Category: Health Care

by Smitty

Right Klik has done a superbe job in composing a video on RomneyCare:

I have not done the homework to see whether every single bullet point this video makes is valid. Then again, I’m no Romney apologist. Mitt just seems too glib about the way keen swellness of RomneyCare. But the 2012 election is not an episode of Leave it to Beaver, for all of the Ward Cleaver polish Mitt brings to the role.

One can expect the Romney campaign will have some issues with the video’s review of RomneyCare. Unlike #OccupyResoluteDesk, Mitt cannot blow off RomneyCare criticism the way BHO has blown of criticism of ObamaCare (as part of his overall Blow Off The Presidency program). Mitt has to stand and deliver. Thus far, Mitt has refused to admit he has an ugly baby. This refusal bumps Mitt in the delusional direction of BHO.

The Romney campaign’s master stroke on the RomneyCare issue is to admit that the execution was sub-optimal* and then describe in detail the lessons learned. Extra credit for the realization that all of our federal entitlements are daft, and describing the plan to wean the country off of that noise.

---

*A weasel word meaning “stone cold disaster”.

by Smitty

SCOTUSblog reports:

Setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation over federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three separate cases on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law, and set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument, to be held in March. The Court, however, did not grant all of the issues raised and it chose issues to review only from three of the five separate appeals before it. It is unclear, at this point, whether all of the cases will be heard on a single day.

My man Cuccinelli has sounded quite firm and confident about the arguments in Virginia’s case, which is being pulled into the multi-state fracas. 27 states, in fact, desire to tell #OccupyResoluteDesk where to go with his legislative brainchild and what to do with it upon arrival.

Jimmie Bise on Twitter seems to think that a majority of the states could get crushed in a case where constitutionally, economically, financially, historically (to look at Europe) the states totally have the right of it*. Coming as it does during an election year, the SCOTUS will be under extreme pressure not to make the president look worse than usual. A follow-up post at SCOTUSblog summarizes the issues. The intense scrutiny on this issue is going to hurt the Left significantly. So much of ObamaCare in particular and Progressivism in general is predicated upon you shutting up and grazing quietly in your pasture, you ungrateful little sheep.

Yet Progressivism is the dead parrot of our day. I cannot fathom the Roberts court failing to scuttle ObamaCare, at least in a de facto way. There may be enough desire to offer a fig leaf that an attempt is made to leave BHO’s centerpiece ‘achievement’ intact. Certainly, the wording will try to minimize collateral damage to the Progressive project, lest the Roberts court be charged with Judicial Activism, which is only acceptable to Progressives in the service of tearing down what is good about the country.

In a way, it does not matter. Irrespective of the ObamaCare decision, conservatives must double down on efforts to emancipate future generations from the failed promise of the New Deal. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

via Ace of Spades

Update: Linked at The Lonely Conservative

Update II: More at Hot Air, and now a Memorandum thread. Legal Insurrection notes:

And, it does not look like Elena Kagan recused herself from consideration of the cert petitions, so expect her to be part of the decision, notwithstanding very strong evidence that she had some level of prior involvement when Solicitor General.

I, for one, can assert with total confidence that Kagan was not selected specifically to tilt the discussion in favor of ObamaCare. No, wait: it’s blatantly obvious that she was.

Update III: At Power Line, a note on the fact that the SCOTUS will hear 5.5 hours of testimony across four questions:

It is impossible to overstate how remarkable this is. Usually the Supreme Court allows only an hour for a whole case to be argued. They didn’t even extend the time limit for the two Bush v. Gore cases in 2000. Prediction: If the Court strikes down Obamacare, and especially if its opinion goes beyond just the individual mandate, as these issues suggest is possible, look for the Left to start calling it “the Extreme Court.”

Since we’re in an all politics, all the time era, we see how Obama tries to leverage the abject failure of his policies into a “blame conservatives” game. ObamaCare was sabotaged by the GOP and Buuuuush appointees. In order to usher in the Progressive Human Unicorn Cornucopia (PHUC), we must re-elect #OccupyResoluteDesk, so he can appoint more drool bucketwise softball player Justices, and break through this conservative roadblock.

Update IV: The Federalist Society Blog:

the Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate and Luncheon at The Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, former solicitor general Paul Clement and Professor Laurence Tribe debated the very question. It was truly a preview of coming attractions since Clement will be arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

A very interesting post, showing just how far off a straightforward interpretation of our Constitution, and into the realms of sophistry we have journeyed.
Video here.

---

*That tweet is so Eeyore-ish as to invite the question: Is Jimmie Bise actually the international man of mystery known as Allahpundit?

by Smitty (via Lisa Graas)

I don’t want to get too upset about this horrendous abortion of a legal opinion handed down from the 4th Circle of Hell, emphasis mine:

The decision is no surprise given the stacked nature of the panel, as computers at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that randomly selected the panel of three judges from the appeals court to conduct oral hearings on the legal debate surrounding the law picked three judges from a evenly-divided court who are all Democrats. All three judges listening to two legal challenges were appointed by Democrats — Judge Diana Motz, the senior member of the panel, is a Clinton appointee while Judges Andre Davis and James Wynn were appointed by Obama.

The three judges dismissed the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the national health care law’s individual mandate by saying the state lacked the standing to sue. As a result of the decision, the panel did not delve into the merits of the case itself and whether the Obama administration has the Constitutional ability to compel citizens to purchase health care, which could pay for abortions with taxpayer funds and include rationing. The judges disagreed with Virginia’s contention that it was an injured party because it passed a law before Obamacare making it so Virginia residents are not required to purchase health care insurance.

Thanks, judiciary, for kneecapping my state’s efforts to protect my liberty from a rapacious federal government. You craven judges draw much vacuum. Thankfully, the Cooch responds, via email:

RICHMOND, VA (September 8, 2011)- Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli responded today to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Virginia’s lawsuit against the federal government’s health care reform act.

“Obviously, we are disappointed in the ruling. Our disappointment not only stems from the fact that the court ruled against us, but also that the court did not even reach the merits on the key question of Virginia’s lawsuit-whether Congress has a power never before recognized in American history: the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen,” said Cuccinelli.

In summarizing the ruling, Cuccinelli noted that, by resting its decision on an alleged lack of standing by the commonwealth to even bring its lawsuit, the court dismissed Virginia’s claimed injury as illusory.

“Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this suit has always been about vindicating the power of the Virginia General Assembly to legislate about a subject that has historically been viewed as falling within the areas the Constitution left to the states. Health, safety, and welfare issues have long been recognized as being part of the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said.

Cuccinelli noted that the court’s stated reasons placed the ruling’s reasoning at odds with constitutional design. “In rejecting Virginia’s right to bring the action, the court said that allowing such suits would allow the states to serve as ‘roving constitutional watchdogs.’ This was exactly a role that the Founding Fathers planned for the states to have. As James Madison wrote, under the Constitution, ‘the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments…Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments [state and federal] will control each other…'”

Cuccinelli continued, “Not only does the court’s opinion reject the role of the states envisioned by the Constitution, it dismisses an act of the Virginia General Assembly-the Health Care Freedom Act-as a mere pretense or pretext. It is unfortunate that the court would be so dismissive of a piece of legislation that passed both houses of a divided legislature by overwhelming margins with broad, bipartisan support.”

Cuccinelli vowed to appeal the court’s ruling.

Diana, Andre, James: may the Almighty have mercy on you.

Update: More at Legal Insurrection and Ace of Spades.