Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’
“I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
That was President Obama earlier today, talking about the legal challenge to Obamacare the court heard last week — and demonstrating once again he doesn’t have a very firm grasp on the meaning of “unprecedented.”
After all, the Supreme Court has been overturning laws — which necessarily have been passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress — since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison decision. By this count citing the Government Printing Office, the court declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional between 1789 and 2002, which works out to one about every 16 months. Which strikes me as “precedented.”
Or perhaps the operative word in Obama’s was “strong,” and only laws passed by “weak” majorities are worthy of being overturned? I would not grant that the size of the congressional majority necessarily speaks to a law’s constitutionality. But even if that were so, Obamacare hardly passes “unprecedented” muster. It passed in the House by a vote of 219-212 — that’s 50.8 percent of votes cast in favor to 49.2 percent against — and in the Senate by a more comfortable 60-39 (although the votes on the controversial reconciliation bill that enabled the two chambers to come together on a common text passed only 220-211 and 56-43, respectively).
Now, let’s look at a relevant law the Supreme Court previously overturned — the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, voided in the United States v. Lopez decision in 1995 (which also concerned the Commerce Clause and which was cited by the plaintiffs in their challenge to Obamacare). That act was part of the broader Crime Control Act of 1990, which was so strongly supported that it passed the Senate by a voice vote and the House by a vote of 313-1.
Again, “precedented.” Let’s not even get into “extraordinary.”
In case you’ve forgotten: This man once taught constitutional law at an elite university. Yet, when it suits him better, he chooses to ignore some of the most basic elements of the three-branch system of government said Constitution established.
As for one of the other main elements of his statement today:
I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
I would respectfully submit that the president has either not heard or not understood the actual criticisms leveled by these “conservative commentators.” I wonder: Can our commenters, regardless of ideological leaning, do any better in identifying what “the biggest problem on the bench” was said to be?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
252 comments Add your comment
saywhat?
April 2nd, 2012
4:10 pm
Judicial activism is only judicial activism if a conservative says it is.
carlosgvv
April 2nd, 2012
4:14 pm
After the Supreme Court renders a decision, will anyone in our State Govt. tell the people just how much the State spent in legal fees trying to get Obamacare defeated? This has been nothing but a fool’s errand since the beginning and has wasted huge amounts of money that could have been spent for the people’s benefit, and not for some political agenda.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 2nd, 2012
4:16 pm
The Supreme Court can wring their hands about penalizing people who don’t buy health insurance. But it’s actually been that way for a long time.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/03/obamacare_and_the_individual_mandate_penalizing_people_who_don_t_have_health_insurance_is_nothing_new_.html
saywhat?
April 2nd, 2012
4:24 pm
Tune in next column for Newt’s profound definition of “profound”.
JV
April 2nd, 2012
4:25 pm
I don’t think talking like this is going to help his case.
Steve
April 2nd, 2012
4:27 pm
Can’t wait until Obama and Hillary (2016) repack the court with liberals. It’s time.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
4:27 pm
carlosgvv: The special assistant AGs handling the case are working pro bono. So, “huge amounts of money” is approximately as accurate as “unprecedented.”
Common Sense
April 2nd, 2012
4:29 pm
Apparently POTUS does not grasp why we have a SCOTUS.
And he’s supposed to be a Constitutional Scholar at that.
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
4:29 pm
Leave it up to Kyle to write a whole article of an attack on the President based on the use of one word. Like he did recently with his “interpretation“ of the word “flexible.”
I hope that Kyle and others on his side have noticed that a statement about President Obama’s exchange with President Medvedev, equivalent to his own, has received a “Pants on Fire” verdict by the AJC PolitiFact. No mas pantalones?
Jefferson
April 2nd, 2012
4:31 pm
Your hate is showing, picking on his diction.
Road Scholar
April 2nd, 2012
4:32 pm
“This man once taught constitutional law at an elite university.”
So, I’ll trust his opinion, even though it may be biased, over your opinion, which is always biased!
“I would respectfully submit that the president has either not heard or not understood the actual criticisms leveled by these “conservative commentators.”
So when has a conservative commentator ever given President Obama an inkling of respect, let alone any understanding?
“Can our commenters, regardless of ideological leaning, do any better in identifying what “the biggest problem on the bench” was said to be?”
It is only judicial activism if you disagree with the ruling, eh conservatives?
So Kyle, if it is struck down, esp in its entirety, what substitute will the conservatives recommend? Nothing? Something? And how long will it take to get done? Much of what is in the law came from conservatives. Will they embrace healthcare improvements? (improvements means betterment for the majority, and the poor.)
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
4:34 pm
Good grief, Finn: Do you really believe that losing a tax subsidy, because you choose to stop the behavior being subsidized (buying insurance), is equivalent to being fined because you never chose to behave that way in the first place?
Patrick
April 2nd, 2012
4:35 pm
“Can our commenters, regardless of ideological leaning, do any better in identifying what “the biggest problem on the bench” was said to be?”
I’ll take “who is Clarence Thomas?” for $100 Alex…
Road Scholar
April 2nd, 2012
4:37 pm
Oh and why didn’t the Georgia legislature pass a bill setting up the healthcare exchanges, that would enable citizens to purchase healthcare at reduced “bulk”rates?
Common Sense
April 2nd, 2012
4:38 pm
“So when has a conservative commentator ever given President Obama an inkling of respect, let alone any understanding?”
When was he supposed to have earned this respect?
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
4:39 pm
MarkV: Hardly. There’s a world of difference between what I wrote and the statement PolitiFact checked. I never said what specifically Obama had in mind — presumably, only he, his advisers and perhaps the Russian government know — only that it would be more favorable to the Russians and unpopular at home than he was willing to defend in an election campaign. (Which I still believe to be true.)
carlosgvv
April 2nd, 2012
4:40 pm
Kyle – “The special assistant AG’s are working pro bono”
And you know this because?
Inside Out
April 2nd, 2012
4:41 pm
Ok Kyle we get it…you do not like President Obama…..But for you to play the word game is just petty…. You should be bigger than that…..At least it would be nice if you were….
Just saying..
April 2nd, 2012
4:42 pm
Kyle-
Spent a lot of time parsing George W.’s pronouncements, did you? For the amount of material available, missed those columns.
Obama: Supreme Court striking down law would be “unprecedented” | The American Pundit
April 2nd, 2012
4:42 pm
[...] word, “unprecedented”. It doesn’t mean what Barack Obama seems to think it [...]
dbm
April 2nd, 2012
4:43 pm
Finn McCool
April 2nd, 2012
4:16 pm
So there is something else besides Obamacare that needs repealing. But then, I already knew that.
SwamiDave
April 2nd, 2012
4:43 pm
Actually say, “judicial activism” would be if this court replaces this legislation with something that they consider “better” (i.e. wishes among some that the court assume some obligation to “solve” the problem if this legislation is declared unconsitutional). Their legitimate response would be that ACA is unconstitutional as the federal government has no authority under our Constitution to mandate an individual participate as the result of simple existence. Under a limited government by, of, and for the people where government is granted authority under the consent of the governed, it simply doesn’t exist.
….and actually, carlos, if the Supreme Court renders a decision finding this legislation is indeed unconstitutional, then the “huge amounts of wasted money” fall to the responsiblity of liberals and Democrats who worked for its passage. All of the money tied into passage and the subsequent legal challenges would have been much better never spent. The “fool’s errand” was led by the Obama Administration and Democratic leaders in Congress.
-SD
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
4:45 pm
Road Scholar @ 4:32: I imagine the replacement proposal will look a lot like HR 3500, which Tom Price proposed (including an earlier version introduced before Obamacare was passed).
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
4:45 pm
Yeh, Kyle, you only used a nasty innuendo of “will cave in,” and Eric Johnson put the same thing in words more specifically. Big difference.
dbm
April 2nd, 2012
4:48 pm
Jefferson
April 2nd, 2012
4:31 pm
Inside Out
April 2nd, 2012
4:41 pm
Concepts are important. They play a crucial role in our thinking, and our thinking determines our actions. Using them loosely tends to sabotage thinking. Objecting to misuse of a concept is not hateful or petty.
Just saying..
April 2nd, 2012
4:48 pm
Kyle: “Hardly. There’s a world of difference between what I wrote and the statement PolitiFact checked. I never said what specifically Obama had in mind — presumably, only he, his advisers and perhaps the Russian government know — only that it would be more favorable to the Russians and unpopular at home than he was willing to defend in an election campaign. (Which I still believe to be true.)”
Kyle, I realize you’re shocked, shocked. But which do you believe:
-This is the first President to ever say this?
or
-This is the first President to be recorded saying this?
jeffrey
April 2nd, 2012
4:49 pm
Unprecedented. Funny word. If republicans knew what it meant they might apply it to the opposition they have shown toward governing the last 18 years.
Inside Out
April 2nd, 2012
4:49 pm
Its ok…if the ACA is overturned…the Church will take care of them..Except for those that do not bother to go to church …
markie mark
April 2nd, 2012
4:49 pm
Well said, Swami…..
carlosgvv
April 2nd, 2012
4:50 pm
SwamiDave
Nobody forced The State of Georgia to challenge ObamaCare. No amount of convoluted thinking on your part will change this.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
4:50 pm
Inside Out: The “word game”? This is the argument he made for why the law should be upheld, when asked at a press conference whether he’s worried it will be struck down. This is how he chose to make his own case, by making a false claim about whether the court has struck down such a law before, so why should I not point out that it was false? (Also, this gem: “I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld.” Circular logic much?)
