Category Archives: The Supremes

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

And the band plays on…

Obamacare, the plan purportedly created to provide health coverage for the uninsured, has enrolled just 1.7% of America’s 48.6 million uninsured.

News of the disastrous numbers comes as nervous Democrats and President Barack Obama, ahead of the November midterm elections, did their best on Monday’s enrollment deadline to put a positive spin on the deeply unpopular Obamacare program. The latest Associated Press poll finds that Obamacare has now hit an all-time low approval rating of just 26 percent.

The White House now claims an Obamacare enrollment figure of six million people. However, according to The New York Times, at least 20% of those never paid their premiums to activate coverage, leaving them uninsured. That drops the number down to 4.8 million.

Of course he will…

Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law

SunKingObama-466x600President Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allow Congress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws because it “violates the separation of powers” by encroaching on his presidential authority.

“[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. “Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes.”

The lead sponsor of the measure, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said it was designed to curb Obama’s abuse of presidential authority, most notably in his frequent changes to Obamacare.

“We have pursued certain remedies afforded to Congress to address executive overreach but these efforts have been thwarted,” Gowdy said. “This bill is necessary; it will give Congress the authority to defend this branch of government as the Framers and our fellow citizens would expect.”

Obama also threatened to veto another bill by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., which would require the administration to explain decisions not to enforce laws when those decisions are rooted in policy concerns rather than just constitutional concerns (which the Justice Department is already required to do).

Is the Supreme Court presiding over the Constitution’s destruction?


Today the US Supreme Court will hear the case regarding unconstitutional actions taken by President Obama. Part of this stems from three “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board during a time when the Senate was, per the Constitution, still in session.

It seems that rules — just like the 60 vote threshold/filibuster – which were okay for Senator Obama are now unacceptable for President Obama. Interesting how that happens. Emperor Obama apparently believes it is in his purview to define what “is” is pertaining to whether the Senate is in session or not.

Since the lower courts have maintained his actions were unconstitutional, it would seem to be basically an open and shut case, right?

Because nuns do not need birthcontrol…duh…

Supreme Court temporarily allows religious groups not to cover birth control

The Obama administration faced a fresh challenge to its health-care law just as many of its key provisions took effect Wednesday, after an eleventh-hour Supreme Court ruling temporarily allowed some Catholic groups not to cover birth control in their employee health plans.

The requirement that employers cover contraception and related medications and procedures has been one of the most controversial parts of the Affordable Care Act, leading to dozens of lawsuits from groups that say it violates their religious freedom. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue this year.

The decision came on the eve of what administration officials described as a landmark moment, as new health insurance policies began for about 6 million Americans who were set to receive coverage under the law.

Every State Needs To Do This:

Georgia Lawmakers Announce Bill Nullifying ObamaCare

HB 707 authorizes the Attorney General of Georgia to:

provide that neither the State of Georgia nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish a health care exchange for the purchase of health insurance nor participate in or purchase insurance from a health care exchange established by a nonprofit organization; to provide that no agency, department, or other state entity shall authorize an employee, contractor, vendor, or any other person acting on behalf of such agency, department, or entity to undertake any action under the aegis of Section 2951 of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 or a process established pursuant to such act.

Despite the apparent pulling of the constitutional punch, two of the four Georgia state legislators struck at the heart of the constitutional issue.

Representative Stover denounced the federal government’s usurpation of unconstitutional power. “To tax someone for simply being alive is anti-American, anti-Constitutional and anti-common sense…. The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

Stover’s analysis of the creation of the Constitution is right.

A nominal leader for permanent bureaucracy


Conservatives have for years attempted to put our finger upon precisely why Barack Obama strikes us as queer in precisely the way he does. There is an alienness about him, which in the fever swamps is expressed in all that ridiculous Kenyan-Muslim hokum, but his citizen-of-the-world shtick is strictly sophomore year — the great globalist does not even speak a foreign language. Obama has been called many things — radical, socialist — labels that may have him dead to rights at the phylum level but not down at his genus or species. His social circle includes an alarming number of authentic radicals, but the president’s politics are utterly conventional managerial liberalism. His manner is aloof, but he is too plainly a child of the middle class to succumb to the regal pretensions that the Kennedys suffered from, even if his household entourage does resemble the Ringling Bros. Circus as reimagined by Imelda Marcos when it moves about from Kailua Beach to Blue Heron Farm. Not a dictator under the red flag, not a would-be king, President Obama is nonetheless something new to the American experience, and troubling.

Barack Obama’s administration is unmoored from the institutions that have long kept the imperial tendencies of the American presidency in check. That is partly the fault of Congress, which has punted too many of its legislative responsibilities to the president’s army of faceless regulators, but it is in no small part the result of an intentional strategy on the part of the administration. He has spent the past five years methodically testing the limits of what he can get away with, like one of those crafty velociraptors testing the electric fence in Jurassic Park. Barack Obama is a Harvard Law graduate, and he knows that he cannot make recess appointments when Congress is not in recess. He knows that his HHS is promulgating regulations that conflict with federal statutes. He knows that he is not constitutionally empowered to pick and choose which laws will be enforced. This is a might-makes-right presidency, and if Barack Obama has been from time to time muddled and contradictory, he has been clear on the point that he has no intention of being limited by something so trivial as the law.

Obamacare’s Death Spiral


Ironically, the incorrigible supporters of Obamacare have learned the wrong lesson from this debacle. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi run up the progressive flag and fault Obamacare for not going far enough in its refusal to adopt a “Single-Payer” healthcare system that would get rid of all those pesky remnants of individual choice that are now sinking Obamacare. But this proposal is sheer delusion. No sane person who has watched the government bollix its effort to implement Obamacare could tolerate the prospect of the government displacing the existing system of private healthcare insurance subject to state regulation.

What would that solve? It would not fix the expanded website that would function as the only portal into the healthcare system. It would not trim the outsized package of essential minimum benefits that have now turned the system upside down. It would not eliminate the immense network of cross-subsidies that has driven private plans to insolvency. And most certainly—with both Medicare and Medicaid in place—it could never implement the Canadian system in which national government makes block grants to the provinces who then have to allocate those dollars to various medical services consistent with budget caps on federal support.

Politically, it seems clear that the American public will not tolerate yet another round of healthcare reforms that cannot shoot straight. The real question is whether the Democrats in Congress will come to their senses and realize that Obamacare is DOA. It is possible to think of all sorts of mid-level fixes that might moderate the damages, but none has a prayer of success so long as this president remains in office. Deregulation and tax cuts are dirty words to Obama, but they are the only source of relief to a nation. The ACA has already done enough harm. The time to start over is now.

Can Obama do this? Nope, but that’s not stopped him before…

Howard Dean: ‘I Wonder If He Has the Legal Authority to Do This’

Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and chairman of the Democratic National Convention, is skeptical that SunKingObama-466x600President Obama could legally allow insurers to continue for another year plans that would otherwise be canceled under Obamacare.

“I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this, since this was a congressional bill that set it up,” Dean said on MSNBC.

President Obama announced the move today during a rambling press conference, in which he conceded that “this fix won’t solve every problem for every person.”

There are currently multiple legislative plans that would also allow people to keep their plans, including one from Representative Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and one from Senator Mary Landrieu (D., La.).


Our Ad Hoc President…


When his pet businesses did not like elements of the Affordable Care Act, Obama simply exempted them. When employers objected that their mandate would unduly hamper job creation, the president simply ignored the settled law and exempted them. Now, when millions have lost their coverage, the president is said to be ready to again reinterpret settled law and no longer demand that private insurance plans conform to the ACA statute, at least for a year.

Aside from the question of whether it is legal or right for the president to decide arbitrarily which elements of legislation to faithfully execute, it is also a sort of new way of ad hoc governing: The president grandly introduces a new piece of unworkable legislation, does not know or care much about the consequences of implementing it, demagogues the bill, demonizes the opposition, gets it passed, uses the passage for political purposes, and then waits to see what happens in the real world.

When more than 50 percent of the country is outraged, he scraps what he finds politically useful to scrap (“enforcement discretion”). Apparently, Obama believes that after such trial and error he will work the bugs out of the ACA and end up with what he can call a success — too bad for those who lose coverage or pay more in the meantime and for the legalists who worry that what he is doing is against the law.

All this is right out of the radical Athenian assembly, which on any given day could do whatever its majority wished and then the next undo whatever it wished. But such governance is not what the framers had in mind when they established the checks and balances of a republican tripartite government and entrusted the president with faithfully executing all the laws passed by congress and signed by him.

Remember, Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote…

Questions for Senate Dems who voted for Obamacare

A Republican operative observed Wednesday afternoon that reporters should be asking Senate Democrats who voted for Obamacare if they believed at the time that people would lose their plans. That is a good question, given that they are caterwauling about a law they jammed through on a straight party-line vote. Reality is setting in for these once-defiant supporters of Obamacare. Stu Rothenberg said, “Over in the Senate, a damaged Obama could easily cost his party the Senate. It’s as simple as that. With an Obama job rating sitting around the 40 percent mark, it’s difficult to imagine Republican seats in Kentucky or Georgia falling to Democrats, and more difficult to imagine Democratic senators in Alaska, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas surviving. Even Democratic nominees in Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire could see their prospects change from good to uncertain.” The Republican National Senatorial Committee is delighted to point that out.

Here are some other questions Senate Democrats should be asked:

• Did President Obama mislead you about whether people could keep their insurance?

• Did you foresee that many people would be shifted from full-time work to part-time work as a result of Obamacare?

• Did you ever demand an oversight hearing on the progress of the Obamacare rollout?

• Did you expect millions of Americans to have their insurance canceled?

• Did you ever demand assurances that would be fully tested and secure from cyber-attacks?

• Did you understand some people would be dropped from coverage and find their only option to be more expensive insurance with poorer coverage?

• Did you expect millions more to have their insurance canceled than to have purchased insurance?

Please beat them with their own gavel…remember this?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: