I will miss the wanton stupidity of the Obama libs when it wanes. Yesterday I mused about Bill Maher’s thickheadedness. Today I move on to another equally dainty but less vulgar specimen of Obamatron. In today’s Washington Post Ezra Klein discusses the shock many on the Left feel about the possibility of the mandate going down. He writes under the sublimely idiotic headline: How Republicans made it possible for the Supreme Court to rule against the mandate.
Before unpacking how the Republicans made anything “possible” let’s stipulate that the court has not announced its decision. 6 Months ago conventional wisdom was on the side of the mandate being upheld. Now the opposite is true. Never trust conventional wisdom.
That said the “how” in Klein’s title is easily answered. It’s called litigation, Ezra. That’s how the Republicans “made it possible” for the Supreme Court to take the case. They sued, won in some places, lost in others. Then highest court decided forcing people to buy a service whether or not they wanted it was worthy of a Constitutional look see. The end. One would think a Washington Post writer who know these basics. I remember it from Civics class in 7th grade.
For Klein, a perfect example of Obama faux liberalism, the basics of our small r republican society cannot be the answer though. Too simple minded. The system we’ve had for 2 plus centuries is for the flyover people, not grand thinkers like Barack Obama and Andrea Mitchell. So Klein reflexively indulges his distilled Alinskyism. The big R Republicans campaigned, paving the way for the court to consider the unthinkable. That’s his word. Unthinkable. It can’t be that a system designed to interpret laws based on a founding document exists and was employed. Nope. It was a campaign. He thinks like his lord and master Obama: Everything is a campaign. The question: Is the mandate Constitutional? is quite thinkable. I dare say thousands, maybe even millions, have thought about it. Hundreds are probably thinking about it right now.
This belief of Klein’s is called projection. He’s existed so long in a world based on his feelings toward Obama that he’s come to believe his feelings are facts. Obama said it was Constitutional, so it must be Constitutional. Obama says something. Obama makes Klein feel good. Therefore, what Obama said is true, right, and just. Reality, rational thought, and even simple questions are unneeded and unwanted in this constipated, feel good – and ultimately dangerous - mental construct.
Pelosi’s remark when asked if the mandate was Constitutional is Exhibit A. She exclaimed, Are you serious? That, my friends, is how far down the rabbit hole the Democratic leadership has fallen. Yes, Nancy, the question is serious. So serious that it’s worthy of the highest court. Many people, not all conservatives, asked it earnestly. Many of us wanted what Obama (version 2007) stated he wanted: A public option. We still do. This public option would be paid for with a tax. (FYI, Mr. Klein, taxes are Constitutional. Just thought I’d tell you since you apparently can’t be bothered to read the document.)
We shall see shortly if the Supreme Court is willing to stretch the Commerce clause further, or will yank it back in. What we know now is that it wasn’t a GOP “campaign” that brought us this far. It was a legitimate concern about the limits of government power. We also know the question of what the Federal government can and cannot make citizens purchase is serious indeed.
John, you are such an optimist. The Obama libs’ wanton stupidity isn’t going anywhere. All those issues, (drone killings, mandates, wiretaps, GWOT, fighting in Afghanistan, etc.) will suddenly become bad, bad, bad again. They will be evil in fact. And call for perp walks for the other guys will fill the airwaves and Rove – or whoever – will be seen as another Svengali or Rasputin.
The only way Andrea Mitchell should be allowed on tv is perhaps, informercials.. pills for senility, or male enhancement come to mind.
Maybe it’s me, but when I hear O whining about the R do-nothings, I can’t help but think that many of them are doing what their constituents want them to do Which is sThtop O’s ruinous policies any way they can The House has sent up over 15 jobs bills, all have gone in Reid’s circular file, but he’s a Dem so it’s okay.
It’s true. Their willful blindness is simply amazing. And actually kind of funny. But I’ve seen the same kind of behavior in the R party as well. They beat the crap out of Hillary for 15 years and were horrified to see the same thing happen to their female candidates. In fact, some of the crap that was pulled on Hillary in 2008 was a rehash of some of their own photoshops.
This is what blind loyalty to party before country brings. It’s gotten so out of control that many party people don’t even want friends in the ‘other’ party. They won’t even marry someone in the “other party”. Party has become more important than honestly, integrity, loyalty, or any of those things we once associated with relationships. I remember when “What political party are you in?” wasn’t anywhere on the list of questions people asked when getting to know somebody. Both of these two parties have some ideas that are from another planet, and their loyal platform followers seem to go along with just about anything, making extremism Okay for them, but not Okay for that horrible “Other side”. They give out free passes to Their Own all the time. Rush is good. Maher is bad. No, Rush is bad, Maher is good. They are both assholes and are given free passes by their parties. I’ts just gobsmacking to watch.
The R and D parties have both been hijacked and are caught in their own irony. They are mirror images of one another, and have become all the things they purported to hate in each other. Caught in their own irony.
Honk! And HONK! Spot on, both of you.
You just stole my AM post for tomorrow.
there’s a mole?
