Big Dogs House

The Ends Justify The Means

Mar 1, 2010 Political

A new idea has emerged from at least one liberal, er progressive. Barack Obama should add more justices to the Supreme Court so that he can get what he wants. OK, the idea is not new. As the article espousing such an idea points out, the Constitution does not say how many justices are to be on the SCOTUS and the size of it has changed over the years, often for political purposes.

The court is supposed to be apolitical. We know this is not the case because it has human beings on it. However, the public is not taking the power grab in DC very kindly and will not take a power grab of this magnitude kindly either, especially if it is for the purpose of achieving their agenda. The public did not take too kindly to this idea when FDR tried it. He, like all progressives, believed the ends justified the means. As it turns out, he never had to pack the court but he certainly wanted to just to get his way.

This idea is floated by Stan Isaacs at the Philadelphia Inquirer and I would not be surprised if this idea has already been considered by the calculating progressives in DC.

The thing they would have to worry about is the rebound or blowback of the issue. Suppose they were able to change the number on the court to pass what they wanted. Then suppose in three years Obama loses to a Republican and there is a majority Republican Congress. What would stop the Republicans from decreasing the size of the Court to three, the three most conservative, and then bringing everything they wanted changed before the court? They could end abortion, change gun laws to reflect the Constitution, and get just about anything they wanted passed. This would certainly bring a howl from the progressives but they will have set the precedent.

I am not sure how they could change this but if it requires a vote from Congress I doubt they would have enough to stop a Republican filibuster. I also doubt this would gain much traction even if they had the votes to change it because America would not be too happy. Moe Lane makes a good point:

Leaving aside the fact that author Stan Isaacs apparently felt the need to educate his readers about something which would be familiar to anybody with even a basic working knowledge of 20th century American history*, I’m wondering whether Isaacs can actually count. The President can declare as many Supreme Court justices as he likes; getting them confirmed requires Senate approval.

A lot of Democrats are seeing their political lives flash before their eyes and the images will get much clearer as we get closer to November so it is unlikely they will do anything that will further decrease their chances to be reelected.

And they would have to do it now. They cannot take the chance they will lose too many votes in November to pass it.

Interesting idea floated about by the followers of Alinsky but I doubt it will go anywhere.

As always though, we need to remain vigilant.

Share on Facebook

Tags: fdr, justices, Obama, philadelphia inquirer, stan isaacs, supreme court

Democrats Wrestle With Court Decision

Jan 25, 2010 Political

This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.

Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.

Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.

I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.

I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.

We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.

I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.

Source:
WSJ

Share on Facebook

Tags: donations, free speech, influence, law, politics, supreme court

The Constitutionality of Mandatory Healthcare

Sep 19, 2009 Political

I had a call from a friend of mine yesterday- he knows I blog online, and he called me spittin’ mad because he had just heard that the Healthcare plan(s) all have a mandatory aspect to them- it was Hussein’s only way to get the Insurance companies onboard, to mandate millions more people to be required to carry health insurance. The insurance companies like the fact that more people would be required to sign up, because that increases their customer base- they are too stupid to realize when they are being jacked around by Hussein and Co.

And jacked around they will be- because there will be, if ANY of this passes, a single payer option, sooner or later- and because in the end, it will have to play out in the courts as to the Constitutionality of this issue. I have yet to find where it says ANYTHING in the Constitution about government- required healthcare. Did they have it way back then? Or did they have something called- Gasp!- Personal Responsibility?

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.

An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.

online.wsj.com

Even when people do not pay “full freight”, and get a discount, as I do, because I pay cash, I get that discount because the Doctor’s office does not have to go through the time- consuming paperwork necessary to insurance companies. Is anyone ignorant enough to believe that the paperwork would decrease under a government mandate?  Of course not- you’d have to be an utter fool to believe that. Still, there are some people who think this “requirement” would be a good thing. Not so at all.

The mandate’s real justifications are far more cynical and political. Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health-care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. In effect, this mandate would be one more giant, cross-generational subsidy—imposed on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government’s prior spending sprees.

Politically, of course, the mandate is essential to winning insurance industry support for the legislation and acceptance of heavy federal regulations. Millions of new customers will be driven into insurance-company arms. Moreover, without the mandate, the entire thrust of the new regulatory scheme—requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and to accept standardized premiums—would produce dysfunctional consequences. It would make little sense for anyone, young or old, to buy insurance before he actually got sick. Such a socialization of costs also happens to be an essential step toward the single payer, national health system, still stridently supported by large parts of the president’s base.

online.wsj.com

Well said, and should be memorized by all the members of Congress who are going to vote on this (these? those?) bill, whenever it is put into coherent form- God knows that is not the case now. Now, they face the wall of the Constitution, and it is there for a reason such as this.

The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: “[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.” Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not “regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity.” Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any “activity,” such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.

Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a “tax” rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus’s (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an “excise tax” of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

online.wsj.com

This is how people like these socialists have been subverting the Constitution for years- by semantics. You can’t call it one thing and be legal, well OK then, we’ll just call it something else that skirts the legality. You just have to applaud how hard they work at being dishonest, don’t you?

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a “tax” that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables. [emphasis mine]

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution’s Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

online.wsj.com

One last thing- the Constitution has lasted longer than many documents because our founding fathers took their time and brainpower to get it right- and while I am sure the debate was heated at times, everyone there knew that this was too important to allow partisan, petty politics to rule the day. Now should be another occasion as important a that one- if we, as a people, truly want healthcare reform, we are ALL going to have to forego the power games we have been playing. This plan, whatever comes out of committee, should adhere to the rules and boundaries of the Constitution, because if not, we could see so many court cases that it literally clogs the system.

And that would be bad for everyone, but particularly for reformers, the progressives- for the Supreme Court has not been kind to cases such as this-

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate “regulatory” taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress’s constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress’s power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

online.wsj.com

We can just stop this debate altogether, or the progressives can try to cram what they will down the throats of America, or we can scrap what we know won’t work, and try for a true compromise- it is really up to the Resident and his band of cronies, because the rest of us are just waiting to see the final form, and if it isn’t what we can see is good for our country, we will reject it- you will not believe how decisively we can reject it, but go ahead-

Make My Day.

Share on Facebook

Tags: checks and balances, constitution, personal responsibility, supreme court

Did Scalia Makes Sotomayor’s Case For Her?

Jun 5, 2009 Political

Someone at the Taylor Marsh blog has the smoking gun with regard to Sotomayor. Those not living in a cave know that she has stated that judges make law and then said she knew she should not say it. Well, someone who goes by djjl posted:

“Sotomayor needn’t worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”

I am no legal scholar but this ruling seems to be different than what Sotomayor was saying. This ruling deals with state court judges and their ability to “make” law (notice the quotes). I don’t think Scalia was agreeing with the idea that it happens. I believe he was saying that they have the power to do it and they do which is why the election of STATE judges became popular.

The issue at hand was a law that prevented judges from discussing issues while campaigning if they could come before the court the person was elected to. The decision by the SCOTUS was that the rule (known as an Announce Clause) was a violation of First Amendment right.

One would have to ask Scalia what he meant but it would be helpful to read the entire ruling to better understand this.

There is no doubt that some of the positions taken by Sotomayor have been taken by others. All people will be influenced somewhat by their experiences and there is no way to get around that. Sotomayor took it a step further by asserting her experiences would allow her to make a better decision than some white guy.

One commenter at Taylor Marsh wrote:

I’ll tell you, it’s a shame that gutter politics has stooped to a new low with this nomination. There is nothing wrong with this nomination and the right wing has to trash her. It’s beyond the boundaries of spirited politics. It’s like everyone who gets nominated better prepare to get trashed. Amazing.

I imagine this is some young easily swayed liberal with a head full of mush. Gutter politics have stooped this low with THIS nomination. Where was this person when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were being confirmed? Alito caught hell from, of all people, Ted Kennedy for belonging to a group that did not like the idea of women being at Princeton (Kennedy belonged to a a group that did not allow women while he was attacking Alito). I don’t want to rehash the issue because it was benign but will anyone make an issue of the fact that Sotomayor belongs to a group that is for women only?

Personally, I don’t care if people belong to groups that disallow certain people. If blacks want to have a group of only blacks (and they have many) then fine. If whites or Asians or anyone else wants that, fine. So long as they are not groups that try to discriminate against people then they can invite who they want.

But back to the point, where was the commenter when Judge Bork was nominated? If you want stooping to a new low, that was it. Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork’s nomination was announced and said this:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Wikipedia

This is an attack and it was an unfair and slimy attack. If you want unfair then this is it. The commenter laments that anyone who is nominated better be prepared because of what is happening to Sotomayor. Right, the standard was set by Ted Kennedy and it continues to this day. The commenter is upset at the right wing attack machine. Where was this commenter (and all other liberals) when Kennedy was the left wing attack machine?

I don’t want to hear liberal pukes crying about the way Sotomayor is treated. They were all at Kennedy’s feet kissing his shoes when he attacked Bork. None of them came out and cried about how unfair it was or how things had degraded.

Ted Kennedy had spoken and that was good enough for them.

If Bork were confirmed women would be forced into back alley abortions. I wonder why no one said that if Kennedy were elected women would be forced into the back seat of submerged vehicles where they would die a horrible death while he laid on a bridge in the fetal position crying why me, why me. That would be the most accurate of the two statements.

Anyway, Sotomayor needs to be taken to task for everything. Republicans in the Senate need to grow a spine and attack her on it all. This is a lifetime appointment so we need to hammer her on all points.

Share on Facebook

Tags: judge, Obama, scalia, sotomayor, supreme court

Sotomayor And The Race

May 29, 2009 Political, Stop the ACLU

According to World Net Daily Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, is a member of the racist group La Raza.

As President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a “racist,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

I said she was a racist because of her previous statement. I would agree with Ann Coulter who said she did not know if Sotomayor is a racist but the statement was however, the membership in La Raza is a pretty clear indication to me that she is racist. The statement in question is; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Imagine the uproar if a white male had made a similar statement…

Share on Facebook

Tags: Obama, racist, sotomayor, supreme court