Monday, March 19, 2012

The “Dangers” Of Obamacare

Obama’s Obamacare debacle continues. Not only did Obamacare rescue conservatism from disgrace, but its backlash gave us a Republican Congress. And its after effects are still coming. Indeed, even reliably liberal sources are finally noting that Obamacare may have problems. Now, in two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear the case, and all the indications are the court will strike down part of it. Let’s discuss!

In the past couple weeks, there have been a series of articles BY LEFTISTS pointing out that Obamacare may not be all it’s cracked up to be. They identify four “dangers”:
Danger One: Obama made a big deal of promising that “if you like your current plan, you’ll be able to keep it.” Yet, according to a CBO report, under the best-case scenario, 3-5 million people will lose their current plans. Under the CBO’s worst-case scenario, this number could be 20 million people. That would be 12% of people who are currently insured.

Of course, the reality is that this will be much worse. For one thing, historically, government “worst-case scenarios” are almost always understated by a factor of five. That would mean 60% is a more likely number. And there are several reason to believe that’s the case here. The CBO scores these things using a static model, meaning they don’t take into account how people will change their behavior over time. Instead, the CBO just does the math based on how the world is today. Thus, they did not factor in the increasing costs of policies, nor did they factor in that once companies see their competitors gaining an advantage by dumping their healthcare plans, more companies will follow.

The left is trying to downplay this by saying that businesses can’t really dump their coverage without upsetting their employees -- an interesting argument for the left to make, as they regularly claim businesses don’t care about employees. But of course, this isn’t true. Employers do things for financial reasons, not sentimentality, and financially it will be stupid not to dump the healthcare plan onto the government.

Danger Two: The Democrats promised Obamacare would reduce healthcare costs. Of course, it actually contained nothing to bring costs down, and costs have continued to soar. Recent polls show that 49% of people blame Obamacare for the rising cost of premiums! The left is whining that it’s unfair to blame Obamacare for this because Obamacare “wasn’t intended to bring down costs,” but that’s how they sold it. I guess they shouldn’t have lied?

Danger Three: They are starting to realize the law will not pay for itself, and the cuts in Medicare which were supposed to finance it aren’t happening. Whoops. Bankruptcy, here we come.

Danger Four: The Democrats bet heavily on the idea that “the more the public knows, the more they’ll like it.” But that’s not happening. Obamacare’s favorability sits around 41%. And the reason for this is obvious -- it hasn’t helped anyone, but its negative effects are already being seen everywhere: higher premiums, lost insurance, doctors quitting the business, higher taxes, etc. That’s the way the Democrats set it up to hide the true cost so the law could be passed. Now they are paying the price for that deception. Moreover, according to polls, in just one year, the number of people who know what the supposed benefits of Obamacare are (subsidies, can’t be turned down, etc.) has fallen by half. Basically, it’s now seen as all pain and no gain.
This is what the Democrats get for massaging the law and lying about it to get it passed. And now the law goes to the Supreme Court. In two weeks, the Court will hear the oral arguments in the case. They’ve scheduled an incredible SIX hours for oral argument over three days. They have not give a case this much time in 45 years. The implication is they plan to make a major decision, which bodes poorly for the Democrats, who will in all likelihood now lose the very thing they risked so much to pass.

Nevertheless, the left is trying to put on a brave face. Indeed, they are making all kinds of bizarre and contradictory points to explain why the various conservative justices might vote to keep Obamacare.

For example, the Washington Post argues that “Roberts is protective of the court’s reputation and sensitive to the perception that its decisions are politicized.” Thus,
he won’t want five Republican-appointed judges throwing out a law written by Democrats. Hardly. For one thing, if the Court cares about its reputation being apolitical, then it will do what it believes is correct about the law -- not what the Washington Post thinks needs to be done to please Democrats.

