The sharp questioning of Obama Administration lawyers in Supreme Court sessions this week has prompted much speculation about the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hereinafter, "Obamacare"). Will the Court declare the individual mandate unconstitutional? If at least five of the nine lawyers on the Court made that declaration, will they go on and declare that the entire act establishing Obamacare must fall as well?
I do not know what the justices on the Supreme Court will do. But my perspective takes a step back from this entire guessing game. I think that the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, announced by the Supreme Court on February 24, 1803, was wrongly decided. On that day in February, the Supreme Court said that it had the authority under the US Constitution to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, and therefore, invalid. Nowhere in the text of the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the authority to invalidate statutes at either the state or federal level. The Court in the past few days spent much time discussing the text of Obamacare and, in some cases, mocking its 2,700 page length. But we can anticipate that any Obamacare-related declarations by the Court--expected for the end of the Court's term this June--will assume that the Supreme Court has the power of "judicial review."
Another thing that we can anticipate--if the Court declares invalid all or part of Obamacare--will be howls of outrage. Howling is the Left's strong suit, and we will hear plenty. Of course, those of us old enough to have learned, on the afternoon of January 22, 1973, that the Court had, in Roe v.Wade, invalidated not only acts of Congress but the statues then in force in all fifty states, may have a different perspective. A person of the Left remembers that day in January fondly. Reflecting on that same day in January, one on the Right will remember that the Left thought this exercise of judicial review was an unending source of delight.
Considering what he called the Court's "disentitlement" of Congress and the states, JFK's sole nominee on the Supreme Court, Justice Byron White, did not see anything to bring delight. He wrote in his dissenting opinion in Roe v.Wade: "As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has the authority to so what it does today; but in my view, its judgement is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to the court."
If the Court this June gives the Left something to scream about, we cannot expect to hear phrases such as "improvident and extravagant" as, in restless walks, liberals prowl the night. But there could be some good if at least a few individuals on the Left, standing (albeit unconsciously) with Justice White, declare that "the Court perhaps has the authority to do what it does today...." It would be delightful, and long overdue, for more Americans to change the tune by adding (or simply implying) "Perhaps not.
. In a way, it is surprising that it took this long. When a major film is launched, you can go directly to ebay to meet all your souvenir needs. But after last Wednesday's memorial for the Tucson shooting victims at the University of Arizona, for the next few days ebay was devoid of related merchandise. At last, the public need is being met--even if you did not get to attend personally, you can go here, outfit yourself as if you did and, most importantly, raise the level of discourse:
Sarah Palin is like Bugs Bunny to the media's Elmer Fudd. I just figured that out, bolstered by an item (pasted below) yesterday's Instapundit.And in saying this, I mean no disrespect to Elmer, who was, to my recollection, generally acting during hunting season and in good faith.
"Palin’s Not Complicit in Loughner Shooting, but She Sure Ain’t Presidential, Either. "
Has any other public figure ever had to try to act “Presidential,” though, while being accused of complicity in mass murder?
On the other hand, if (as isn’t clear to me) she actually wants to be President, she’ll have to learn to be Presidential. Barack Obama has had his problems in that department, too, and unlike Palin, he’s had the benefit of a desperately supportive and eager-to-please mainstream media.
Palin, on the other hand, has been royally screwed-over by that same media, and has managed to come back and beat them out again and again, from “death panels” to “blood libel.” And that engenders considerable sympathy. A musician friend of mine who’s not especially political emailed me the other day: “I don’t particularly care for Palin, but every time they do this to her, I find myself hoping she becomes President, out of pure spite.”
I understand the sentiment, but being screwed over by the media, while it may breed sympathy, isn’t a qualification for being President. Richard Jewell was royally screwed over by the media, too, but he didn’t belong in the White House because of it. If Palin is to be elected President, it’s not going to be on a sympathy vote.
But here’s what’s going on in the dance between Palin and what she calls the “lamestream” media: Every time they attack her, they wind up doing something that hurts them worse than it hurts her. She may not become President, and she may not even want to be President — though, regardless, it’s in her interest to keep everyone guessing as long as possible — but with little more than an Internet connection and Facebook she’s done more lasting harm to their position than anybody else. Last night Barack Obama threw them under the bus over the whole “rhetoric” question, just hours after she had managed to work them into a snarling frenzy with an Internet video. Even though it’s hurting them, they can’t — and I mean, literally, psychologicallycan’t — leave her alone. And she’s getting rich the whole time.
So I don’t know about “Presidential,” but who’s dumb, here?
The bill is now "H.R.2," and is The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. Douglas Holz- Eakin at The Corner gets in short and sweet mode with the new bill's title:
"RJKHCLA -which I think, is Icelandic for 'thank God'".
How do you kill a 2,074 page health care rationing bill enacted by a reckless Congress last year? With a beautiful two page bill--a copy of which appears in full below. A related thought while contemplating the beauteous brevity of this fine legislative proposal: Why not accept the "reform" proposed this week by all the Democratic senators to cut back on filibusters (it would be a "rape of the Constitution" if it had been proposed by Republicans when they held a Senate majority). Accept the Democrat's proposed Senate rules "reform" in exchange for majority rule in the 113th Congress--which will be seated in 2013--on any Senate vote as to complete repeal of any act of the 111th Congress. In any case--astound your friends and confound your enemies by taking the time to read the full text below--then you can say: "I have read the bill I support."
Can Obamacare supporters say the same?"
Here is it is:
112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. __ To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. CANTOR (for himself and [see ATTACHED LIST of cosponsors]) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on____________A BILL To repeal the job-killing health care law and health carerelated provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’’. SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAWAND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010. (a) JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW.—Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111–148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacte(b.) HEALTH CARE-RELATED RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010 - Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title1 and subtitle B of title II of such Act of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revivied as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.
“I have seen the pain that I have caused the family and friends of the victims and to my own family and friends.”
--Statement of "remorse" from the killer of NYPD Detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin
On Wednesday, June 30th, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit voided the death penalty that a New York jury, after a five month trial in 2007, had voted on for the killer of undercover Detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin. The two detectives were murdered by shots in the back of their the head as they participated in a "buy and Bust" operation against a Staten Island gang selling guns. The second victim, trapped in a car seat next to the first, was slaughtered after the detective described his family as he pleaded for his life. In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court concluded that, in the last minutes of their presentation to the jury during the sentencing phase of the trial, the prosecutors crossed the line in questioning the level and sincerity of the killer's remorse. The New York Times, in its report here, noted that this case represented the first time in 19 tries over the last 50 years that federal prosecutors had managed to get a New York jury to sentence a killer to death. In dealing with this 1-18 performance, the Times story helpfully explained that unnamed experts believe New York juries have a "liberal slant." (Ya think?) But somehow 12 New Yorkers on the jury in this case heard the full statement of remorse by the killer quoted above and, nevertheless, voted that he should be executed. These must have been some cold-hearted people. I have to appreciate the lawyerly craftsmanship represented in the "seen the pain" statement. Note that the killer does not actually admit guilt, since he does not say he "caused" anything that happened to the two murdered police officers--only to their families and his family.
Speaking of slants, the New York Post story had a a different one (which was not "fit to print" in the eyes of the Times, apparently). The Post's account here: noted that: "So cold-blooded was [the killer] that he brazenly stuck out his tongue to taunt the family members of his victims during his sentencing." (Maybe he was simply trying to "see their pain" more clearly.)
By the way, I have not mentioned the name of the man who murdered Detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin. I will admit that this stems in part from my impression that there are probably 100 people who have heard of the murderer (and National Public Radio commentator) Mumia Abu-Jamal for every one person who can name the Philadelphia police officer he murdered, Daniel Faulkner. As we approach Independence Day, I give thanks to police officers who, like Detectives Andrews and Nemorin, put their lives on the line for the rest of us. I also give thanks for the efforts of the prosecutors, who will, no doubt, keep trying even as their record has been downgraded from 1-18 to 0-19. And I will allow myself to imagine that, some day, there will be sound reason to give thanks even for the federal judiciary. May that day come soon.
On July 9th, New York City Police Officer Russel Timoshenko and his partner, Officer Herman Yan, were shot while making a routine traffic stop in Brooklyn. Officer Timoshenko died from his wounds this week, and he is to be buried Thursday morning. May he rest in peace.
On Wednesday, the New York Times sought out the views of Rev. Al Sharpton, who had not been on camera about this murder, although Rev. Sharpton has been a constant media presence when allegations of police brutality are raised. The Times story, entitled "Sharpton on Police Shooting: ‘A Shame and a Disgrace’" is here
This afternoon, on the 40th anniversary of the attack on the USS Liberty, the National Security Agency released a substantial number of previously secret or classified documents concerning the attack. The NSA web page for the documents is here.
The NSA web site does not distinguish in terms of how documents are grouped, between documents that were released in 2003 vs. documents released today. However, individual documents that are new have, at least on the first page, a stamp indicating a 2007 or 2006 date of the governmental authorization to declassify. There are some interesting items, and there are bound to be new controversies as the documents are examined by the general public, journalists, and survivors of the attack.
Editor's Note 9/25/07 Welcome USS Liberty survivors and friends. We have closed the comment section to this post and have also unpublished but not deleted all comments already made.
As I noted in an earlier post, an article in this Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, "No Pyrrhic Victory", celebrated the 40th anniversary of Day One of the highly successful Six Day War. That conflict opened with a shattering blow by Israeli jets against the Egyptian air force on June 5,1967. The author of the Journal op-ed article, Bret Stephens, concluded that the June 5th Israeli surprise attack was "the most audacious military strike of the 20th century." Today, by way of contrast, no superlatives ofany kind have been showered by Journal writers on the crew of the USS Liberty.
Nevertheless, this day marks the 40th anniversary of that crew's stouthearted and ultimately successful effort to keep their ship afloat after a wave of attacks on the USS Liberty, by Israeli jets followed by Israeli torpedo boats. USMC Capt. Scott Keller, in his 2004 book "Marine Pride: A Salute to America's Elite Fighting Force", summed up the fate of the crippled Liberty as it sat in international waters in the Mediterranean: "Her losses were grievous: 34 Americans killed and 171 wounded; when the smoke cleared there were over 821 rocket, cannon, and machine-gun holes in the ship."
All original material published here is the property of the writer who penned it. Stealing is not only frowned upon but will be dealt with by strong-armed men trained in the art of legal jujitsu. The views put forth here are not the views of any employer we know which is most unfortunate.
Recent Comments