Just saying: Well, I wasn’t writing columns when Bush was president. But I think you’ll find a good bit of parsing the GOP candidates’ statements in my pieces about their debates.
carlosgvv
April 2nd, 2012
4:52 pm
Kyle
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey are the lawyers who represented Georgia in challenging ObamaCare before the Trial and Appelate Courts. Did they work pro bono?
dbm
April 2nd, 2012
4:52 pm
Judicial activism, properly understood, means a court reading the law or the constitution as saying what the court wants it to say, rather than what it actually does say. This definition can be very difficult to apply, but it is the right one. Unfortunately some people have taken to throwing around the phrase “judicial activism” much too loosely.
Pizzaman
April 2nd, 2012
4:54 pm
Wow! A republican using the word “respectfully” a tirade against the President! Unprecedented!
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
4:56 pm
carlosgvv @ 4:40: Um, because as much has been said at every turn? Because the AG reports on fees paid to outside counsel demonstrate as much? Need something else?
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
4:58 pm
carlosgvv: Rivkin and Casey? The list of outside counsel working for Georgia is at the bottom of this press release.
real john
April 2nd, 2012
4:58 pm
As usual, great article Kyle. Dems can’t stand when “facts” actually get in the way. Man, how dare you actually bring evidence to the table? So as usual, the lib bloggers can’t really debate you on the evidence so they try and turn the attention to another unrelated point.
The people who actually understand the point of your article get it…Obama and certain Dems love to go overboard in describing a “crisis.”
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
4:58 pm
Maybe Obama was just hoping no one would research what he says and just take his word for it? :rolleyes:
HIPPOCRIT
April 2nd, 2012
4:59 pm
So let me understand OBAMALOGIC
if Congress passes a law then its Constitutional and cannot be overturned…. so if we just get Congress to pass a law exempting white males making less than $200,000 per year from paying any taxes then its constituitonal???? lets get to work whiteys
Inside Out
April 2nd, 2012
5:00 pm
The state of Georgia forces me to buy auto insurance….Kyle would you support me if I challenged that in state court against the republicans???
Don
April 2nd, 2012
5:00 pm
Now, Kyle….don’t go telling the truth and support it with facts, you’ll just upset the liberal reader base of the AJC. LOL
real john
April 2nd, 2012
5:01 pm
Carlosgvv:
If you are so interested in how much GA pays, why don’t you look up how much has been paid to the Atlanta Public School teachers over the last year even though they are being fired??
How much did Beverly Hall and the APS principals and teachers steal from the tax payers?
Don
April 2nd, 2012
5:01 pm
@ inside out….no the state doesn’t. You don’t HAVE to drive a car, you choose to.
HIPPOCRIT
April 2nd, 2012
5:03 pm
Inside Out
You are not forced to buy auto insurance, you are required to buy it if you OWN a car…….. and you can be charged different rates based on driving record and other factors (pre-existing conditions)……. if you don’t like it have the state legislature and the govenor pass a law changing it.
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:03 pm
“The state of Georgia forces me to buy auto insurance”
Oy!, not THAT argument again. But since you seem to be a bit behind, a few points: It’s a state law, not federal law. Big difference. Second, you don’t have to buy insurance if you don’t have a car. No one’s forcing you to buy a car…. yet…..
real john
April 2nd, 2012
5:05 pm
Also INSIDE OUT…the state requires you to carry liablilty insurance so that if you drive like an idiot and injure someone else, that person is taken care of.
The state only requires you to carry the liablily for someone else. They don’t require you to carry coverage for damage to your own vehicle.
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
5:06 pm
If Kyle is so keen on criticizing the President for the use of an inappropriate word (unprecedented), then he should be more careful in his own choice of words. The sentence “I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld” is not a case of circular logic.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
5:07 pm
Inside Out @ 5:00: Sigh. How is the auto insurance mal-analogy still in circulation?
First, there’s a huge constitutional difference between the federal government and the state government. The latter can make you do all manner of things the former cannot.
That’s really all it takes. But just in case, here’s a second one: You can choose not to have a car, impractical as it might be, but you cannot choose not to exist (as it relates to the individual mandate).
Third, you are not required to insure against damage to your own car, only against damage you might cause to others’ cars.
Need I go on?
HIPPOCRIT
April 2nd, 2012
5:09 pm
kyle
logic is to liberal thinking
as
oil is to water
Wade Hampton
April 2nd, 2012
5:09 pm
From Brandon Smith………Slave Mentality………..Dedicated to all who grovel at the feet of nine government lawyers————
.
But what are the signs of this unconscious desire for collectivism and control? What makes a slave do what he does? Here are just a handful of explanations to consider…
The True Slave: The true slave is not a person who has been shackled, beaten, tortured, and made to comply under threat of death. As long as that poor soul has the spirit of rebellion and is ever seeking freedom, they are not imprisoned fully. The true slave is a person who enjoys their subservience, who is weighted with fear by the very idea of independence from the system, and who would actually fight and die to maintain the establishment which enslaves them. The true slave is not able to imagine living any other life beyond his micro-managed existence.
.
The Obsession With The Law: The slave mentality, though illogical and psychotic, still requires a certain foundation to hold it together. The laws of governments tend to suffice. These laws may go completely against the force of inherent conscience, but because the slave has already abandoned listening to his inner voice of reason, this does not bother him much. If you have ever wondered why modern tyrannies always feel the need to put their horrific enforcements in writing first, THIS is why. Oligarchs understand that the law provides the slave with a means to rationalize his participation in the crimes of the state. After all, if some gut-bloated bloodthirsty elitists in government etch their mad inbred ramblings into law, then we have no choice but to follow them, right?
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:09 pm
The Founding Fathers were FOR socialized medicine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
But you want to complain about the word “unprecedented” like it’s meaningful. Slow day, Kyle?
Wade Hampton
April 2nd, 2012
5:10 pm
If you have ever wondered why modern tyrannies always feel the need to put their horrific enforcements in writing first, THIS is why. Oligarchs understand that the law provides the slave with a means to rationalize his participation in the crimes of the state.
VBC
April 2nd, 2012
5:10 pm
A 2,700 page law is ridiculous. Who can understand all of it? Who can read all of it? The health care system needs to be fixed incrementaly. In my opinion this is a classic case of failed leadership. The President saw an opportunity to make history and his ego drove him to put healthcare ahead of the economy and his own stated principles of governence, namely that one can’t govern based on 51%. I think the term is hubris.
HIPPOCRIT
April 2nd, 2012
5:10 pm
bring on the build-a-burgers
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
5:11 pm
MarkV: Of course it it: “Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.”
The premise here is that it should be upheld: Therefore, Obama says, it will be upheld. But that initial premise is an assumption on his part.
HIPPOCRIT
April 2nd, 2012
5:14 pm
kyle
stop it
logic is to liberal thinking
as
oil is to water
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:14 pm
A 2,700 page law is ridiculous. Who can understand all of it? Who can read all of it?
Aw, too tough for you to read? Lots of big words? Poor baby. I feel for you. Private school education?
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:16 pm
I should be kinder to Kyle (my bad!). It was probably a very busy day to get to 4 pm and have to resort to dropping this in the blog just to post something.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
5:16 pm
ByteMe: And anyone who didn’t want to pay the tax and participate in the insurance could avoid that line of work. Which is a far cry from mandating that every single person have insurance.
And let’s not pretend this was a throwaway line by the president. He’s laying the groundwork for discrediting the ruling should it go against him.
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:18 pm
“The Founding Fathers were FOR socialized medicine.”
Sounds more like an early form of Medicaid, which I guess could be a form of socialized medicine. Doesn’t sound like what we’re currently debating though.
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:18 pm
Or Medicare…. whatever
dbm
April 2nd, 2012
5:19 pm
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:09 pm
The Founding Fathers could make bad choices too.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
5:20 pm
HIPPOCRIT: Stick to the issues, not personal attacks. You may be new to this blog, but that’s not the way we operate.
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:20 pm
“And let’s not pretend this was a throwaway line by the president. He’s laying the groundwork for discrediting the ruling should it go against him.”
Exactly. And they’ve been doing a lot of that lately with many different issues.
HIPPOCRIT
April 2nd, 2012
5:20 pm
yes kyle
sorry i digress
Road Scholar
April 2nd, 2012
5:20 pm
Oh great Swami, what happens if the law is upheld? More “that isn’t his legal passport” Derision? He’s a Muslim? Socialist? Communist? Fascist? Whining?
Hillbilly D
April 2nd, 2012
5:21 pm
“I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
What other kind of law would they overturn?
As for activist judges, at the Supreme Court level, they’re all activists.
RJ
April 2nd, 2012
5:21 pm
VBC,
“A 2,700 page law is ridiculous. Who can understand all of it? Who can read all of it?”
Thanks for repeating that insane talking point. It is truly a sign of people who have no earthly idea what they’re talking about.
In legal terms, I’d argue 2,700 pages is short. Case in point, your house. Go look up the law that governs how your home is built. 2700 pages doesn’t get you past chapter 2.
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:22 pm
And anyone who didn’t want to pay the tax and participate in the insurance could avoid that line of work.
because back then, there were so many alternative job opportunities posted on the internet, right?
He’s laying the groundwork for discrediting the ruling should it go against him.
Or maybe he’s just trying to rally the base for an upcoming election. He tried to discredit the ruling for Citizens United in a SOTU speech… did you support him on that? Didn’t work, of course, but I’m just wondering if you do this for all the rulings he tries to discredit… or just this potential one.
BobNMO
April 2nd, 2012
5:23 pm
IF they do keep this montrosity called Obamacare, the next things mandated will be your lifestyle as it affects your health. Afterall, it is not fair for you to do things (i.e. eat fast food, drink soda, alcoholic beverages, etc) that may cost us collectively more than necessary…
The other things that kills me is the name… Affordable Care Act??? What is more affordable? Bring 30 Million more people in and its more affordable? More affordable to whom?