Moreover, this court has proven fearless at both making big decisions and making unpopular decisions. The left likes to claim that this is an “activist court” and to a degree they are right. This is not a court which respects the assertions of government that it has cart blanche power. Between this, the prior gun case, Citizens Union striking down campaign finance, and next year’s unexpected affirmative action case, this is clearly a court determined to start taking away the government’s power to control the rights the Constitution leaves to the people.

The left also argues that some of the other conservative justices might join the liberals because they have supported the use of the Commerce Clause to invade personal privacy before. Yeah, but... those were criminal cases, where conservatives have less love for the Constitution. Those also didn’t force anyone to take any affirmative actions, those laws only forbade people from doing things the Federal government wanted to make illegal. That’s a HUGE distinction.

It is interesting to note that the same leftists who are now predicting that anywhere from 1-3 of the conservative justices will jump ship are the same people who claimed that the lawsuit brought by the states was frivolous in the first place. Clearly, they had no idea what they were talking about then, and I expect they have no idea now. It seems clear to me that the Court will strike down the individual mandate, but not the rest, on a 5-4 vote.

Now here comes the part you won’t like. This COULD actually be bad for us. Here’s why. Because of the way conservatives have played the entire Obamacare debate, the public is outraged at the individual mandate, but oblivious to the rest. If the Supremes strike down the individual mandate, then the desire of the public to repeal the rest might fade. Thus, conservatives will need to pound away at the idea that the rest needs to go because it won’t work without the mandate.

On the other hand, this might actually make it easier to repeal and replace Obamacare because the public will already view the law as having been struck down by the Supremes. Thus, it shouldn’t be particularly controversial if Republicans start repealing the law’s parts piece by piece.

It’s hard to tell which way this will play. But no matter what happens, it is clear that Obamacare will continue to hurt the Democrats in November and possibly even the November after that.

78 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

Sorry about that folks. For some reason known only to Google, our blog was frozen for about 20 minutes... could be an alien abduction?

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, Can you describe this missing time? Do you feel like your blog has been probed?

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, Yes, a bright light flashed before my eyes and then nothing would publish. The next thing I knew, I was here! ;)

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, This is indeed bad news for the Donks! They drank the KoolAid because they believed that people would stop caring once the deed was done. Clearly, the people have not stopped caring and now they are paying the price.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court will do. I hope they strike the whole thing down, but I will defer to your legal judgment on that. I find it funny the same people who said this was frivolous are now trying to explain they will win a close decision.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, It was a stupid and arrogant thing for them to do. But it made sense in a way because in the past people's anger faded very quickly and something like this would pass in a couple months -- especially the way they put off the effects for the next 3-5 years.

But that didn't happen here. This time, it was too much. And I think what happened is that people just hated the arrogance, and they mixed this issue in with the massive hike in spending and the near bankruptcy of the country, and it became unforgivable. Also, I'm sure that everyone who has seen a doctor in the past year has already heard about the negative consequences.

As for the court, I'm quite confident they will strike down the individual mandate. This is just that bridge too far. But I can't say that they will strike down the whole law.

Doc Whoa said...

Also, I saw Denver got Manning. I guess that means they'll be getting rid of Tebow? Any thoughts?

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, Yeah, I saw that. I have many thoughts on it.

On the one hand, it was smart for Elway because that's just about the only way he was going to be able to be rid of Tebow. BUT I find it really crappy that rather than trying to train Tebow up, they're going to dump him and go with a guy who only has maybe three good years left in him?

I think it's been poorly handled and I think this will ultimately blow up on Denver when it turns out that Manning's neck can't take the pounding.

What do you think?

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, I had similar thoughts and I hope they trade him somewhere where he can develope into a top QB. I'd like to see him in Miami actually.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I've always liked the Dolphins and they are having a real problem finding a quarterback right now. Tebow might be a good fit. I understand Jacksonville wants him.

TJ said...

Andrew, I seem to remember reading something about a severability clause not being written into the law and if the individual mandate gets struck down, then the rest of the law wouldn't stand. Maybe I read it wrong.

On Tebow - what do you mean about Elway wanting to get rid of him? I don't follow football too much during the off season, so I haven't heard about this.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, Speaking as legal purist, this entire law SHOULD be struck down if any portion of it is found to be unconstitutional or illegal because the Democrats failed to include the severability clause. That's a clause that basically says, "if any part of this is found to be invalid, the rest shall continue without it." Without that, contracts and laws should be struck down when any portion of them is found to be invalid.

BUT, the courts aren't purists anymore -- not since the 1800s actually. And this is one of those things which the court will overlook. They shouldn't, but they will. So the absence of that clause will probably be ignored.

What the court will look to instead is a test based on whether or not the part they strike down as unconstitutional is so integral to making the law work that the rest can't continue without that part. In other words, if you remove that, does the rest of the law become meaningless?

In that regard, the individual mandate probably isn't important enough to make the whole law fail because there are many portions of the law which work without relying on that portion -- like coverage requirements and taxes, all of which could have been passed as stand-alone bills.

So my guess is that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate, but will leave the rest of the law untouched and will leave it to Congress to fix or repeal the law.

TJ said...

Thanks!

AndrewPrice said...

On Tebow, Behind the scenes it's been clear for some time that Elway (who is the general manager of the Broncos) does not like Tim Tebow much. He's never said exactly why, but the thinking is that Elway doesn't think Tebow will ever be a good quarterback. Or, more specifically, people think Elway wants someone who reminds Elway of Elway and Tebow does not do that. So there has been a lot of chatter about Elway wanting to draft a replacement.

But the fans would go insane if Denver drafted a new quarterback with Tebow still on the roster. Getting Manning is the best way to get over that because now Tebowmania will be replaced Manningmania and it should buy Elway the room he needs to dump Tebow so he doesn't have to face Tebowmania anymore. Then he can draft his new quarterback of the future this year or next without getting burned in effigy.

So now that they've gotten Peyton Manning, they are putting out the word that Tebow is for sale. Jacksonville and Miami are believed to be interested and possibly New England.

I personally think that kind of stinks. If anyone should be able to turn Tebow into a great QB, it should be Elway and I am disappointed that Elway didn't try. I understand it, but I don't like it.

AndrewPrice said...

You're welcome! :)

DUQ said...

Andrew, Before I read the article and comments, have you seen Drudge today? He has a headline: "Santorum endorses Romney". I almost fell out of my chair. This was a couple years ago where Santorum called Romney a conservative and endorsed him.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That would have been quite a shock. LOL!

I just checked and the current headline is "Sweden Goes Cashless", which I think used to be called bankrupt... unless I'm mistaken?! ;)

DUQ said...

Andrew, Interesting article. I've heard a lot about how a couple of the conservative justices may vote in favor of Obamacar.e It struck me as strange and now you've helped clarify that. I figured it was wishful thinking, but who knows?

I find it funny that Obamacare will end up destorying the Democrats and will ultimately be repealed or wiped out. Talk about a pyrhic victory.

In terms of getting rid fo the rest, I personally think once people think it's been repealed, it will be easy for the Republicans to wipe out the pieces, but we'll see.

DUQ said...

"Obamacare." not "Obamacar.e"

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It is a pyrrhic victory. They lost their majority, created the Tea Party and turned off most of middle America because of their arrogant handling of Obamacare and the powergrab it entailed. And I don't think the effects of that are finished yet, as seen by the fact that leftists are making the complaints above.

In terms of getting rid of the rest, I'm not sure which way it will shake out. It could go either way. But in either event, it's doable and the Supreme Court killing the mandate would be helpful. Otherwise, the Republicans need to find a way to get it through the Senate, which could be difficult unless they use reconciliation.

(Don't worry about the typos... :) )

tryanmax said...

DUQ, I saw that on Free Republic, where they are denouncing Drudge as "Romney's New Website" and accusing him of being misleading, even though the headline clearly says "SANTORUM ENDORSES ROMNEY! [1,504 DAYS AGO]" It makes me LOL!

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I think Obamacare will be totally struck down.

DUQ said...

tryanmax, I saw it as a half-joke and half serious in pointing out Santorum's hypocrisy using his own words.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, It's possible and I can't rule it out. But until I see more evidence to suggest that, I have my doubts.

This is one of those areas where I think politics will play into it. I think the Supremes know that with a Republican Congress and Senate and President likely, they can get away with a much narrower decision and leave the rest to the Congress and President to sort out.

What will be telling will be how much time they spend on the question of the missing severability clause and how integral this provision is. The more time they spend on that, the more like it will be that you're right. If I were the government, I would focus like mad on that portion of the case because the quality of lawyering really will make an impact on that issue -- whereas it probably won't affect the constitutionality question much.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, when I look at the devastation the Dems wrought upon themselves though ObamaCare, I can't help but think what a shame it is that conservatives couldn't take better advantage of it.

I'm not even suggesting that other people should have gotten into the race. I only wish that RWR hadn't gone coo-coo in pursuit of conservative "purity" and that the candidates hadn't run scorched-earth campaigns on one-another. It has really cheapened and confused the conservative brand.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The left has been attacking Drudge and Fox for a long time as biased. Now that conservatives are joining the attack, I think you'll see more of that. This completely fits Drudge's sense of humor and it's just like dozens of other things he's done in the past. So why attack him this time?

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

You aren't taking into account Roberts. What did Obama do that upset Roberts?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, This really was a moment to rise above the Democrats and become a permanent national ideology. But that's not how it played out because "conservative leaders" started infighting and having hissyfits. So rather than finishing off the Democrats and then rolling back decades of liberalism, we are instead slowly scaring away the very people we needed to make that happen.

Seriously, the country is verging on bankruptcy and the Democrats have tried to seize the healthcare system -- there has never been a better time for conservatism to shine. . .

. . . and we're talking about pornography. W.T.F.?!

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I've been thinking about that. On the one hand, it sounds like Roberts could be up for some major revenge here. And the left is trying to pre-shame him into supporting Obamacare by claiming that any vote against Obamacare will be seen as payback.

But on the other hand, I've rarely seen it that judges let those kinds of things influence them when they finally make decisions. Indeed, I've seen it over and over where judges who just positively HATE someone still cut them all the breaks that that's how they interpret the law.

(In other words, bias tends to be ideological rather than personal.)

So I honestly don't know how Roberts will react. I HOPE he goes the extra mile and slaps Obama down hard. But I'm just not sure he'll do that.

DUQ said...

Joel, I kept thinking about that too, that Robert is going to give a little payback because of what Obama did. If there was ever a president who deserved it, it's this jerk.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It is possible. Even the justices are human. And the left is playing this wrong by trying to tell Roberts that he will be viewed as political if he doesn't support Obamacare because that is simply telling him that no matter what he does, it will be viewed as political, so go ahead and do whatever you think is right.

But as I said above, this would be a big step for the court and I'm just not sure they'll take it when the don't need to. It's more likely they will rip Obamacare's guts out and then leave it to Congress to "fix."

T-Rav said...

It would have been nice if the leftists had thought of all these consequences before the bill was passed, huh? Oh well, I guess that would make them racists and/or conservatives.

Even if this were to make things harder for us, I still want to see the mandate struck down. ObamaCare is just that dangerous.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax and DUQ, I don't see this as hypocritical. At about that same time, Cain (who has now endorsed Gingrich) said something similar about Romney, for very understandable reasons: Compared to McCain, Romney was very much "the conservative in the race." While I haven't checked out Santorum's actual words, I do want to point out the difference between saying that and saying that a person is very conservative in themselves.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I agree. I want to see it struck down. And I don't know that it will necessarily be harder so long as we play it right. The key will be to make the case that the rest needs to go and then start nibbling away at it -- and there is a LOT that needs to go. This law does so many horrible things.

As for thinking of the consequences, they knew the consequences. They just didn't care because they assumed that once it was passed, people would simply accept it and move on, and then they could fix its various holes with further regulation and taxes.

I really believe the Democrats were caught blindsided by the fact the public didn't warm to this thing after it was passed.

DUQ said...

T-Rav, It is hypocritical though. Because Santorum didn't say "Romney is more conservative than McCain" and now "Romney is less conservative than I am." He said Romney is a conservative in 2008 and Romney is a big government liberal now. At no point has Santorum said, "yes, we're both conservatives, I'm just more conservative." He's repeatedly claimed to be the only conservative.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, T-Rav, tryanmax, Joel, etc.,

I don't care if what Santorum said is hypocritical or not. My beef is the attack on Drudge. This is no different than anything else Drudge normally does. It's his sense of humor, it's his way of pointing out inconsistencies. He's done this to everyone left and right. And for conservatives to use this to (again) smear a guy who is so important at presenting conservative stories that get buried by the MSM is stupid and asinine.

This is Team Santorum and their useful idiots continuing their rampage through the institutions of conservatism in a scorched earth policy which alone should disqualify him from ever being seen as a friend of conservatives -- much less a conservative himself.

Ed said...

Is this argument going to be broadcast anywhere like C-Span?

I hope they overturn the whole thing, but I don't have a lot of faith. I guess, I'll believe it when I see it.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, It won't be broadcast. Few courts do that and the Supreme Court bans cameras.

Many people have ended up looking quite foolish trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do. But there are some general rules they do follow which can usually give you clues. But in the end, there's just no way to know.

But I would think they will strike this down. In fact, reading the arguments the liberal "Supreme Court experts" are making just strengthens my belief because they are reaching for arguments. When one side is doing that, they will usually lose.

AndrewPrice said...

My mother has given her Tim Tebow verdict: "I hope they never win another game and I hope Tebow gets a chance somewhere else."

Joel Farnham said...

Any one who says that Drudge wants Romney over Santorum fails to take into account the extra effort Drudge has done to wave the red flag in front of the Santorum bulls.

Saying that Santorum backs Romney then putting it out that 1504 days ago is a RED FLAG. Now, anyone who backs Santorum is pissed.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, So you think Drudge did this just to get more publicity?

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I'm a big fan of severability clauses. Through long history, legislation has survived without them, but I think this time the Supreme Court will strike the entire law because of its ambiguity, confusion and accompanying lack of a severability clause. But I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. I'm 99% sure it will at least strike the mandate.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I hope so, but I wouldn't put money on it either way... it's just too hard to predict.

But like you, I am 99% sure they will strike down the mandate.

Ed said...

Andrew, Vegas has the Broncos as 10-1 to make the Superbowl now. I wonder if you can vote against?

Ed said...

Also, on Ricky, this isn't the first time he's attacked conservatives. He went after Fox and dozens of governors and politicians.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I just read that. They also have the over/under set at 10 wins. I'd take under on that one, they have a brutal record coming up.

The latest rumor, btw, is that New England wants him. That actually makes sense because Billechik wanted him in the draft, but Denver jumped up and grabbed him.

AndrewPrice said...

Team Beaker has been engaged in anti-conservative scorched earth. He's attacked Drudge, Fox, libertarians, Ron Paul, the rich, people with brains, a whole host of conservatives, Mormons, islanders, Puerto Ricans, etc.

He's currently down 15% in Illinois, which will be a good test for California.

ScyFyterry said...

I so hope you're right that they'll strike this down because I don't think the Republicans will be able to do it any other way.

Joel Farnham said...

Could be. Drudge is his own man. Any one who accuses Drudge of being partial to one candidate isn't paying attention.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I agree. Drudge charts his own course, without a doubt and I've never known him to play favorites among conservatives. But he also isn't one to pretend that a liar and a fool is anything but.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, I think there are serious reasons to doubt that the Republicans could get it done because of the Senate. I think we're going to have a smaller majority than expected maybe 53-55 Republicans, which isn't enough to do anything radical and isn't enough to overcome the filibuster which will absolutely become the democratic weapon of choice. So the more that can be done without having to get it through the Senate the better.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I agree attacking Drudge is just plain silly. I don't see any evidence from his site that he's been partial to any candidate. Moreover, considering everything he's done for the conservative movement over the years, this is a case of us "eating our own" if there ever was one.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's my view too. Drudge has been super important to the conservative cause by pointing out the news that the MSM won't. He was the first and remains the biggest at that. And he's not someone we should be attacking as conservatives because that only plays into the liberal attacks on conservatives.

As for his bias, I don't see it. He certainly favors conservatives, but I haven't seen him be unfair as between conservatives -- he just links to whatever is out there and I've never seen him suppress anything.

T-Rav said...

As to the ObamaCare thing, I think what's really got the Left upset and surprised is the fact that so many people are still paying attention to this. They were counting on maybe some initial opposition, but eventually the public would lose interest and they'd get their way, as usual. That sentiment about the law is still so strong is the one thing they didn't count on, and it shows. Incidentally, this is why I think that the whole Fluke brouhaha, however much our side might have botched it up, was still a loss for the Left, because it reminded people that ObamaCare's still out there, and that they still don't like it. There really is no such thing as good publicity in this case.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think that's the key thing: they thought that after they passed it, people would forget about it because that has happened in the past. Controversial bills get passed and most of the negative effects end up hidden, so they vanish from the public consciousness. Soon no one remembers or cares, except those directly affected, as the agencies do their thing and seize more power for the government. Meanwhile, interest groups appear who start fighting to protect the law.

The Democrats assumed the same would happen here. They figured that once it was passed, people would forget about it. And once the benefits started kicking in, interest groups would develop who would protect and promote it.

But that didn't happen here. People remain furious. And the Democrats have been paying a huge price for that... and the price isn't over yet.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. You're right about Fluke in that when you are the bad guy, publicity is a bad thing. And here the Democrats are reminding people of their take over of medicine and (even worse) they are pointing out that the people they are looking to support using taxpayer money are snotty, rich lawyer kids.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk anbd Andrew

I remember reading about six months to a year ago that the dems had forgat to put some clause in the bill that allowed the Court to carve out the sections that were unconstitional. I forget the legaleze but it was some clause that normally is in every bill but was not put in this one due to the arrogance to the dems in wanting to get it passed without debate.

Is this correct and why would the bill stand after the individual mandate. Also I thought the way this thing was worded without the mandate it could not pay for itself.

Individualist said...

Andrew saw your comment above. So the court will just ignore the fact that the sevarability clause is not there.

At what point does the precedent and the Constitution matter. I guess it doesn't when you can make it up as you go along.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That is correct. It's called the severability clause (meaning you can sever the parts) and I discuss in the comments above. (In response to TJ.)

In a general sense, the absence of a severability clause SHOULD be fatal, but courts tend to look the other way for most procedural errors. I suspect they will ignore it here.

What they will do is read it inverted (for lack of a better word). And rather than reading that as the provision that keeps the bill alive if some part of the bill is bad, they will instead read its absence as the right to decide if the rest of the bill should be struck down.

In other words, rather than reading it as a requirement for the bill to survive and therefore striking the bill because it is absent, they will instead read it's absence as permission to apply a "should the bill survive test" which would otherwise not have been allowed if the clause had been included.

Then they will perform that analysis by asking if the part they have struck down is sufficiently important to the rest of the bill to justify striking the rest down. At that point, I think they will decide that the rest of the bill is ok.

Make sense?

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, The Supreme Court is the highest power in the land and they can set their own rules. If they want to ignore precedent they have the power and no one can stop them.


In terms of ignoring the clause... not quite. What they'll do is interpret it differently. Let me see if I can explain this more clearly than I just did:

There are two ways to look at the clause.

Choice 1. If the clause is present, then it forbids the court from striking down the rest of the statute if the court strikes down a single piece.

OR

Choice 2. Without the clause, if any part gets struck down, then the whole thing must get struck down.


What the court will do is interpret the clause as 1 above. Then it will hold that the absence of the clause therefore means NOT that the whole thing MUST be struck down, but that the court MAY now strike the whole thing IF it finds it justified.

That's the easy way around striking the whole thing.

Tennessee Jed said...

out this evening, and because the article didn't come up at 4:00, pretty much missed it. Nice article and discussion.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jed. Yeah, our site froze for about 20 minutes. I'm not sure why. But it seems to be working 100% again.

tryanmax said...

Went dark again last night. Moving pains. So now I have belated responses.

On Santorum's 1500-day-old Romney endorsement: I just took it as humorous. But upon consideration, there is some hypocrisy in that Santorum has made a major flip (I won't say flip-flop, because he's only gone one way) while actively accusing Romney of being a flip-flopper. (Like Santorum, Romney has only flipped, never flopped that I can find.)

On severability clauses: I can see how justices may be justified in taking the absence of such a clause as a right to decide, though I will admit in advance that the logic is strained. If the presence of a clause explicitly allows severability, then it could be understood that the presence of a contrary clause is required to explicitly forbid severability. The absence of either clause could be interpreted as an intentional ambiguity meant to leave the door open for judicial interpretation.

Of course, in the present day, I think it highly unlikely that Congress would even consider including a "non-severability" clause in any piece of legislation and I don't have knowledge of whether such a clause has ever been employed.

I look forward to being torn apart by the plaintiff.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, There are definitely non-severability clauses in contracts. You don't normally see them, but some people set up precise arrangements and want to make sure the whole arrangement gets voided if they can't have exactly what they want. But I don't think I've seen them in legislation.

I actually don't think either interpretation is all that strained. It depends on whether or not you think the role of the court is to wipe out any contract/law that isn't perfect or if the role should be to just wipe out the parts that aren't legal and leave the rest to the parties to go fix? If the latter, then it makes sense to only wipe out the whole thing if it's all so entwined that you can't really separate the parts.

On Santorum, I think it is hypocritical, but then the man thrives on hypocrisy.

Speaking of Santorum... did you hear the big thing today? He said that the economy is not the number one issue and that unemployment isn't what matters -- values matter. Asshole.

tryanmax said...

Here we go again...

FACE...

...wait for it...

AndrewPrice said...

He's already trying to backtrack, but how many times are people going to pretend they don't see the obvious?

On the plus side, it sounds like Illinois will be a route for him. Maybe that will finally wake conservatives up?

tryanmax said...

PALM!

tryanmax said...

In all seriousness, I am of the belief that Santorum is right. Fix the culture and the rest will follow. However, if that is what Santorum truly believes, not only is he in the wrong line of work, but he should know that, as well.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The problem is this however: fix what culture? What do you mean by "fix"?

I agree that the "welfare culture" needs to end, but that's not what the people who say "fix the culture" are talking about. They are talking about imposing a version of the Christian 1950s that never was.

And that's where the problems start. How do we impose Christianity on people? Which sect? What about those pesky Jews and Muslims? What about people who just don't believe? Are we going to force gays to marry heterosexuals? What are you going to do about the ones who won't pretend they are straight? How do we force people to marry in any event? Is the government going to start deciding what can be published and what can't? And don't think I'm just talking about porn. Self-described Christians attack books like "Harry Potter" because "they promote witchcraft" and words with horrible, horrible swear words in them like Huck Fin.

What Santorum is talking about is trying to use government force and government money to reset the clock to the 1950s. All the force in the government's arsenal can't do that -- and trying will rip this country apart and I can guarantee you that Christians will lose.

tryanmax said...

