do!”
It is what it is.
When it gets made.
chop chop
There isn’t any chopping in either mousse making or eating though, just to be clear.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/post_10.html
You can’t fix progressive. You can’t fix stupid. But I repeat myself.
as a fan of carrots i find “chop chop” offensive
But I repeat myself.
– Has any group ever repeated itself more than the Prog self proclaimed “elite”?
– Doubtful.
– Apparently Bummblefuck finally saw enough millions of asses in the street getting shot at he feels (pushed, shoved.pummeled) to take a venal side of sorts. Chocolate jesus is a real weasel butt.
link
Re: #52
Hint for Dana. Going “cold turkey” doesn’t mean sneaking out behind the barn in the afternoon of day one.
Bless his little heart, geoffb. He just wanted some props for being a good boy.
You know how no matter what the weather, warm, cold, wet, dry, stormy, calm, it always indicates that there is Global Warming. Well for Jerry Brown events in Egypt call for higher taxes in California.
Maverick’s poodle learned a new trick!
Lindsey Graham Opens New Front in GOP War on Health Care Law
Who’s a good boy?
Actually, cranky, the current crisis is exactly like the last one; the only difference is that the slave holder is the state as opposed to private individuals.
And of course, the Copperhead Party is still on the side of the slaveowners.
Not an administration.
A coup.
Remember: Saul said you make the other guy follow his own rules.
The Revolution has no rules, just an objective.
Two years. That’s a long time left for hundreds of carefully chosen political appointees across all the agencies of government to sabotage the system.
We are in a lot of trouble.
Well, that’s not what they’re arguing in court, dicentra.
No, that’s what they’re saying on the Senate floor and on the Sunday shows. Make us all get used to the idea before it clanks into place.
[…] Jeff pointed out, the […]
[…] what should be obvious reasons to regular readers of this site, here we have the gist of Ungar’s actual […]