dagblog - Comments for "Would the GOP Defend Obamacare all the Way to the Supreme Court?"

There is no rule of law that

NCD — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:47:11 +0000

In reply to But ... But ... What about

There is no rule of law that said Obama's DOJ had to appeal DADT after they had defended it and lost before this federal court. The judge threw it out as a violation of constitutional rights. The judge said in the ruling that the gov't could not prove how DADT gained anything for the military or the gov't, or how removing it would do any harm.

But ... But ... What about

MrSmith1 — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:18:15 +0000

In reply to Of course the GOP wouldn't.

But ... But ... What about the RULE OF LAW we used to hear so much about? LOLOL

Of course the GOP wouldn't.

Michael Maiello — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:05:47 +0000

In reply to Would the GOP Defend Obamacare all the Way to the Supreme Court?

Of course the GOP wouldn't. Instead they would praise the justices for upholding the constitution by striking down an unconstitutional law, claim victory, and move on. But, you know, they seem to like winning.

Agree. Obama could have let

NCD — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:49:09 +0000

In reply to Right. They had 60 days.

Agree. Obama could have let this case die with this ruling, and no one would even remember it in 2012. Meanwhile, as the judge in this case pointed out, the Army would not have to give waivers to felons and high school dropouts to fill the ranks while kicking out qualified and experienced personnel who have served their nation honorably.

Unless Obama gets the Senate to kill DADT pronto once the Pentagon report comes in Dec. 1st, he has lost me.

It is in fact not at all clear his much ballyhooed health care reform will not die if the GOP gains control of the House and blocks funding, or if the courts throw out the mandate to buy private insurance. It may be few would miss the health reform if it evaporated into smoke, yet if Obama had pushed a single payer plan that competed pricewise with private care the GOP would never have been able to kill it, even the teabaggers wold have been lining up to get into the plan to save a buck!

Gov. Arnold refused to appeal

NCD — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:40:11 +0000

In reply to Fair enough, NCD. But

Gov. Arnold refused to appeal a federal judges decision on the anti-gay Prop 8:

Both men have declined to appeal Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that found the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated gay Californians' civil rights. link

And as reported in my blog on this yesterday, 26 Democratic Senators sent a letter to Obama to skip an appeal and get it over with, so to speak, with the bullshit called DADT. Pelosi said as much today.

As to history, you can look it up if you want, but it should be readily apparent after 8 years of George W. Bush, and his pre-emptive war of aggression in Iraq, his unique use of the 14th amendment SCOTUS case to stop the vote counting in 2000, his legislation interfering with the care of Teri Schiavo, his OK on torture of prisoners, his bail out of Wall Street, etc that history is no impediment to action by Republicans.

Obama just proves again he is too stuck on procedure, and too indecisive and hesitant to take action recommended to him by his own party's leaders, and as President deliver the goods on his avowed principles.

Right. They had 60 days.

CVille Dem — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:31:37 +0000

In reply to Would the GOP Defend Obamacare all the Way to the Supreme Court?

Right. They had 60 days. They could have done some political work to get this lined up on the right side of this issue. How many days did they wait? 5? This is ridiculous! So all of a sudden, "process" is the most important thing!

These people are pathetically incompetent at the "art" of politics (which is a great overstatement considering the bullshit that passes for politics these days). It is as though they are supremely naive, and hope against hope that everyone will realize that they are the "nice ones" and so will just go with them instead of the "bad" ones.

Let's face it, the "bad ones" are the ones that people gravitate to unless the "good ones" show that they are cooler and smarter, and have the bad ones behind the 8 ball.

Fair enough, NCD. But

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:11:33 +0000

In reply to Would the GOP Defend Obamacare all the Way to the Supreme Court?

Fair enough, NCD. But shouldn't the standard be that the Republicans ought to defend such a law?

Rather than hypotheticals, can we talk about history? Have previous Republican administrations refused to defend laws they disliked when ruled un-Constitutional, or not? Is your criticism that Obama is playing by rules that the other side has already changed, or by rules that you expect that they will change at some point in the future?