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:23 pm
Kyle, thank you for pulling my counter-punch to H’s punch. Much appreciated.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
5:23 pm
RJ: Well, my understanding is that the text of Romneycare comes to only about 70 pages (I’ve never seen a physical copy myself, but nor have I ever seen or heard anyone dispute that figure). There’s a lot of unrelated stuff in the other ~2,600 pages of Obamacare.
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
5:24 pm
Kyle, go back to school. You need it. Either a school of logic or a school of reading. Obama did not say, according to what you have written, that the law will be upheld because it should be upheld. That would be circular logic. But according to you he said “I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld.” That is an ordinary statement of judgment, not a proposition assumed on a premise.
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:24 pm
The Founding Fathers could make bad choices too.
What?!? I thought that wasn’t possible… at least that’s the impression I get from the way some people talk about them.
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:25 pm
There’s a lot of unrelated stuff in the other ~2,600 pages of Obamacare.
About half of it concerns how the law affects the alternative medical plans already offered by the USG (like the ones for railroad workers, which caught my eye when I read the bill).
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:27 pm
“Oh great Swami, what happens if the law is upheld?”
Well since a good majority of the population favor repeal, there would be an even greater effort to repeal it. Unless some of the Republicans lose their spine and use the ruling as cover to do nothing about it… (or worse case scenario, Congress using the ruling to even further expand the Commerce Clause to mandate every citizen buy an American vehicle, or a cell phone, or eat a serving of vegetables at dinner, etc., etc., etc.)
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:28 pm
Bring 30 Million more people in and its more affordable? More affordable to whom?
Here’s the theory: those 30 million use health care services anyway and don’t pay for them. People would regularly go bankrupt while they HAD health insurance. So remove lifetime limits and get everyone who can pay to get on a plan. That reduces the number of deadbeats, lowering the costs to the providers, which in turn should lower the costs to the consumers.
Operative word “should”. Hard to know until about 5 years into it whether that turns out to be true. However, we know what we had and it sucked badly, so trying something else is often a better way to go… even if it’s not the most optimal solution.
ByteMe
April 2nd, 2012
5:31 pm
The other part was to require that preventive care would be cheap for all. That way, you incentivize people to go to doctors before something becomes a huge expensive issue. That also lowers overall costs for all.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
5:32 pm
MarkV: Maybe I should go back to school, because I’m having a hard time understanding the distinction you’re trying to make.
But I tell you what: I’ll take back my “circular logic” line as soon as Obama takes back “unprecedented.”
Wade Hampton
April 2nd, 2012
5:33 pm
Anyone that believes that Obamacare/Federal government will lower costs…………..should not be allowed to vote…………………………..EVER.
killerj
April 2nd, 2012
5:34 pm
Kyle attacking the Prez?,seems to me half this country did not want him either,can someone get the voting results for us to see? seems to me he won the electoral votes right?
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:37 pm
‘That way, you incentivize people to go to doctors before something becomes a huge expensive issue. That also lowers overall costs for all.”
Not necessarily true.
Does Preventive Care Save Money?
“Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4″
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
April 2nd, 2012
5:38 pm
Peter Suderman, Reason.com: “What can explain liberals’ widespread failure to anticipate the Court’s wariness of the mandate? Research conducted by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests one possible answer: Liberals just aren’t as good as conservatives and libertarians at understanding how their opponents think.”
If you ever find yourself being shot at, just step behind a liberal cause they are dense and impenetrable.
Logical Dude
April 2nd, 2012
5:39 pm
After reading about the Supreme Court decision to uphold strip searches in ANY situation that someone is sent to jail (ooh, you didn’t pay a ticket and have to stay in jail until bail? STRIP SEARCH!!), I really don’t know which way they’ll go.
Since they just raped the 4th amendment to unreasonable searches, they may (or may not) keep the constitutional part about the healthcare bill.
PS. I hope the news about the strip search was an April Fools joke, but in this day and age, the Supremes really are unpredictable.
Logical Dude
April 2nd, 2012
5:42 pm
Quoting Kyle’s Obama quote: “I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
I am not sure he knows what that word means LOL.
It’s the Supreme court, they overturn laws on a regular basis. And guess what. . . any law on the books was passed by a MAJORITY.
Sorry Obama, you sound silly with this sound bite.
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:43 pm
Uh oh.
US Postal Service Wants Out Of Government-Provided Health Insurance
Stephenson Billings
April 2nd, 2012
5:44 pm
“I am not sure he knows what that word means ‘
Inconceivable!!
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
5:49 pm
Btw, dbm @ 4:52 nailed it re: judicial activism.
carlosgvv
April 2nd, 2012
5:58 pm
Kyle – 4:56
1.”because as much has been said at every turn” – A fine amount of goobledegook. ???????
2. “Because the AG reports on fees paid to outside counsel demonstrate as much” And, of course, you believe everything our good, honest, upstanding elected Republicans say?
3. “Rivkin and Cavey”? http://www.multistatelawsuit.com
InAtl
April 2nd, 2012
6:00 pm
MarkV, yours are the most incoherent posts I read on these blogs. And you say “Yeh, Kyle, you only used a nasty innuendo of “will cave in.”
Seriously? You think “will cave in” is nasty innuendo? Nobody should waste anymore time arguing with your kind of logic. In addition, the word “unprecedented” has a very, very clear and important meaning in law. It’s not a term to be thrown around lightly, especially by a part-time constitutional law professor. He knows better, or he should know better.
Rafe Hollister
April 2nd, 2012
6:00 pm
Kyle, you need some help, looks like you stepped in a fire ant mound. The first 25 to 30 posts were all from rabid liberals, looking to take out their frustration on the messenger, rather than the speaker our dear leader, Pres Oblamer. You did an outstanding job defending yourself, hopefully no bites.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
6:01 pm
carlosgvv: I admire skepticism, but if you’re simply going to distrust all the supporting documents that don’t show what you want to see, you might as well sign up with the birthers.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
6:02 pm
And about Rivkin and Casey: They might have participated in the 26-state lawsuit, but there are …. wait for it … 26 states involved.
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
6:07 pm
Kyle @5:32 pm
Kyle, I think you understand perfectly well the distinction, which is why you changed Obama’s words from one post to another.
As for Obama’s word “unprecedented,” I am quite sure that he would gladly take it back. I suspect that there is some historian somewhere who would find something “unprecedented” in the current case, but I agree that the word was inappropriate. However, after the barrage of lies, ridiculous statements and misstatement from the Republican candidates who aspire to that office in the past months and weeks, I wonder why it was worth the treatment.
Orange12
April 2nd, 2012
6:08 pm
Pres. Obama needs to sit down and shut up and let the justices do their job.
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
6:09 pm
InAtl @ 6:00 pm
If you lack comprehension skills, do not complain to me.
Linda
April 2nd, 2012
6:11 pm
Kyle, there’s a bunch of ways to kill yellow jackets. If you can’t kill them by pouring gasoline in their holes in the evening, you can use a trap with a lure.
I see that you have used the second alternative.
Poor liberals/yellow jackets. There’s no way out of this.
Rafe Hollister
April 2nd, 2012
6:12 pm
Oblamer is just getting his ducks in order, gotta set up the next villain to blame, the SCOTUS. He has done it before in the State of the Union address. You can count on him attacking again if the ruling goes against him. The man has never had a problem, that he couldn’t find someone else to blame for.
He is on record saying that he doesn’t like the US Constitution in that it limits government, yet does not put any requirements on the federal government. IMO, he thinks it is a restriction on his elitist view of what government should do. His oath of office is to defend and protect the Constitution, however, I do not believe he takes that seriously, as he thinks it is an outdated and incomplete document.
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
6:12 pm
MarkV: Which words did I change?
George P. Burdell
April 2nd, 2012
6:12 pm
If you throw out or change “unprecedented”, the whole statement has to be thrown out. He knew darn well what that word meant and now he is being called on it. What word would you insert there that has anywhere near the same impact?
InAtl
April 2nd, 2012
6:21 pm
RE: MarkV: InAtl @ 6:00 pm
If you lack comprehension skills, do not complain to me.
Yeah, it must be my pesky comprehension skills. Too funny. Sadly for you though, lots of other very bright posters have made the same observation as I.
Rafe Hollister
April 2nd, 2012
6:22 pm
Unprecedented is a fine word, just used in the wrong place by an unprecedented failure.
Rafe Hollister
April 2nd, 2012
6:24 pm
InAtl, just step over it or go around it. As you note the overwhelming majority of us do not have “those comprehension skills” either.
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
6:30 pm
Kyle Wingfield @6:12 pm
@4:50 pm Obama: “I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld.”
@5:11 pm “The premise here is that it should be upheld: Therefore, Obama says, it will be upheld. But that initial premise is an assumption on his part.”
You left out the words “I am confident …” Instead, you wrote that Obama said “it will be upheld” because “it should be upheld.” He never said “it will be upheld” as an assertion, he said it as a matter of what he expected, what he was confident of.
Big difference. I can always say “I am confident that Braves will win, because [they are so good] they should win.” No circular logic. But it would be a circular logic if I only said “Braves will win because they should win.” Obama was merely saying, I am confident that the law will be upheld, [because it is a good law] and therefore it should be upheld.
MarkV
April 2nd, 2012
6:35 pm
InAtl @ 6:21 pm
Yeah, those “lots of other very bright posters,” in your opinion. Why don’t you question a specific argument in a specific post and present your argument, instead of whining about my incoherent posts?
Kyle Wingfield
April 2nd, 2012
6:48 pm
MarkV: And you don’t see an assumption in the “[because it is a good law]” part?
I really couldn’t care less about arguing this point, so you’ll get the last word on it.
saywhat?
April 2nd, 2012
6:49 pm
MarkV @ 6:30 is exactly right.
