The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

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

    By NCD on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 7:24pm |

    As lawsuits on Obama's health care law brought by the GOP are allowed to progress, and with the recognition the reforms only go into full force in 2014, one wonders, that if Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, and blocked, would a Republican President 'go to the mat' to defend Obamacare? 

    A law which the GOP doesn't believe in? All with the justification that 'well, we always defend laws', even the socialist ones we want to kill ASAP? You are kidding me right? No way would the GOP defend Obamacare once it is ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge! It would be over and out.

    Of course, a Republican President would probably get enough Democrats to vote to repeal it, so the court cases would just be backup anyway, icing on the GOP cake.

    The Obama DOJ is defending the DADT law which was just blocked by a federal judge. Obama all the while proclaiming it will 'end on his watch'. If it does, it won't be because of his DOJ, which is arguing against ending DADT ('well, we always defend laws'), and it won't happen if the GOP can stop it.

    Comments

    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?


    by Doctor Cleveland on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 8:11pm

    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.

     


    by NCD on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:40pm

    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.

     

     


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 8:31pm

    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!


    by NCD on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:49pm

    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.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:05am

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


    by MrSmith1 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 3:18pm

    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.


    by NCD on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 4:47pm