My current peeve is the trend of people who call themselves liberals saying that a public option isn’t worth talking about because ‘it will never happen’. This is, of course, their way of protecting their support for Obama.
We live in one of the most powerful and wealthy countries in the world. Far less powerful and wealthy countries provide healthcare for their people. To say that it will ‘never happen’ is evidence that liberalism has caught a nasty, nasty virus that extends beyond Obamism.
Cue Zal….
No. Cue me. And you are so right. I can’t believe they would drop the importance of a public option to save face for that horrid president they keep propping up. That is the worst cut of all.
Thanks for the mention, Jay.
Seeing somebody’s reading and getting what I write, and giving a h/t for it to boot, is a great way to start the day.
Pingback: Ezra Klein is an idiot « The Crawdad Hole
It’s all over but the shoutin’..Chrissie’s head has exploded, this is simply unbelievable.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-helpfully-explains-how-obama-went-from-black-to-white-in-2008-campaign/
Not to toot my own horn too much, but I’ve been saying here & around the blogosphere since even before Pelosi’s “Are you serious” that the mandate without a public option was unconstitutional. I know I’m just a lowly rube who only served a two year stint as a law clerk to a Justice on my hick state’s Supreme Court — nothing compared to SCOTUS, and certainly not among the elite with whom Mr. Klein rubs elbows — and rather than having my arguments taken seriously, I was told such things as “the mandate is obviously Constitutional — look at medicare & social security!” As I said then, I say again (and I just said again over at the crawdad hole): this is the kind of shallow, intellectually lazy thinking that got the Obamacrats into trouble. The social safety net programs of the New Deal & Great Society changed citizens’ relationship with the government, not citizens’ relationship with private enterprise. These two things are dramatically different from each other. Having a public option was the minimum requirement needed to tie Obamacare to those programs — once the public option was no longer on the table (if it ever actually was on the table) the Dems lost the thread. (Of course, a better analogy to the social safety net programs was to do Medicare For All and/or Single Payer, but that’s another story).
BTW, another example of their intellectually lazy thinking was the much ballyhooed “car insurance” analogy — refusing to acknowledge the fundamental difference between choosing to drive on public streets (you aren’t legally required to license & insure off-road vehicles) and being born doesn’t make the analogy valid.
If we want to play the “reading the tea leaves” game (with the proviso that unlike my intellectual superiors in the chattering class like Mr. Klein who have been blathering on & on about what the SCOTUS “is going to do” for the last year, my experience tells me that no one ever *knows* — outside the Justices & their clerks & the whole “no leaks” thing is taken very serious — how the Court is going to rule until it *actually* hands down its opinion) people have noted that Roberts is mostly likely writing the Obamacare decision (Kennedy wrote the other controversial case handed down this session — the Arizona case), which means that Ginsburg is the only Justice who hasn’t written 2 opinion this session and, thus, she is most like writing the dissent to Obamacare).
So, my guess: it seems to me the Court siding with the Administration yesteday on the Miller case (8th Amend forbids mandating sentence of life in prison without parole for juveniles) and splitting the baby on the Arizona case (basically, the court left the enforcement of immigration laws to Feds but OK’d states to continue “gathering info” to assist Feds; i.e., the “where’s your papers” as part of an otherwise valid arrest) means they are, at minimum, throwing out the mandate & Title I of Obamacare, if not throwing out the entire law, either of which cannot, in light of the two decisions yesterday siding with the Administration, be seen as being “partisan” or “against Obama.” In fact, it could even break down as 7-2 throwing out the mandate with a divisive 5-4 split upholding the rest of the law.
It is also important to note that assuming Roberts is writing the Obamacare decision that Kennedy wrote the Arizona decision & Roberts signed on to it — Kennedy & Roberts are voting together. Further, assuming Roberts is writing the Obamacare decision, the argument that he would go against his core Constitutional beliefs & vote with the liberals to have a 6-3 opinion as some sort of “window dressing” is ridiculous on it’s face. I realize many people — including Pelosi & Klein — have advocated that for a while now, but it is simply unfathomable to me that Roberts would do this. This decision is going to probably be the biggest of the Roberts’ Court — he isn’t going to sell out his judicial philosophy to make Obama, the Dems or anyone else “happy.”
Contrary to popular belief (on both sides of the aisle and as myiq notes in his “companion” post to this one at the crawdad hole) the Justices are not “political” — in fact, they go out of their way to try to write narrow decisions, not only so that their holdings will not be expanded later beyond their intent, but to show they are not “judicial activists” (hence, splitting the baby decisions when they can). That is not to say they don’t have judicial ideologies — they do, as they are supposed to (when did having an ideology — i.e, a core set of beliefs — become a bad thing, I have no idea), but they are not “political.” That’s the entire point, in fact, of life appointments.
Agreed–in toto. Well said.
Thanks for the insightful comment, angienc.
I have also been extremely bugged by the comparisons of the mandate in Obama’s Health Insurance bill with the mandate that drivers buy auto insurance. In addition to the point that you made, auto insurance is STATE-mandated, not federal. That’s a whole different thing. As a matter of fact, Tennessee does not require that drivers have insurance, while neighboring NC does.
It’s up to the states– kinda like gay marriage.
Yes, thank you from me as well angienc.
@NES — thanks! I can always count on your support
@Kim — yes, another fallacy of the Obamacrat arguments — extrapolating state insurance laws into something with meaning for the Federal government. Again, a basic misunderstanding that the Constitution is a limiting document giving enumerated powers to the Feds, with all other rights reserved to the States (that pesky 10th Amendment, without which the union would have never been formed, btw, but that the Obamacrats pretend doesn’t exist).
And, like I said, this is all a guess on my part based on my own experience and my own valid opinion on Constitutional law. That isn’t a guarantee — anything can happen & no one knows what the Court’s opinion will be until they hand it down. However, it is the outright dismissal by the Obamacrats of very valid arguments against the mandate that upset me — guess what, it is not “racist” to question the expansion of the Commerce Clause into requiring citizens — by virtue of their birth — to buy a product from a private industry. It is, in fact, a “serious” question that isn’t deserving of derision or laughter. Regardless of the ultimate SCOTUS decision in this case, at least I’ve been validated on that point.
*would NOT have been formed.
You’re welcome too, Senneth.
Angienc, thanks SO much for this comment. Very helpful. Glad someone here explained why Kennedy writing the AZ decision is probably bad news for Obama. I too have slapped aside the car insurance bullshit argument a few times in the last year. Here, on facebook, in people’s faces…etc. To a person those making this argument had NO basic understanding of the Constitution….that is – it’s a document that limits Federal government power. Your take on the New Deal is important to repeat and repeat as well. We AGREED to change our relationship to the Fed Gov. in those cases via our elected Reps. – i.e. republican government. Barry is trying to change our relationship with effing blue cross stockholders. If the court upholds this it must be fought hard…it would change EVERYTHING.
I’m amazed that so many “wise” people did not even think the court would take this case when it was self evidently a problem out of the gate. When did the Left get so dumb? Were they always dumb and I just didn’t notice? Scary.
Excellent comment Angie. Your point about the mandate being unconstitutional without a public option helps a non-legal thinker like myself to better understand all this claptrap.
Thanks John & Annie — glad to help.
John, I really like how you put this:
That’s exactly right.
I also agree that if the mandate is upheld it needs to be fought hard (via repeal of the Act itself). However, sadly, if the Court does uphold the mandate, everything will change regardless of whether Obamacare is repealed or not because the Court will have held that the Federal government has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to change people’s relationship with private industry. The legal precedent will be set no matter how narrowly written the opinion restricting it to health care and no matter what actually happens with Obamacare in practice (i.e. if it is repealed in Congress). Such a holding does, in fact, fundamentally transform the Federal government, because even in those cases where I believe the Court improperly expanded the power of the Federal government vis-a-vis the Commerce Clause (see, for example, South Dakota v. Dole — Feds requiring states to raise drinking age to 21 in order to receive Fed tax $$ to build roads) at least those cases all involved the relationship between states/citizens and the Feds, not private industry. That is one of the main reasons I just can’t see Roberts voting to uphold the mandate. Again, my take on how the Court is going to rule tomorrow and about Roberts’ judicial philosophy could be totally wrong, but I stand by my interpretation of the Constitutionality of the mandate for the reasons I’ve stated. But, of course, my opinion & $4 will get you a cup of coffee at the Four Seasons.
PS — John, I remember well you slapping down the car insurance argument several times. It’s one of the reasons I like you so much.
Human nature and business people being what they are, medical practices cannot support the thing unless THEY get paid strong percentages for the use of their staff and facilities by whichever party benefits from the healthcare deal that finally goes down. Your Co-Pay Nazis are in line ahead of any doctor you’ll see, and they’ve styled themselves invisible to hacks thinking any doctor could be forced to see patients for 7 cents discounted payments on a dollar in fees. Insurance is based on the Law of Large Numbers and “greedy” insurers have a body of recorded data that shows them trends and probabilities, the #1 of which is this: Nice people cheat their insurers if they can. Hence, the politicians will NEVER be able to investigate all the claims filed by people who were forced to purchase insurance. The whole thing should be offered on a stock exchange for the gullible Investors. The Travelocity Gnome has already figured out they can up their price 30% if the hotel is booked from an Apple Computer. Plenty of Obama’s “real” friends see the progressives as their next mooches to whom they can “sell” anything.
Interesting article on Politico..
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77807.html
Back in the earliest days, before Obamacare was ever written, I remember reading that O had a confab with the Insurance execs. and took the public option off the table at their request. After that, it was never seriously discussed. Back then, Dems were falling all over themselves to support our multicultural Pres. when what they should have done is stood up to him. ‘No public option, no vote for Obamacare’. Had they been listening to their constituents, we might have had a much different outcome..
Thanks AngieC for the very understandable summary.
If anyone else here has worked with Medicaid please chime in, but in my experience, it is hugely expensive to the states, and forces most states to make cuts in other important areas.
good post and I finally understand the core technique of Alinskyism….declaring the normal course of events as ” unthinkable!! “.