Samantha
April 2nd, 2012
6:53 pm
Saying that a law is unconstitutional becasue it overreaches the power of the state under the constitution is neither unprecedented or judical activism. If overtuning a law were judical activism, per se, then what function would the court perform? Indeed what would it’s constitutional mandate be? Judicial activism is when a ruling is passed to create a future state in line with the justice’s personal value and hopes rather than decide what laws are constitutional and which are not.
Of course Obama is engaging in presidental thuggery, trying to bully the court and preparing his troops to blame the court for his own arrogant overreach of power. Of course the other possiblity is that Obama is just incredibly ignorant nd wilfully stupid but I don’t really think that’s the case.
The frame of reference is FDR who when he did not get his way, tried to pack the court with extra justices. Contention between the executive branch and the legislative branch is hardly unprecedented.
saywhat?
April 2nd, 2012
7:03 pm
The current Supreme Court is one example of how the damage done to this country by George W Bush will continue far beyond his reign of error. It may be 20 years or longer before the damage stops, let alone is repaired.
md
April 2nd, 2012
7:03 pm
First he lectured the justices in his sotu, now he does it again……I’m guessing had they planned to not over turn it, they surely will now just to put him in his place. He seems to forget they are an equal branch of gov’t.
saywhat?
April 2nd, 2012
7:08 pm
To quote Jay Bookman -
“Oh please. If I had a nickel for every time some conservative pol has condemned the court for Roe v. Wade or any number of other decisions, I could buy and sell the MegaMillion winners. But now that Obama dares to say a word, it’s become a major constitutional threat?
You folks are so damn transparent”
Martin Williams
April 2nd, 2012
7:10 pm
This is what the GOP does best and that is wasting tax payers money to defend things like the health care law. It is not realy a true waste though since the money goes into the pockets of GOP lawyers. Your all remember over 60 million dollars was spent by an independent prosecutor for the impeachment of then president Bill Clinton. Over a dozen GOP lawyers again pocketed that money. We tax payers and voters are just plain stupid and very dumm and politicians know that. The politicians in this country have the very best health care protection and other very best benefits to buth. These benefits continue 100% even when they screw up and resigned from the Congress. You all continue voting these thieves to power.
Linda
April 2nd, 2012
7:12 pm
During the Supreme Court hearings, Justice Scalia said, “[I]f we struck down nothing in this legislation but the … ‘Cornhusker Kickback,’ OK? We find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, OK?” Scalia said, eliciting chuckles from the audience. “When we strike [the 'Cornhusker Kickback'] down, it’s clear that Congress would not have passed [the bill] without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. “And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ is bad? That can’t be right,” he said.
The Cornhusker kickback was removed but Nelson was the last Dem. holdout who caved, reportedly because of threats from the Obama Adm. to close Offutt Air Force Base, former home of the Strategic Air Command.
Venality is a vice associated with being bribeable or of selling one’s services or power, especially when one should act justly instead. In its most recognizable form, dishonesty, venality causes people to lie and steal for their personal advantage, and is related to bribery and nepotism, among other vices.
Obama claimed today that Obamacare was passed by a “…strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Really? No Republicans voted for it. One-fourth (15) of the Democratic senators who voted for it were bribed, including those from Neb., LA, Mich., Conn., Ver., PA, NY, Fla., OR, Mont., ND, SD, Utah, Wy. & Iowa. The other 45 senators who authorized the govt. take-over of 1/6 of our economy were too stupid to get their own cookies.
This bill should be renamed Obamacare for Bribery & Stupidity (OBS) & should be struck down for its combined support by venality & stupidity.
md
April 2nd, 2012
7:12 pm
“Oh great Swami, what happens if the law is upheld?”
The States pass the pain to the peons……….as the administrative costs to implement and run the program are not supplemented by the feds. Those States that require balanced budgets will have to cut even more (education again?) and those other States that don’t require balanced budgets go deeper in the red……can you say CA. They’ll be looking a lot like Greece with all that red ink.
But, everybody will have a shiny new insurance card to flash on their admittance to the bankrupt State run hospitals………….
md
April 2nd, 2012
7:16 pm
“To quote Jay Bookman”
If that is all you have, I’d forgo the quote if I were you……….his credibility is zelch.
Linda
April 2nd, 2012
7:25 pm
Wade@5:09, I shared your post with my husband. Great insight. More, please.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 2nd, 2012
7:32 pm
Kyle wrote, and I break it down here: “Do you believe losing a tax subsidy (ethanol), because you choose to stop the behavior being subsidized (growing corn), is equivalent to being fined because you never chose to behave that way in the first place?”
See, Kyle, wtf?
md
April 2nd, 2012
7:37 pm
A matter of semantics, but one is allowed to own a car without insurance……but one can not drive that car legally without insurance.
Linda
April 2nd, 2012
7:43 pm
Obama referred to Obamacare as being passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected congress.” As I wrote above, that was indeed a stretch. Several of those Democratic senators who voted for Obamacare were voted out in 2010. Many are now taking “early” retirement. Why? Others are behind in the polls against Republicans.
How many of those senators Obama referred to today are still around? How many will still be around after the Nov., 2012 elections?
Answer: few.
md
April 2nd, 2012
7:47 pm
Worth posting these quotes again considering we are talking about another Obama quote:
“You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward,”
and
“And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended,”
The man has no ammunition against Romney when it comes to flip flopping………
ragnar danneskjold
April 2nd, 2012
7:52 pm
“Judicial activism” is when a court crafts a law out of whole cloth, as the bizarre “busing” rulings of the early 1970s or a Roe v Wade where the “penumbra” of the Constitution added to the plain language text. “Judicial activism” would also describe those instances where justices look to foreign law to justify an ideological bent.
Judicial restraint is irrelevant in determining the Constitutionality of acts of the Congress or of a legislature, e.g., Brown v Board of Education.
More to the point, the courts do not have armies of bureaucrats nor bully pulpits – their only power derives from the quality of their rulings. Where they rule badly, such as a Roe v Wade or “Kelo,” they are mocked and despised, and devious politicians (a redundancy, to be sure) make political capital from attacking the courts. On the other hand, strong but sound rulings such as Citizens United (saying the people do not lose the right to free speech merely by binding together as unions, non-profits, or corporations) are easily understood by the common man. ObamaCare seemingly turns on whether merely breathing is “Commerce” thus allowing the Congress to compel all to purchase a product favored by politicians.
If you want to improve the quality of the performance of courts at all levels, enact a Constitutional change limiting judges to a 10-year term. I observe that there is little improvement in any court after so long, but am undesirable arrogance does arise from a lifetime appointment. Such a change as I propose would probably not be necessary for those courts created by Congress (Appellate Courts, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts) but a Constitutional change would be necessary for the Supreme Court.
Jack
April 2nd, 2012
8:08 pm
The scary part is that Obama believes the stuff that comes out his mouth.
ragnar danneskjold
April 2nd, 2012
8:14 pm
Many interesting comments above, good thread.
Hot rumor: Obama floated his comments because the result was leaked to him. No basis, but the rumor is all over the internet.
Some pundits above raise the state insurance requirements vs the ObamaCare Federal requirement. The long tradition was that the central government lacked the “police” power, and that such personal interaction with the state is best left at the lowest possible level. FWIW I would abolish the car insurance requirement – see that as a sop to car insurance companies – abolishing all tort liability for any vehicle-related matter except where a criminal sentence is passed.
ragnar danneskjold
April 2nd, 2012
8:16 pm
Hope you all saw the funny line by Mark Styne quoted in today’s WSJ:
Mark Steyn writing March 30 in the Orange County Register:
“What happened to the Eighth Amendment?” sighed Justice Scalia the other day. That’s the bit about cruel and unusual punishment. “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?”
He was making a narrow argument about “severability”—about whether the court could junk the “individual mandate” but pick and choose what bits of Obamacare to keep. Yet he was unintentionally making a far more basic point: A 2,700-page law is not a “law” by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there’s no equality: Instead, there’s a hierarchy of privilege microregulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown and unnumbered bureaucracy. It’s not just that the legislators who legislate it don’t know what’s in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can ever hope to understand it, but that even the nation’s most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.
If the Supreme Court really wished to perform a service, it would declare that henceforth no law can be longer than, say, 27 pages . . .
Linda
April 2nd, 2012
8:18 pm
Liberals, be weary of what you desire. What if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate in Obamacare & a GOP adm. comes into power & rules that every citizen over the age of 18 must own a gun (such as in the city of Kennesaw), will you balk?
Rafe Hollister
April 2nd, 2012
8:19 pm
Ragnar@7:52, well explained!
Jack,
I don’t think he believes all he says; he is always in campaign mode. Campaigning for what he wants you to BELIEVE. He knows very well that he is trying to “fundamentally change” this country into an entitlement society funded by taxing the evil rich.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
April 2nd, 2012
8:32 pm
The good news for Mr. Romney is that his failure to elicit enthusiasm among women likely has little to do with the way he or his party have handled contraception.
The bad news for Mr. Romney is that his inability to generate much excitement among women appears related to a general inability to generate much excitement among anyone.
That’s what I’m sayin….ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Dan
April 2nd, 2012
8:46 pm
Judicial activism would be throwing out part of the law and keeping others THAT would be justices creating law. The courts duty is to rule on cases presented to it. In this case the constitutionality of Obama care, as put forth by 27 states. If the primary portion is deemed unconstitutional, the whole thing should be tossed, to do other wise would be justices “writing law”. The legislative branch consistently packages all types of special interests with their proposals. If they present a steaming pile to SCOTUS, the court needs to kick it back and say do it right. It is not there job to correct the problem. That is the reason for the the 3 branches of government, balance. Usurping that balance is the biggest danger to our way of life.
what
April 2nd, 2012
8:50 pm
I think Ann said all we need to know a wilard. Too much information
Plain_Jane
April 2nd, 2012
8:53 pm
Thank you, Mr. Wingfield; exactly.
