Posts Tagged ‘ nationalized healthcare ’

Where is the outrage? Elena Kagan, Justice on a Mission

Justice Kagan was a member of the Obama administration and it is now apparent she was actively involved in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare.  Traditionally, Justices recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal investment or are otherwise connected.  In fact, Kagan appears defiant to any notion of backing away from this case.

I can only imagine the left’s reaction had G.W. Bush appointed a Justice who’d cheered and pushed along the USA Patriot Act and then later ruled on the very law’s constitutionality.  There would be recall petitions, screams for assassination on MSNBC, (I’m not joking), and protests on the steps of the Court.

In this instance, the press is quietly approving.

Background

In 2010, Obama nominated Elana Kagan.  She, like Miers in 2005, had no prior judicial experience but she was an administration insider.  Her lack of judicial experience was vigorously defended, as opposed to Miers who was blasted for it..  Bloggers and journalist hit the history books (likely the first time since college) to trudge up examples of previous Supreme Court Justices who were confirmed without prior experience*.  FYI, Kagan was the first Justice confirmed without previous judicial experience in 38 years, the last being Justice William Rehnquist** in 1972.

As all liberal women are, Kagan was held as some sort of intellectual powerhouse, as opposed to Miers who was touted as an idiot, (all conservative women and minorities are labelled thus.)  Kagan’s prior experience as the Dean of an Ivy League Law School was somehow grand résumé material.

When A Plan Comes Together

At the time of her nomination, (May 10, 2010), Democrats held a super-majority in the Senate and solidly controlled the House.  The administration and their allies in Congress were actively pressing hard for what turned out to be a seriously over-reaching agenda.  In March, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law and by many states were lining up to challenge the law.  Everyone knew a Supreme Court challenge was coming.

The nomination of Elana Kagan was no accident.  Nothing Obama does is an accident.  Every move is politically and ideologically motivated.  The Administration knew a legal challenge to Obamacare was coming, they knew Democrats would lose the House in November, and they needed insurance.  Kagan was that insurance policy.

Kagan now holds a position on, what for liberals represents, the most powerful legislative body in America.  When Congress can’t get something done liberals always have the courts.  But I digress.

I find it hilarious that liberals are calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself while insisting Kagan has no conflict since her “role was insignificant” in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Justice Thomas has no connection to the issue and it is a stretch to imply his judgement would be influenced because his wife works with people who oppose the law.

Using liberal logic, Kagan has friends who support Obamacare, there is solid evidence she supports Obamacare, she worked in the Administration as they were pushing the legislation, there is no way she should be allowed to weigh in on this case.  That is if the Court answered to anyone.  It is a shame that there are not clear laws defining what a conflict of interest is and when a jurist should by necessity recuse themselves or be forcibly recused.  But that’s not how it works.

In fact the entire reason Kagan is on the court is to hear this case.  Her qualifications are inconsequential, she was nominated specifically to defend the Administration’s ideology.  National Healthcare has been a socialist goal since the Wilson Administration and the costs be damned.

Unfortunately, I believe this single law could ultimately be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.  If allowed to continue, Obamacare will, in the end, cost 10 times the original estimates and coupled with other out-of-control entitlements will drive the nation into bankruptcy.

15 Trillion now and growing.  I predict sometime between 18-21 Trillion the nation will follow the Greek tradition.  Only question, who bails us out? Continue reading

Is Cancer Treatment Worth it?

Much political hay was made last year when Sarah Palin and others suggested the Democrat-written health care legislation would lead to “death panels.” The President scoffed, Pelosi told us pass it and find out, Reid kept his head down and made disingenuous promises.  What about death panels is so scary?

The Stats

In North America approximately 1.5 million people are Continue reading

Obama Flunked High School Civics

Bret Baier spars with the an Muhammed Ali-like President Obama

I’ve asked it before and I’m asking it again, why is it that anytime someone says, “let me be perfectly clear,” they proceed to be anything but. In the above interview, Obama reminded me of Muhammad Ali as he verbally danced like a butterfly around questions and attempted to sting like a bee by excoriating Baier for interrupting his long-winded attempts not to answer the questions.

The most amazing moment came, though, when the President flatly admitted that he doesn’t care how Congress passes the health bill as long as they do.  President Obama told Bret Baier of Fox News, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate.  What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform.  And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform.  And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.” In the parlance of the web, WTF?!  So what is he saying?  I believe he’s saying, it doesn’t matter how they pass it, as long as I get to use that new pen I bought for the signing. He sounds to me like someone who didn’t pay attention in civics class.

Slaughter House Rules

When I first heard talk of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” I scoffed.  Really?  Even Nancy Pelosi knows you cannot subvert the Constitution.  Certainly, the President would refuse to sign an illegally passed law.  I could not image any Administration openly supporting the passage of a law that had not been properly voted upon.  The House and Senate bills are not the same bill.  The Senate rewrote and substantially changed the House bill.  According to tradition and my understanding of the Constitution the house must vote upon the Senate version of the bill.

As I listened to the debate I was heavily impacted by the Republican references to Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.  It was so obvious this tactic was unconstitutional.  However, I notice the quoted text was always abbreviated (as indicated by ellipses.)  The researcher I am, I decided to reread the Constitution.  Wouldn’t it be ignorant to based my opinion on an excerpt?  But hey, most Americans base their opinions on far less – ask any liberal and they tell you what they “feel” is right.

The Constitution Assumes Democracy

Unfortunately, this is where I piss off my conservative friends, but please keep reading, then research it and convince me I’m wrong or that there is a better Article upon which to base a Constitutional challenge.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

This article appears to be talking primarily about overriding a Presidential veto.  I reread the entire Constitution excluding amendments to find any clear language regarding bills where the Senate substantially changes a House bill.  Clearly, over time Congress has established a long history of messing with bills and reconciling the versions into a new bill which is then passed by both houses.  But such procedures are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  It seems the details of how to originate a bill and pass a bill is largely left up to Congress.  When it says, “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States,” it does not even mention their having voted on that bill.

Scary omission as we have always assumed they vote.  Today, we have Congress run by ideologues, who comb through the Constitution looking for loopholes and what they can get away with.  I believe the founding fathers took it for granted that common sense would rule Congressional procedure. They assumed any bill presented to the President was the same bill voted for by both houses of Congress, but the fact is, they forgot to spell it out for the idiots of the future. Oops.

The good news may be that the long-standing tradition of both houses voting on the same bill may sway the Supreme Court to nullify the health care law.  The bad news is that Article I, Section 5 reads, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” and this will likely be the basis for Pelosi’s defense.

If Republicans were in the majority and the Slaughter Solution were even discussed, the press would be circling like sharks, insinuation dictatorship, ect.  It might have even been nicknamed the “Final Solution.” Instead today we see editorials and sycophants in the MSM defending it and claiming it’s commonly done.  To that I must exclaim, BULLSHIT.

This is an affront to American political tradition, democracy, and freedom.  If we let them get away with this, there will be no bound to how far they will go the next time!

The Idiot quote of the Year

Comes from Nancy Pelosi.

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”

%d bloggers like this: