Tag: obamacare

ABC News: Hey, about that severability clause thing…

…oddly enough, they’re now noting in an update to their original post that, contra Senator Bill Nelson of Florida*, the lack of a severability clause in Obamacare is both: conspicuous; and a major factor in Judge Vinson’s decision.  Which you already knew, because you read about it first either at MoeLane, or at RedState.  And apparently, so does somebody over at ABC News**.

Still, let me not be unkind about this, given that they actually fixed the mistake and didn’t also try to memory-hole it.  So, let me be among the first to congratulate ABC News for its timely correction to the record; we at Redstate are always happy to help another media outlet correct, and learn from, their mistakes.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Continue reading ABC News: Hey, about that severability clause thing…

Bill Nelson’s Magical Obamacare Severability Clause.

The one that only he can see, apparently.

At first I thought that the outrageous thing that Bill Nelson had said in this interview with Rick Klein of ABC News was that the Senator wasn’t sure whether or not Obamacare was unconstitutional (good safety tip for legislators: if you don’t know whether or not a law violates the Constitution, don’t vote for it).  But what Nelson was actually saying was that he considers Obamacare Constitutional, but that the courts might disagree.  That’s fine.  He’s wrong for thinking that it’s Constitutional, but it is consistent with his vote.

But then Senator Nelson said this:

“But there is at the end of it what is called a severability clause, that says if parts are stuck down, that doesn’t strike down the whole law.”

Wait.  What?

How do I put this: NO, THERE IS NO SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AT THE END.  There was one in the first draft; it was later removed; the version that you voted for, Senator Nelson, had no severability clause; and the government used as part of its argument for keeping the individual mandate that the mandate could not be separated out from the rest of Obamacare.  All of which is immediately obvious to anybody who took the time to read  Judge Vinson’s decision in the first place… which apparently does not include Senator Bill Nelson.

Although, to be fair: Bill Nelson obviously didn’t read the original bill, either.  In that, at least, this indicates a certain consistency.

Moe Lane

#rsrh Obama, Obamacare, Obamandate.

Let’s go over this one. More. Time.

This is not 2004. Politicians may no longer assume that they can oppose, say, an individual mandate in one election cycle, then support the individual mandate in the next election cycle, then complain when a court rules against the individual mandate using the same argument that the politician did originally – and not have anybody notice any of this. Politicians may change their minds, too be sure. Nothing wrong with that; people change their minds all the time. But it’s expected that they note when they have changed their minds, and why. Continue reading #rsrh Obama, Obamacare, Obamandate.

#rsrh “What do you think, Just-ice Ken-ned-y?”

“…The pundits turn their bleary eyes to you:”

“Woo. Woo. Woo.”

I’m going to agree with Jen Rubin, here: the Left was not prepared to have a judge rule that Obamacare as a whole was unconstitutional.  That courts were starting to conclude that the individual mandate was unconstitutional was something that people on the Other Side were beginning to get their heads around; that the whole thing thus had to be thrown out is still Here Be Dragons territory for that crowd.  And that it was because the administration misplayed its hand by arguing too forcefully that the individual mandate was the keystone to the whole thing?  Priceless.

Meanwhile, let me join the rest of the blogosphere by admitting that from this point on it all comes down to what Justice Kennedy has for breakfast the morning the Supreme Court decides this one, and whether he liked it or not.  Ach, well: it still beats, say, Egypt’s current method of resolving domestic political disputes.

Moe Lane

Bobby Schilling (R, IL-17) calls President’s bluff.

Getting rid of Phil Hare in IL-17 last year was one of life’s little pleasures – originally because Phil Hare was an odious little apparatchik toady who inherited the seat and kept it from inertia, but later because I grew to like Bobby Schilling.  Small business guy, pretty friendly, enjoyed taking whacks at Hare at every opportunity: what wasn’t to like?

Turns out that Representative Schilling hasn’t lost his taste for afflicting the comfortable: he’s publicly taken up the President on Obama’s kind offer to talk to Republicans about fixing the health care bill.  Bobby’s got a bunch of things to discuss:

  • The individual mandate.  Which is on track to be thrown out as unconstitutional.  Oopsie!
  • The 1099 disaster.  Short version: Obamacare added legislation that would force small businesses to have to make truly insane amounts of disclosure on their transactions.  Obama opposed fixing this until after his party got shellacked in the midterms.
  • Schilling’s family’s Health Savings Account.  Which is on the chopping block once Obamacare is fully implemented, and so much for keeping your health plan if you wanted to keep it (Schilling chose not to use the Congressional health plan).
  • And, oh yes: the general lack of transparency in the Obamacare ratification process.  Although the election of Bobby may be taken as a sign that the first corrective measures along those lines have been taken.

Continue reading Bobby Schilling (R, IL-17) calls President’s bluff.

The LA Times is *worried* on our behalf!

(Via Patterico) Why, they’re so terribly, terribly concerned that the Republicans’ oft-stated – and reiterated – intention to have a House vote to repeal Obamacare might hurt us that the newspaper is writing articles giving us a friendly head’s-up about how bad an idea such a repeal vote would be right now.  And to back that up they got quotes from such disinterested, Republican-friendly individuals as Rep. Robert Andrews (D, NJ) (who was calling the 112th Congress the ‘Hypocrisy Congress‘ before it even started) , Rep. Chellie Pingree (D, ME) (who called the use of the term ‘job-killing’ “hate speech“), and Rep. John Garamendi (D, CA) (who took up the mantle of now-ousted Alan Grayson to accuse Republicans of wanting to kill people).  It makes me feel all tingly and bipartisan: how about you?

The GOP is not in a “bind” over this, ladies and gentlemen: we are merely showing some delicacy and tact in what are genuinely unique and trying circumstances.  But we are also aware that the Other Side is going to start howling anyway the second Republicans start up regular business again, so don’t expect significant delays along those lines.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Seriously, read that article again.  And note – again – that while there’s a lot of people out there ready to say that the Republicans should slow down or stop the drive to repeal Obamacare, none of those people are actual Republican legislators.

Obama administration: *Please* don’t repeal Obamacare.

(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) Let us review the Democratic response to the Republican response to Obamacare.

So now they’re (specifically: three members of Obama’s Cabinet) trying begging us.  Will that work?  I don’t know: maybe they should try it again.  Only this time they really should work that begging.  Make us believe that they mean it.

Seriously, though: haven’t these people figured out yet that the Republican party wants this confrontation?  Obviously, we want the Obamacre repeal to pass the Senate and get signed off on by the President; but we are going to do what we are going to do, and we were not shy about saying what we were going to do.  If the Democrats can’t face that – or us – that is exclusively their problem, and I wish them joy in trying to get out of the consequences of their past cowardice.

To quote the Speaker of the House: “You’re welcome.”

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Quote (and Thought) of the Day, WSJ edition.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page despises the current leadership of the Democratic party as only a group of people with an iconic link to free-market capitalism can be, and said despising shines through every word of this piece sneering at the ‘accomplishments’ of the 111th Congress. Scare quotes deliberate: the WSJ opines (and I agree) that the Democrats are guessing and gambling that they can get their hideously unpopular agenda functional for long enough that people will simply start treating it as part of the landscape.  I think that that is wishful thinking on the Democrats’ part, and so does the WSJ:

The difference between the work of the 111th Congress and that of either the Great Society or New Deal is that the latter were bipartisan and in the main popular. This Congress’s handiwork is profoundly unpopular and should become more so as its effects become manifest. In 2010, Americans saw liberalism in the raw and rejected it. The challenge for Republicans is to repair the damage before it becomes permanent.

So get your game faces on. 2011 is going to make 2009 look like the first Woodstock.

Moe Lane (crosspost) Continue reading Quote (and Thought) of the Day, WSJ edition.

#rsrh QotD, Self-Evident Truth About Congress edition.

The DC Examiner, on ‘productive Congresses,’ and why that phrase should make you shiver a little inside:

Our Founding Fathers were always wary of those who wanted government to do lots of big things. That’s why they created a system that separated powers among three more or less equal branches and provided each of them with powerful checks and balances. When professional politicians become frustrated with Congress, it is a sign that our system is working as intended.

Our system is not working as intended.