If Mr. Obama were ignorant or stupid, we could just bemoan the fact and soldier on. Since he is erudite and intelligent, we must conclude he’s a liar.
dbm
April 2nd, 2012
9:28 pm
Finn McCool
April 2nd, 2012
7:32 pm
In other words, do you believe that losing the ethanol subsidy because you stop growing corn is equivalent to being fined because you never grew corn in the first place? Most people would say that such a fine would be outrageous and clearly not equivalent to losing the subsidy. I don’t know whether you agree. Is this really that difficult to understand? Or perhaps you would like to clarify your comment?
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
9:39 pm
Plenty of “liberals” own guns. Democratic administrations have declared war more times than Republicans
Ted
April 2nd, 2012
9:43 pm
What an unbelievable dolt we have for a President. Ted Knight. Thank goodness, he looks the part. He can play himself in the movie version of the disaster film called his first term.
Michael H. Smith
April 2nd, 2012
9:44 pm
I agree obumer doesn’t have a firm grasp Kyle and like the majority that past his obumercare tripe what they too see as “unprecedented” is first the nerve of anyone to challenge what these Marxist a.k.a. Progressives have come to believe is the “UNLIMITED RIGHTS” of the Federal Government, if not unquestionably their every own – Et al Scalia, there is no “unlimited right”.
When Justice Kennedy homed in on “NO LIMITING PRINCIPLE” I knew the conservative’s arguments before the Court were right where we needed them to be. In fact, where they’ve actually been unarguably since the “New Deal”: Which is the reasoning behind the obumer keyword “unprecedented” in the statement you’ve taken to task, Kyle.
What obumer is hoping and as well these crummy so-called Progressives – who are nothing but a bunch of closeted Marxist Socialist – are hoping, is that the Court doesn’t overturn most of the “New Deal” with obumercare when this Court overturns it. And that Kyle, is the unfathomable part intend by obumer’s use of the word “unprecedented” for him and his ilk.
Remembering back to an earlier exchange on your blog when this discussion went to the very core of this “limiting principle” and some liberal socialist asked then that even though the New Deal or parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional wasn’t it worth it, didn’t the means used justify the end goals achieved?
No! Then and now, tomorrow as well my friend. In the commerce clause, as it is so often referred to, is found “a fundamental principle”, actually it is the “”fundamental “operable” principle”" without which the entire constitution becomes a nearly moot point in regards to Federal Powers when it’s LIMITING PRINCIPLE is ignored or negated.
Madison’s federalist paper number 45 makes it very clear, explicitly so, the extent of the federal powers to regulate commerce to only those enumerated powers the rest belongs to the States’ or the people – Et al the tenth amendment.
What is truly unfortunate in all of this, beyond the travesty of proper regulation being turned into what is now fascism by a federal government gone uncontrollably awry, is not a question of the needful things absent redress, it is rather the adherence to the limiting principle and amendment process. Something one would think a professor of constitutional law should not only know and respect but would defend rather than as obumer has chosen to do defeat in an arrogant defiance.
I feel confident obumercare will be rightly overturned and should as rightly well it leaves the Progressive legislation past since Woodrow Wilson constitutionally liable… so be it.
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
10:06 pm
What is a “Marxist Socialist” — besides a made up term?
“I feel confident obumercare will be rightly overturned and should as rightly well it leaves the Progressive legislation past since Woodrow Wilson constitutionally liable… so be it.”
Huh?
Dusty
April 2nd, 2012
10:06 pm
Well, this is a good blog subject obviously. Anytime liberals come out like a swarm of vipers to attack Kyle over a clear picture he makes of Obama failings, you know Kyle is presenting the unvarnished truth.
The truth is not what our liberal friends want to hear..Evefy day we learn more.
.An “unprecented” conclusion will occur if Americans do not realize that the president is a poor leader unsuitable and unequiped to make decisions for our country. The evidence is clear.
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
10:14 pm
Swarm of vipers? Scary.
Need to work on mixing those metaphors.
Dusty
April 2nd, 2012
10:25 pm
Real Athens 10:14
I mixed a magnificent metaphor of vipers and out crawled a Real Athens.
Back to your homework, child. .
Tealiban Party
April 2nd, 2012
10:26 pm
Kyle – I am still waiting for your article on Mary Brown. Certainly you know Mary Brown — the lead plaintiff in the Obamacare SCOTUS lawsuit. Yes, that Mary Brown who is now declaring bankruptcy, which includes unpaid healthcare bills. Do you like paying for Mary’s healthcare bills Kyle?
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Lead_Plaintiff_in_Anti_Obamacare_Lawsuit_Now_Bankrupt_with_Unpaid_Medical_Bills_120313
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
10:38 pm
All bluster. Literate much?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
April 2nd, 2012
10:38 pm
carlosgvv: This has been nothing but a fool’s errand since the beginning and has wasted huge amounts of money that could have been spent for the people’s benefit, and not for some political agenda.
———————–
Agree 100%. Obozo should have been focused on fixing the economy and creating jobs instead of wasting a year or two scheming to get his fascist health care power grab jammed through Congress.
Obama's Economy
April 2nd, 2012
10:51 pm
Q1 of 2012 best quarter for stocks since 1998. First quarter stock market performance. (Since Bill Clinton was in office….)
http://financemymoney.com/q1-of-2012-best-quarter-for-stocks-since-1998-first-quarter-stock-market-performance/
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
April 2nd, 2012
10:56 pm
Too bad only the rich benefit from rising stock prices.
Dusty
April 2nd, 2012
11:00 pm
Obama’s Econony 10:51
Now don’t forget to tell us about the price of gasoline and groceries and the unemployment rate and the foreclosure problem and the national debt. THAT is interesting too.
Dusty
April 2nd, 2012
11:10 pm
Real Athens
Bluster killed Custer and “literate ” is an adjective.
Back to your homework, child.
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
11:18 pm
Your price of groceries is influenced by the cost of gasoline. However, under the current administration U.S. oil production has increased for three years running and by more than in any three-year period since 1970. The price of gas still almost doubled during that time.
So, when drilling was down significantly, like in 1999, gas was only $1.25. When it was double that, at the end of Bush’s term, gas was $1.95, and when drilling quadrupled from that level, gas went to $3.72.
That’s what you get for listening to politicians who talk about “supply side economics”. Newt will get $2.50 a gallon – FOR CHINA. Prices are effected by supply AND demand. Supply side looks at one part of the picture. That’s Econ 101. Balance determines the price.
Wouldn’t expect you to know that though. Poor thing.
td
April 2nd, 2012
11:22 pm
Why is it so hard for the libs to understand the basic concept that the Federal government has limited powers under the Constitution? It is clear in every writing of the time but they just keep pushing and insisting that we should become a socialist nation run by the Federal government.
Dallas
April 2nd, 2012
11:24 pm
Mr. President, for clarification … Judicial activism describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint … you know, where the Supreme court DOESN’T read something into the constitution.
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
11:25 pm
Dusty:
Always certain, often wrong. Literate is an adjective. You’re right about that. However, look at its third definition “Compare numerate used to words rather than numbers as a means of expression.”
Say it slowly: Lit-er-ate
Wouldn’t expect you to know something you never learned.
Stupidity killed Custer, as it will you if you don’t take off the blinders.
Hillbilly D
April 2nd, 2012
11:26 pm
Prices are effected by supply AND demand.
They’re affected by speculators looking to make a quick buck, too.
Real Athens
April 2nd, 2012
11:41 pm
True. However, speculation and commodity markets are based on future demand.
ld
April 2nd, 2012
11:52 pm
Perhaps you missed his point: O believes himself so important that overturning his signature legislation would actually be unprecedented?
Isn’t it more likely that they would just gut the bill by rejecting the mandate?
Wouldn’t that make it cost prohibitive?
Will the GOP–as soon as they have the clout to do so–rip out the Board that is supposed to keep the cost of premiums and healthcare in check?
Will the insurance companies then run the price up to the max?
Will the GOP at the earliest opportunity begin to work to dismantle any/all gov’t subsidies for premiums as soon as they have the clout?
Seems destined to either self-destruct or be destroyed–but not before costing consumers a great deal of money.
rd
April 3rd, 2012
12:35 am
ld
April 2nd, 2012
11:52 pm
Seems destined to either self-destruct or be destroyed–but not before costing consumers a great deal of money.
Would this be the same way that U.S. bankruptcies (of which 60% are caused by medical bills) result in higher medical treatment and insurance premium costs for the rest of us?
Get Real
April 3rd, 2012
1:07 am
I heard what Obama said today and he was ill served to make any comments whatsoever. If his common sense could not override his ego and he just had to speak, then he should have thought through it a little more as it did not come off well at all.
Truth Teller
April 3rd, 2012
1:23 am
I am a big Obama fan, but I must compliment you on this article is it is absolutely correct. I cannot believe that Obama actually said it. I was laying in bed screaming when I heard it on the news. He really should be ashamed of himself for this one. You did a fantastic job of calling him on it. Conservative or not, you TOTALLY nailed this!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
April 3rd, 2012
5:49 am
Balance determines the price.
Wouldn’t expect you to know that though. Poor thing.
———-
Hmm…so if we drill more and demand goes down, are gas prices higher or lower than they would be without the extra supply?
And if we drill more and demand goes up, Balance determines the price.
Wouldn’t expect you to know that though. Poor thing.
———-
Hmm…so if we drill more and demand goes down, are gas prices higher or lower than they would be without the extra supply?
And if we drill more and demand goes up, are gas prices higher or than they would be without the extra supply?
Thanks for the economics lesson, perfesser. More drilling always lowers prices.
Chris Sanchez
April 3rd, 2012
6:01 am
Kyle: I don’t always agree with your views but you are spot on this time!
Joel Edge
April 3rd, 2012
6:20 am
Good article, Kyle.