Precisely! The "fix" is too ambiguous to administer in a top-down governmental fashion. I don't need to know what Santorum's fix might specifically be to know that it would be every bit as dangerous as ObamaCare. I've always considered it a rather leftist attitude which says, "We can't behave ourselves, we need government to restrain us!" but it has become increasingly prevalent among the so-called right. It's like you said, the holy-rollers are really a Democrat block, it's just they can't hold them and the gays at the same time.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think that is true. When you hear them speak, they have the same governmental-control-over-others-lives that the Democrats do, they just see themselves as "right wing" because the left pushed them away when they embraced gays and atheism. If the left hadn't done that, people like Rick would be happily on the left today.

Now, that's not to say that all religious conservatives are leftists -- certainly not. Most religious conservatives are very good at grasping that the government is not a tool for good and they don't seek to impose their views by force. But the self-described "Religious Right" is something different. They support the idea of using the government carrot and the government stick to get their particular version of Christianity imposed on everyone else -- they really see no problem with that, and they don't generally care about anything else.

And once you get into the question of the fix, this divide really becomes apparent because most people have no idea how a fix would even work -- but Rick's group very much does. They have a set of beliefs they want ensconced in law and they are disturbingly totalitarian.

Joel Farnham said...

Romney stating a belief conservatives can get behind.

Also, again with the complaint that Romney outspent Santorum 7 to 1 in Illinois. After hearing about the thirtieth regurgitation of this meme. I am wondering, if it is more that Santorum doesn't have people giving him money and Romney does? Sort of like, Santorum's money supply has dried up, Only the media won't note it because it undermines Santorum's campaign.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I saw this! This is another example of the "conservative instincts" that I think Romney is showing now. This isn't something you would expect from someone who is a moderate. A moderate would have tried to explain how their programs would make it easier for everyone to afford birth control. This was the right answer by Romney.

On the money issue, I think the media plays it up because they've been fighting for campaign finance reform for a long time because the left has more people power because of union supporters and free MSM support, so they want to be able to stop "rich people" from being able to promote conservative ideas with their own money.

Santorum has provided an easy avenue for that attack to continue and I think that's what why the MSM has been wailing so much about how poor Rick is the choice of conservatives but can't get a break because of the evil money Romney has blah blah.

In terms of where he's getting the money, Santorum has very few supporters -- financial or otherwise. I think it's amazing that almost no one who has ever worked with Santorum in the House or Senate (or anywhere else) has endorsed him. That's a huge clue.

And even on the money front, the very people he used to lobby for have given money to every other candidate (Paul, Newt, Romney, Obama) but not him. But that gets ignored because it doesn't fit the meme.

tryanmax said...

Ha! I had to laugh at the article for two reasons. First, that woman lobbed a softball and Romney hit it out of the park!

But second, I'm laughing because I still note a reluctance to praise Romney. It's not because of this story in particular, but because it treats the incident like it's a first. In reality, Romney has handled hecklers this way for quite some time now.

Patti said...

blogger is pissing me off more and more. ARG

Oh, wait, I had a point: the fine portion of obamacare. if businesses have 50 or more employees, but do not cover them, they will be fined $2000 per employee ( i think these numbers are right). my guess is that businesses will be paying that fine as it reduces their overhead.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Even when Romney does right, they still act like it's a surprise and was somehow a mistake or an anomaly. I take it Rush and the boys spent the day explaining away Santorum's economic statement?

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, Same here. Blogger really ticks me off at time.

I'm confident that as more and more businesses realize that it's so much cheaper just to fire people or dump them on the public system, they will all go to it. At some point, that will break the society-wide idea that healthcare is something employers provide and then the Democrats will move for a single payer plan.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, sorry, I didn't have a close ear on the radio today. I've been cleaning up the company website and not really listening.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, No problem. I'm pretty sure that most of them ignored it and the rest did their best to spin to mean something more conservative than even Reagan dared to dream.

Post a Comment