GT
April 3rd, 2012
7:20 am
“unprecedented” in this case is the political interpretation of the law as opposed to the academic interpretation. The south has always been a crusader of the emotional overrides the moral and legal. This very paper stood up against the rising tide of mob rule and now the boat has been swamped, the ground lost, the clock set back. The constitution, like the Bible, is a convenient tool down here. At any turn it may be discarded for political and popular causes, we just didn’t have newspapers endorsing this low bar of democracy.
elgrunir
April 3rd, 2012
7:20 am
@ Kyle:
“(Also, this gem: ‘I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld.’ Circular logic much?)”
I don’t see this as circular logic; I see it as having confidence that the SCOTUS willl do the right thing. Just my opinion.
@@
April 3rd, 2012
7:49 am
Does he know what unpresidential means?
JV
April 3rd, 2012
7:52 am
By now there are numerous TV and web news stories and comments all over the internet. The vast majority of comments are negative towards the president. Thanks Kyle for bringing it up here.
GT
April 3rd, 2012
8:08 am
Pigs can fly, God didn’t make little green apples, read my lips, and thanks you Kyle for adding to that list.
JohnnyReb
April 3rd, 2012
8:12 am
Why can’t the Left see that Obama is a divider? He is not a leader; he is not Presidential. He is not trustworthy. He ignores the oath of office and duty to all citizens. A person worthy of the office of POTUS would never have sanctioned the passage of the Affordable Care Act as it occurred. A Constitutional scholar would know the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional. And certainly a leader of all American would not attempt to further divide the country by making public comments as Obama did yesterday. And, the Left is proud of this guy? That in itself speaks volumes of the party of causes.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:14 am
My 14-year-old has brain cancer. Without Obamacare, he would have already exceeded his lifetime insurance limit
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/my_sons_healthcare_battle/
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:16 am
I’m sick, and I will be for the rest of my life. Knowing I won’t be denied the insurance I need matters
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/why_i_need_obamacare/singleton/
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:17 am
A Constitutional scholar would know the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional.
Was the mandate under the Romney plan never challenged in Massachusetts?
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:20 am
“Q1 of 2012 best quarter for stocks since 1998. First quarter stock market performance. (Since Bill Clinton was in office….)”
Really……attributing that to this President?
Stocks went back up because they went down on fear, not financials.
JohnnyReb
April 3rd, 2012
8:22 am
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:17 am
A Constitutional scholar would know the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional.
Was the mandate under the Romney plan never challenged in Massachusetts?
__________________
Probably not or it would be in the news. MA is a Commonwealth; that in itself makes me believe there is nothing in their constitution to prevent it. But that’s a guess.
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:24 am
“However, speculation and commodity markets are based on future demand.”
That would be “speculated” future demand…….the whole equation is speculation…….
saywhat?
April 3rd, 2012
8:25 am
“Does he know what unpresidential means?”
___________________________________________
If not, all he has to do is look it up in the dictionary and see W’s picture. And Romney’s. And Ron Paul’s. And Newt Gingrich’s. And Santorum’s (just don’t google that one).
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:31 am
Why not MA?
May see it if the ACA falls. But a big difference lies in power to enact. Depends on how the SC interprets the commerce clause. Can Congress create commerce in order to regulate it, or is that a function of the States?
md
April 3rd, 2012
8:34 am
“Presidential” is staying out of the Trayvon Martin circus………and not commenting on the Cambridge Police incident until after the facts are known…….and NOT getting into the middle of the Sandra Fluke fiasco………all cases that do not warrant Presidential opinion until after all the facts are known.
tiredofIT
April 3rd, 2012
8:35 am
“By now there are numerous TV and web news stories and comments all over the internet. The vast majority of comments are negative towards the president”. Damm liberal media!
saywhat?
April 3rd, 2012
8:44 am
“Presidential” is pulling a publicity stunt like landing on an aircraft carrier and making a speech in a flightsuit in front of a “mission accomplished” banner.
jconservative
April 3rd, 2012
8:46 am
Mystery solved:
In the oral arguments Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked the Solitcitor General Verrilli the following question:
“Assume for the moment that this”—the mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?”
Note Kennedy’s use of the word “unprecedented”. Yet I am sure Kennedy as heard of Medicare and Medicaid and the Reagan act requiring all hospitals to treat all comers regardless of their ability to pay.
Kyle is correct, the word “unprecedented” is getting tossed around like if, and or but.
Cosby
April 3rd, 2012
8:46 am
Oh, the annoited one bashed the supreme court – again – to get waht he wants. One needs to guess if he was tipped off by Kagan, his insode justice about how the court really feels. but, wait,m should she not have excused herslef, after all, she advised Obama on the law…of course she does not have ethics enough to do that. Obama is bashing anyone who gets in his way..almost as if he were elected King!
carlosgvv
April 3rd, 2012
8:49 am
Kyle – 6:01, 6:02
Birthers have nothing to go on but their paranoia. Those of us who distrust our State Government are dealing with politicians who, almost on a daily basis, make no attempt to hide how corrupt they are.
As for Rivkin and Cavey, Georgia is one of those 26 states. Do we have their final bill yet?
As for those “pro bono” lawyers, do you really think lawyers certified to argue before The Supreme Court are going to work for free? I assure you, one way or the other, they will be paid. I know you are not this naive, so I guess you’re just being a good Republican on this.
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
8:50 am
“Presidential” is staying out of the Trayvon Martin circus
If he had read from a prepared statement, then yes, that would be inappropriate. Instead, what he did was, in response to a reporters question, send out a heartfelt condolence to the family.
ohhhh, so unpresidential.
Tommy Maddox
April 3rd, 2012
8:58 am
“Was the mandate under the Romney plan never challenged in Massachusetts?”
Nope; it was passed by an overwhelmingly liberal electorate/legislature and signed into law by the Governor. BUT, it was the act of a State making a decision for itself under the concept of Federalism. If a power is not conferred upon the Federal Government via the Constitution, then that “power” [whatever that might be] is left to the will of the State.
The Federal Government making everybody purchase something nationwide is not something that is enumerated under the Constitution.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:00 am
“Instead, what he did was, in response to a reporters question, send out a heartfelt condolence to the family.”
You wish that’s all he did…….he personalized the situation without having the facts. Think he would say “Trayvon would look just like my son” (prarphrase) if the facts were to indicate that Martin was not as innocent as we are lead to believe?
Presidential would have been to mention how tragic the situation is and then to call for calm until all the facts are known…………..shows his inexperience.
Much like saying “the police acted stupidly” when all he had was the media version……….
Just saying..
April 3rd, 2012
9:04 am
Linda @ 7:12: “One-fourth (15) of the Democratic senators who voted for it were bribed, including those from Neb., LA, Mich., Conn., Ver., PA, NY, Fla., OR, Mont., ND, SD, Utah, Wy. & Iowa.”
Linda, in your role as a moral, law abiding American, I urge to continue withholding from law enforcement authorities the compelling evidence of bribery you have assembled that would, in one stroke, convict 15 United States senators of corruption.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:05 am
““Presidential” is pulling a publicity stunt like landing on an aircraft carrier and making a speech in a flightsuit in front of a “mission accomplished” banner.”
Hmmm…..so the defense of not being Presidential is to point out other questionable unPresidential situations??
So, we have the Little Suzy was a bad girl, so it is ok for Little Johnny to be bad also syndrome.
Just saying..
April 3rd, 2012
9:09 am
md@ 8:12:
“Stocks went back up because they went down on fear, not financials.”
I know what you mean. Many people were frightened during W’s presidency.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:09 am
“As for those “pro bono” lawyers, do you really think lawyers certified to argue before The Supreme Court are going to work for free?”
Publicity also has a cost…….”pro bono” in a high profile case saves the company mega bucks when it comes to advertising/marketing.
md
April 3rd, 2012
9:11 am
“I know what you mean. Many people were frightened during W’s presidency.”
Yep….and it was those very same people that more than likely contributed to what they were frightened about. That happens when folks spend what they don’t have………
Just saying..
April 3rd, 2012
9:14 am
md @ 9:05:
“Hmmm…..so the defense of not being Presidential is to point out other questionable unPresidential situations??”
Consistently works for Linda. I believe it’s called the “sos your old man” defense.
Don't Tread
April 3rd, 2012
9:23 am
Obama – the epitome of arrogance. The sooner he goes, the better – he begins to sound more and more like a dictator as time passes.
#occupy my desk...
April 3rd, 2012
9:45 am
Those pesky checks & balances…
ragnar danneskjold
April 3rd, 2012
9:56 am
My elderly mother detected a blastoma brain cancer in late November, or more accurately my father detected it in my mother. Fortunately there were no government advisory panels in place, rendering judgment on the treatment for a senior with such a grim prognosis. She had immediate surgery, followed by chemo and radiation. Too early to proclaim victory, of course, but her last two scans were cancer-free. She has lost only 10 pounds on the continuing chemo, maybe that was mostly her hair. Only continuing adverse effect is “chemo fog.”
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
10:23 am
Ragnar, is she now swimming in medical bills?
Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
April 3rd, 2012
10:23 am
James Murdoch stepping down? Conservatives with ethics issues, you don’t say…
Halfrack
April 3rd, 2012
10:25 am
Obummer has been given a sneak preview of the Courts Ruling. Liberal always think they can do no wrong. An activist Judge is one who rules different than the Constitution. If Judges rule according to the Constitution, they are doing their duty and job. Obummer is the most arrogant President we have had. Selah.
ragnar danneskjold
April 3rd, 2012
10:25 am
Dear Finn @ 10:23, not yet. Secondary insurance should cover all that medicare does not.
saywhat?
April 3rd, 2012
10:29 am
“Hmmm…..so the defense of not being Presidential is to point out other questionable unPresidential situations??”
_____________________________________________
Not at all. The examples of unpresidential actions you provided did not qualify as such. I merely provided you with a more definitive example. If President Obama were to pull such a stunt in declaring hostilities over in Afghanistan, I would be equally critical.
hryder
April 3rd, 2012
10:30 am
Difficult how some people are incapable of comprehending commonly accepted definitions of words or offer a twisted/convoluted definition that would be graded incorrect in almost any classroom. Allow any normal IQ person to define words and he/she is never incorrect, Bill Clinton’s definition of sexual activity an example. Liberals seem to be totally stunned that the Constitution, etc., do not indicate that people are to be provided basics and comforts of life with funds confiscated from others and will say it is the humane thing to do. If it is, Why do these same people itemize on tax returns? Why do these people NOT spend their personal funds instead of attempting to spend tax monies of all tax payers on liberals’ schemes? The current President is wealthy, itemizes, lives and travels at tax payer expense on vacation with adequate less expensive government owned vacation sites are available at much less expense. What he does is talk a good game(buying votes) but his actions indicate he does not truely believe that which he espouses. Our country is to provide life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not its attainment. The liberal leaning family and friends of mine when informed of spending their funds for their social agendas, following years of their requests, have not spent their monies out or requested me to do so more than twice since told the above. Remember: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not its attainment. VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENT ELECTED OFFICE HOLDERS IN NOVEMBER.
Dusty
April 3rd, 2012
10:41 am
Ragnar,
Sorry to hear about your mother’s condition. The prognosis sounds good. May her future be bright.
@@
April 3rd, 2012
10:42 am
Looks like Obama is following the advice of Rep. Clyburn:
The U.S. Constitution mandates me to earmark, and if I’m are going to earmark, why not help a brother out…a nephew…son or a friend, Clyburn….THAT Clyburn!!??!!
Redistributing wealth among his family and friends. What’s not to admire?
schnirt
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
11:07 am
Oh, and to The Truth (whose comments aren’t being published): “Too much truth”? No, too much use a couple of months ago of vulgarities misspelled to get around our filters. People who do that tend not to get second chances soon, if ever, on this website.
Feeders Links March 29th- April 2 | bisquitsoftruth
April 3rd, 2012
11:22 am
[...] Obama’s Unprecedented Definition of “Unprecedented” CFHeather [...]
Dusty
April 3rd, 2012
11:22 am
hryder @10:39
I like that line: “Our country is to provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not its attainmnt.”
To reach,achieve or accomplish by continued effort (attainment) is one of the greatest aspects of our freedom. Most Americans realize that having government make all decisions is a loss of liberty..
We do not make good puppets. Therefore we fight mandates that take control of our private lives. It is definitely a loss of independence.
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
11:27 am
Just@9:04, Where have you been for the last 2 1/2 years? Did you not follow the passage of Obamacare? The bribes that I referred to were more brazen & unseenly as never before. Senators bragged about them on national news. State voters were embarrassed.
Here’s a list that includes even more than 15 states.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/21/cash-for-cloture-demcare-bribe-list-pt-ii/
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
11:38 am
Just@9:04, Perhaps you do not know the difference between earmarks & bribery. Legislators specify earmarks on a regular basis: bridges to nowhere, high speed trains to deserts, etc. Bribery, however, is against fed. law & unconstitutional. Ever heard of equality under the law? One state was to receive preferential treatment under Obamacare by receiving a waiver for their Medicaid mandate, which would have been paid for by all the other states.
Article 1, Section 9: `No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.’
Article 4, Section 4: `The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of Government.’
US code Title 18 201, Titled “Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses,” Section B: `Whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official (officials is defined as a member of Congress, Delegate or Resident Commissioner) … with intent (a) to influence any official act; or (b) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or colluding, or ally any fraud or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the United States.”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/come-sue-our-state-please-nebraskans-plead/blog-222719/
Dusty
April 3rd, 2012
11:56 am
Goodbye to all vulgarity.
A pox on its imparity.
We wish for the fair.
For decency, we declare.
Thanks, Kyle, for your celerity.
Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’ | Kyle Wingfield « JHPPL News and Notes
April 3rd, 2012
12:03 pm
[...] Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’ | Kyle Wingfield. Share [...]
md
April 3rd, 2012
12:18 pm
“The examples of unpresidential actions you provided did not qualify as such.”
Glad to know there are folks that actually think the President should be weighing in on every issue BEFORE the facts are released (sarc).
That ranks right up there with assume, except it only makes an ass out of him.
Brian Taylor
April 3rd, 2012
1:21 pm
It is not “judicial activism” when judges rule according to the Constitution. That’s a simple fact…it’s kind of their job. People that use this excuse, like Obama is right now, are doing the equivalent of throwing their gun because they’re out of useful bullets. It’s a fight or flight mechanism, and they’re out of any good fight.
George P. Burdell
April 3rd, 2012
1:37 pm
In his speech that just wrapped up, he backed off the comment and put a whole bunch of qualifiers on it, the most important of which is that he now says he meant in reference to “a law about an economic issue”. For all of you defenders, you should go check it out because it is obvious that the point Kyle made in this article is right on point and Obama is now backing off of the stronger language as quickly as he can. All of this is just to set up the point for the campaign, but I’d be very surprised if this doesn’t come up during the debates. He clearly tried to overplay his hand and has been called on it.
EmmVee
April 3rd, 2012
1:38 pm
Definitions:
To conservatives, judicial activism is the courts creating new laws or rights by imagining what the Constitution SHOULD allow, rather than what it DOES allow. Example: Roe v. Wade;
To Obama, judicial activism is the courts upholding what the Constitution actually DOES say or allow, rather than what he and other liberals want to impose on the country.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
1:55 pm
From Greg Sargent, regarding Mr. Wingfield’s point:
Quote:
I’m not defending Obama’s claim that overturning the law would be “unprecedented” — it wouldn’t — but as “attacks” go, this is pretty weak sauce. And it’s a bit surprising to hear so much whining about it, given the attacks on “activist” judges conservatives have waged for years. …
As I noted yesterday, I don’t think Obama will ultimately wage a full-blown campaign against the court as part of his reelection strategy even if the law is struck down. Maybe he will in the end, but what Obama said yesterday was not any kind of sign of this. It was not particularly aggressive or even all that remarkable.
Sargent makes a number of other excellent points as well. You can read the whole thing at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/pass-the-smelling-salts-obama-attacked-scotus/2012/04/03/gIQA7VpAtS_blog.html
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
2:02 pm
Obama KNOWS the outcome of the Supreme Court’s initial vote last Friday. The negotiations have begun & votes can change. Obama’s statement yesterday is the liberals’ normal strategy: try to intimidate. It doesn’t work with me & I don’t think it will work with the Supremes.
Maybe Obama should try his other strategy: free contraceptives.
Davz
April 3rd, 2012
2:10 pm
Dear god, there’s a lot of mindless libs babbling on here. Maybe if they took their lips off his backside for a minute to listen to him or look at what he’s “accomplished” these past few years, well… they’d probably be ashamed they ever let anyone call them a liberal.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
2:25 pm
Lynn Dee: So, an apologist for the administration thinks there’s nothing to see here. I’m shocked — shocked! — this would be the case.
In other news, Obama today tried to qualify his statement from yesterday by referring to laws related to “economic activity.” Which is equally false — the laws in Lopez and Morrison also relied on the Commerce Clause — but telling in that he knows he goofed.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
2:26 pm
That said, do you think he would have tried to correct himself today if no one had pointed out what he got wrong yesterday?
JDW
April 3rd, 2012
2:33 pm
@Kyle, check out a more reasonable view…
“This would be extraordinary. It would mark the first time in almost 80 years that the court invalidated such a significant federal law as exceeding Congress’ enumerated powers. It would also be the first time since the 1930s that it used the unconstitutionality of a law’s single provision to strike down a hugely important law in its entirety.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/joondeph-supreme-court-risk/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
Why that sounds….well..unprecedented.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
2:46 pm
JDW: In what sense of the word is something that happened 80 years “unprecedented”??
Also, I note the qualifiers “significant” and “hugely important” for law. Those qualities are, of course, in the eye of the beholder.
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
2:49 pm
The states were states before they were united as the United States. The Federalist Papers were written & published to persuade states, specifically New York, to ratify. The Federalist Papers are used by judges & justices to rule on the constitutionality of laws. The constitution enumerates the powers of the fed. govt. & specifically leaves other powers to the individual states.
Obamacare is the absolute worst nightmare of the founding fathers. Had a law of this magnitude even been dreamed about, the United States would have never been united.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
3:11 pm
It’s absurd to think that mandates destroy the “rugged individualism” we so pride ourselves on. More to the point, our touching belief in our rugged individualism is the means by which whose who benefit from our refusal to wear the “yoke of the individual mandate” actually fit us for the yoke we do wear.
And come on: Is there anyone more “ruggedly individual” than a teaparty senior tooling around on his Rascal scooter claiming: “I EARNED my social security benefits so keep yer hands off ‘em!”
Jared
April 3rd, 2012
3:14 pm
How about instead of picking apart the mans diction and making broad claims based off a few words you cover the case and go back to what journalism should be.
shane
April 3rd, 2012
3:20 pm
I for one have negleted from voting until the Congressional offices went up for voting. With too many Democrats in office they couldn’t be stopped when it came time to pass what changes they wanted. As far as Obama’s bs Obama care he can shove it down his throat. Trying to force people to carry insurance, when some cant afford it and then taxing them for not having it is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL……….. No matter your views on this idiotic president you cant argue the words written in ink from true leaders of America. Please stop your whining about what someone knows to be true and deal with it. This Obama bs should not and i pray will not be law………..
shane
April 3rd, 2012
3:21 pm
My mistake when the Senate offices went up for voting
Isabella Reid
April 3rd, 2012
3:32 pm
Great article, Mr. Wingfield. Apparently, Constitutional Law Prof. Obama has no idea how this stuff works… either that or he will apparently stop at nothing (including outright lying and the intimidation and coercion of the Justices of the Supreme Court) to push through his radical, socialist agenda. It also makes my blood boil that he puts down the Supreme Court for being “unelected” when the only thing unconstitutional here is his presidency. Apparently, the whole point of checks and balances eludes him… or perhaps it infuriates him that he doesn’t get to run the whole show all by his incompetent, Marxist, little self.
judy
April 3rd, 2012
3:50 pm
this man needs the lord to come into his heart and save him ~
George P. Burdell
April 3rd, 2012
4:00 pm
Thank you Kyle. I was trying to make the same point on how he qualified it but you say it in a much more informed and eloquent manner.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
5:14 pm
Quote: “Lynn Dee: So, an apologist for the administration thinks there’s nothing to see here. I’m shocked — shocked! — this would be the case.”
Okay, that’s fine. I get it: Libs not welcome. I’ll leave you to your echo chamber, Mr. Wingfield.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
5:23 pm
Lynn Dee: So if I argue back, that means you’re “not welcome”? Suit yourself.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
5:33 pm
Kyle Wingfield, It was the “apologist for the administration” preemptive bid that suggested to me you weren’t really interested in discussion but just want to show off for the other rightwingers here. Then again, maybe you’ve just been in smartass mode so long, you can’t easily get out of it.
As for the economic activity/inactivity distinction — it’s a bogus distinction. Those who choose not buy insurance are nonetheless still participants in the health care market (even if they’re not in the health care insurance market). Moreover, to the extent they’re free riders in that market, they also have a direct economic impact on the insurance market.
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
5:37 pm
Lynn Dee@5:14, If you observe the comments, you will see that there are more liberals than conservatives on Kyle’s blogs, every day.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
5:41 pm
Linda, I’ll have to look more carefully. In this thread, anyway, that didn’t seem to be the case.
JDW
April 3rd, 2012
5:41 pm
@Kyle, well you could certainly make the case that the combination of invalidating a significant law for the first time in 80 years and extending that invalidation beyond the provision in question would be unprecedented. Might not be my choice of words but it works far better than your headline.
“Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’”
Would you really have us believe that Obama is the first politician to possibly misuse the word “unprecedented”? That’s what your headline means taken literally.
Seems to me that the more the economy improves and the more the polls swing to the side of the President the more vitriolic and unsupportable your headlines become:
“Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’ ”
“Obama to Russian leader: I’ll cave after I’m re-elected”
“Ryan’s new budget plan points the way to saner fiscal future ”
“Obamacare’s costs: The hits just keep on coming”
You keep this up and you will look like Yosemite Sam by November.
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
5:47 pm
Lynn Dee@5:33, We have hashed out the health care debate on this blog & others up one side & down the other for 3 years. You are wasting your time debating the bill. Americans do not favor the bill any more now than they did 2 years ago. The debate on this thread is Obama’s attempt to sway the decision of the Supreme Court through intimidation.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
5:47 pm
Lynn Dee: Oh, I switch in and out of smartass mode quite frequently.
And it’s a “bogus distinction” that at least half the justices on the Supreme Court seemed to take very, very seriously in last week’s oral arguments. I won’t predict which way the decision will go, but the justices presented several questions to poke large, gaping holes in arguments by the administration that echo your own.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
5:52 pm
I listened to the argument. What do you think were the “gaping holes” in, specifically, the economic activity/inactivity distinction? And yes, I’m ready to trot out Wickard v. Filburn, which I assume you have a response to.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
5:54 pm
JDW: First, I don’t concede the idea that only insignificant laws have been invalidated during the past 80 years.
Second, I haven’t studied the use of the word “unprecedented” in political speech. But I would be ery surprised if any politician has misused “unprecedented” as grossly as Obama did: to describe a situation that, as a former constitutional law professor, he must very well know has precedent.
JDW
April 3rd, 2012
6:20 pm
@Kyle, believe your own BS if you choose…what I find really interesting is that after decades of wrangling over the issue of health care the Republicans created the idea of an individual mandate to forestall the implementation of single payer.
Now that a Democratic Administration has actually implemented the idea THEY conceived the Republicans are up in arms and ask the SCOTUS to overturn the “abomination”.
If they get their wish guess what…single payer is back…either by new law or the gradual extension of Medicare. Single payer will be the ultimate result.
Kind of short sighted wouldn’t you say? Of course you and I, having both lived overseas and been a part of a single payer plan already know that it works best anyway.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
6:23 pm
JDW: I wasn’t on the single payer plan in Belgium. We had private insurance through my employer, and survived all the same.
JDW
April 3rd, 2012
6:26 pm
@Kyle, bummer I was on the UK plan and it worked great…cost lots less and if you needed something they didn’t have, which I never did, you just bought it.
Kyle Wingfield
April 3rd, 2012
6:32 pm
Lynn Dee: Briefly, I thought Alito had two good questions about burial services and about young people being forced against their judgment to subsidize insurance companies by paying for care they were unlikely to use. I thought Scalia (I think it was him) was right about the distinction between the health insurance and health care markets, and with his question (specifically talking about buying cars) about why stop at regulating anyone who’s not buying something in any other market. Also, Roberts with his question about requiring the purchase of cellphones.
That’s off the top of my head. Have to go now…maybe we can get into this some more tomorrow.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
6:36 pm
@Kyle, those two questions did not deal with activity/inactivity distinction. They dealt with the question of a “limiting principle.” Are you sure you listened to the arguments? You’ll understand if I’m having my doubts.
I’ll discuss the Wickard v. Filburn case in my next post.
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
6:50 pm
What is worse: arguing about Obamacare for another 3 years or changing dirty diapers? I think Kyle is right.
Politicians & diapers need to be changed often, for the same reasons.
Lynn Dee
April 3rd, 2012
6:52 pm
Okay, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) 317 U.S. 111, “a farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it. … The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.”
The above quote is from wikipedia and fine for our purposes.
Now, you might think — hey, the farmer was actively growing wheat, so that’s economic activity. But, his growing of wheat for personal use was not activity IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Rather, it was Mr. Filburn’s INACTIVITY — i.e., by not purchasing wheat — that was found to impact interstate commerce, thereby permitting the government to regulate it.
Similarly, in the case of individuals who choose not to purchase health insurance, it’s their participation in the health care market, often as free riders thereby forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab and driving up the cost of health care insurance for those of us who do purchase it, that permits the government to regulate the purchase of insurance – including by imposing a mandate. (I’m sure I don’t have to mention that the reason everyone can be regarded as participating in the health care market is because of hospitals are required by law to provide emergency treatment and because, as part of being human, none of us can really take himself/herself out of the health care market.)
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
7:21 pm
Lynn Dee@ 6:52, I’ve already tried to tell you. The debate is over, including farmer Filburn. The health care bill passed. The American people do not like it. It’s up to the Supreme Court. You are wasting your time.
Also, this thread is pretty much over. Save your lengthy posts when more bloggers are on line.
Real Athens
April 3rd, 2012
7:30 pm
Linda:
What are you? A self appointed moderator? Please stay out of arguments you don’t understand.
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
7:51 pm
Real@7:30, Pitiful, just pitiful. Same old liberal tactics of attempted intimidation that have never & will never work on strong conservative women. Did you forget to call me a racist? I feel your pain & your despair. Poor thing! Are you jealous that I can articulate Obama’s real message & support sites to prove everything I have ever said on this blog? What you are afraid of is voters who UNDERSTAND EXACTLY what Obama is up to.
Real Athens
April 3rd, 2012
8:04 pm
Support sites? Michelle Malkin? You can’t discern from fact and opinion. You ignore anyone who takes you to task.
Articulate? Are you serious?
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
8:42 pm
Real@8:04, Yes, I cited a conservative site, as if liberals don’t cite liberal sites! I could have cited upteen sites that support my claim, both conservative & liberal. The fact of the matter is that what I reported was true. That’s why a justice of the Supreme Court brought it up. I quoted Justice Scalia with his scathing admonishment of “venality” in the passage of Obamacare.
I can’t help but notice that you have not cited any sites that proves me wrong.
I can articulate the conservative message much better than any liberal can to convince Americans that more spending with money that we do not have, to stimulate the economy, to pay for stuff that we do not need, with money borrowed from China, or money printed out of thin air by the Fed. Reserve, that adds to inflation in the grocery stores & at the gas pump, that adds to the deficits & debt, has never & will never work to end Obama’s unprecendented unemployment rates, etc.
Linda
April 3rd, 2012
10:16 pm
Lynn Dee@ 9:58, You comment did not come thru. Anyway, welcome to this blog. Hope your contributions will be appreciated.
Real Athens
April 3rd, 2012
10:49 pm
Give ‘em enough rope.
md
April 3rd, 2012
11:05 pm
activity/inactivity is a bogus argument……the food industry could be substituted yet we don’t require all to buy food. And yes, lack of food leads to the need of healthcare……….
Smg
April 4th, 2012
4:05 am
I have great insurance already, but no matter what nobama says or any court, ill never buy anything i dont want to buy. Id like to see how they actually enforce the law
The Supremes may strike down ObamaCare but it will remain constitutional in Obama Bizzaro World | FishyGov
April 4th, 2012
4:54 pm
[...] Kyle Wingfield points out so deftly in his article, Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’ Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the meaning of “unprecedented”, the history of [...]
V Seebaran
April 4th, 2012
5:40 pm
All you all stop sipping Obama’s koolaid. He is the biggest hole much larger than the ozone hole. So far he has failed Geography of the US, History of the US, Constitution of the US, Economics of the US,Religion of the US,Social Studies of the US,Laws of the US,Politics Of the US, Mathematics and now English. He does not know where he is really from or where he has been or going.Lock him away or send him back to where he came from if you could ever find out.