Obama Admin: "Excuse Me, I'm Sure I Didn't Hear You Right. Did You Really Really Just Call My Healthcare Law Unconstitutional?"

On Thursday, the Obama Administration went back to court to get a "clarification" of Judge Vinson's ruling striking down ObamaCare as unconstitutional. The states involved in the lawsuit have until next Thursday to respond. The Administration wants to know if it can continue implementing the law without getting a stay of Judge Vinson's order first. (Short answer: no.)

There has been a great deal of confusion on this point, however, from the states, the Administration, the lawyers involved, and especially the public. I've been meaning to pick up the issue, but just didn't have time until now. My father emailed me earlier in the week to ask if tanning salons will have to pay the tanning tax this year, since the law has been declared unconstitutional. (Answer: yes, if the IRS demands it; you can ask Wesley Snipes about messing around with the IRS . . . when he gets out of prison.)

First, though, click over to Aaron Worthing writing at Patterico's because he notes the glaring error in the Administration's motion for clarification. Worthing calls it "dishonesty" and I'll be straight with you: it's certainly misleading and if I wrote that motion I'd be waking up with cold sweats in the middle of the night for fear of getting sanctioned by the Court or a bar association.

Many people have asked about the effect of a declaratory judgment, like the one Judge Vinson made declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional. They also want to know why he didn't just issue an injunction. Particularly astute court-watchers want to know why the Obama Administration didn't just ask for a stay of Judge Vinson's decision when it was issued and make the whole issue go away until the appeal is resolved. I don't have any inside information on the motivations for any of these people, but in the course of explaining each of these judicial mechanisms I'll tell you what I think is going on here.

A declaratory judgment ("DJ") resolves rights between the parties of a lawsuit. In other words, it describes how they must treat each other going forward. An injunction, on the other hand, binds one or both parties to do or refrain from doing something in the future, and not just in relation to each other, but in relation to everyone. Judge Vinson didn't issue an injunction because of, in his own words:

a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. . . . There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.

Several important, but unspoken consequences followed from this decision. First, though a DJ is like an injunction it is not an injunction. An injunction binds all parties everywhere, which means that if ObamaCare were enjoined as unconstitutionally beyond the power of the federal government then it would be beyond the power of the federal government everywhere. Obama would have to halt implementation in all states because the federal government is a party. On the other hand a DJ just describes rights between the parties and so wouldn't impact implementation outside of the 26 plaintiff states (without further action).

Yes, I know that's basically a ridiculous distinction--either the law is constitutional or it is not constitutional; it can't be constitutional in some states and not others--but this is law. These separate mechanisms exist for separate purposes and there is only a presumption that government officials will comply with a DJ as if it were an injunction. (I'd say that the Obama Administration has rebutted the presumption.)

So the next step is for states or individuals who do not want to comply with ObamaCare regulations or mandates to refuse and dare the Administration to complain to the courts. That's what it did Thursday by means of its "motion for clarification." The motion (PDF) notes the inconsistent stands several states have made and is asking the judge if he really really meant it when he said the law was unconstitutionally beyond the power of the federal government. The Administration is hoping to get a de facto stay of the decision without actually having to go through the effort to get one. (I explain below why the Administration would want to avoid a stay motion.)

Okay, then after an injunction or after Judge Vinson rules on the motion to clarify, the Administration will have no choice, I'm sure, but to ask that his order be stayed pending appeal. A stay is a judicial mechanism that preserves the status quo while litigation ensues. (Hah. Pun.)

Why would Judge Vinson do it this way? Well, it means the Obama Administration was always going to have to come crawling back for at least one more round of abuse when states started suggesting that they didn't have to comply with Secretary Sebelius' demands. And I have no doubt the judge won't pull his punches, just as he didn't in his Tea Party-referencing decision (the original Tea Party).

To get a stay, the Administration will have to demonstrate (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood the it will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other parties in the proceeding; and (4) that the stay is in the public interest.

Anybody who read Judge Vinson's decision (PDF) on the merits want to guess how he will evaluate those factors when it comes to a stay? Expect an especially pointed comment on the "public interest."

That explains why the Administration was hesitant to ask for a stay right from the start, since it would pile one PR disaster on another. (If they'd been smart, they would have asked for the stay before the decision on the merits, like the Prop 8 proponents did. It got it out of the way fast, so they could then go right to the appellate court.) Now the Administration has to go back to Judge Vinson before it can seek a stay at the Eleventh Circuit. Which will be a whole 'nother gamble and potential PR disaster, since there's no way to know at this point which Circuit judges would get the motion.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:07 PM



Comments

1 a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.

hahahaha, obviously the judge has not been following the antics of this administration.

Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 12:09 PM (M9Ie6)

2 Yes, lord obama, king of all dumbAss and lies. And it will cost trillions of dollars we don't have."Free health care!". Not so much.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at February 19, 2011 12:10 PM (0fzsA)

3 Just don't call my signature legislation Obamacare. How about "freecareforeveryone" or "socialjusticecare?"

Posted by: Marie at February 19, 2011 12:10 PM (GuTKr)

4 The longer the admin drags it out, the better their chances to seat another SC justice.

Posted by: krakatoa at February 19, 2011 12:13 PM (a0Jhx)

5 No, seriously. Unconstitutional? Alright, one more time. You really, really mean unconstitutional?

Posted by: Obama at February 19, 2011 12:17 PM (r+kGG)

6 Really, really, really?

Posted by: Obama at February 19, 2011 12:17 PM (r+kGG)

7 Really, really, really, really?

Posted by: Obama at February 19, 2011 12:17 PM (r+kGG)

8 ExitQuestion:
If I like my Unconstitutional Law, I can keep my Unconstitutional Law?

Posted by: Barack Obama - Constitutional HollaBack Girl at February 19, 2011 12:18 PM (70J1E)

9 Did I Stutter?

Posted by: Judge Vinson at February 19, 2011 12:19 PM (b0BN0)

10 it's certainly misleading and if I wrote that motion I'd be waking up
with cold sweats in the middle of the night for fear of getting
sanctioned by the Court or a bar association.

Oh my lawd, you're so right. Best case scenario is that they get laughed out of court.

"Judge, can you clarify what you meant by the word 'immediately'?"

Although it is the Obama administration we're talking about, they may be acting in good faith with their confusion.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 19, 2011 12:19 PM (SKbeu)

11 I no has the empathee for thees deecísión.

Posted by: Justicia Sotomayor at February 19, 2011 12:22 PM (70J1E)

12 I figure most of the people who read this post and comment will be lawyers. So if anyone can shed some insight on the following question, it would be appreciated.
A bunch of people have file suit to see Obama's long form birth certificate. But all their suits were dismissed because they didn't have "standing."
Then some Army Doctor refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he didn't think Obama was a natrual born citizen. I figured this is a guy who would have standing because the long form birth certificate would be central to the feds proving their case against him.
But anyway recently I read he pled guilty/was convicted without said long form coming to light.
Any body have any insight as to why it wasn't produced or asked for?
Thanks.

Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 12:23 PM (Y2WVW)

13 You know, that kind of "request for clarification" sounds a lot like the kind you'd make if you were holding a gun to somebody's head. I wonder if Obama has something on Vinson that they're pressuring him with?

Posted by: Socratease at February 19, 2011 12:23 PM (C4vAK)

14 So this request by the administration for a stay will take place after the US House of Representatives passed a CR which deletes all funding for ObamaCare?

Pass the popcorn ...

Posted by: mrp at February 19, 2011 12:24 PM (HjPtV)

15 Now the Administration has to go back to Judge Vinson before it can seek
a stay at the Eleventh Circuit. Which will be a whole 'nother gamble
and potential PR disaster, since there's no way to know at this point
which Circuit judges would get the motion.

Really? Given the import of this case, I'm thinking the odds of getting a stay from the Eleventh Circuit is 100%.

The real question is why the Supremes don't just take it. I know they are all about process and ripness and availing themselves of the wisdom of the various appeals courts but the reality is, they and only they can and will settle this, so let's get to it

Posted by: DrewM. at February 19, 2011 12:25 PM (HicGG)

16 Clinton needed "is" to be redefined for him.

I sense a pattern.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at February 19, 2011 12:26 PM (SKbeu)

17 Several important, but unspoken consequences followed from this decision. First, though a DJ is like an injunction it is not an injunction. An injunction binds all parties everywhere, which means that if ObamaCare were enjoined as unconstitutionally beyond the power of the federal government then it would be beyond the power of the federal government everywhere. Obama would have to halt implementation in all states because the federal government is a party. On the other hand a DJ just describes rights between the parties and so wouldn't impact implementation outside of the 26 plaintiff states (without further action).
Yes, I know that's basically a ridiculous distinction--either the law is constitutional or it is not constitutional; it can't be constitutional in some states and not others--but this is law. These separate mechanisms exist for separate purposes and there is only a presumption that government officials will comply with a DJ as if it were an injunction. (I'd say that the Obama Administration has rebutted the presumption.)
Oh look more proof that lawyers and judges are worthless shits that don't actually give a fuck about the Constitution.

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2011 12:27 PM (oVQFe)

18 So the short version is that Obama fucked up in their legal proceedings and that now Judge Vinson has to bitch slap them some more? Am I reading that right Gabe?

Posted by: chemjeff at February 19, 2011 12:28 PM (GaLxs)

19 Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 12:23 PM (Y2WVW)

It wasn't a federal suit, it was a Court Martial. As far as the US military is concerned, Obama is the legal Commander in Chieff and therefore his orders are legal

Imagine the logical conclusion to this...an officer says do X to a soldier and the soldier says, "Your order is legal but first, show me proof you and everyone in your chain of command is legally authorized to give it".

How would that work out in the real world?


Posted by: DrewM. at February 19, 2011 12:29 PM (HicGG)

20 AWOL Wisconsin Senator Democrats are hiding at the McCormick Place Hotel in Chicago. In 28 more days, these wayward Democrats establish their Chicago residency ... and can then run for mayor !!

Posted by: Rahm Emanuel at February 19, 2011 12:29 PM (tvs2p)

21 FCC issues new "net neutrality" rule taking control of the internet.

Company sues, Supremes say "no can do" no authority for this; strikes rule. company says good.

FCC issues new rule doing same thing, ignores previous SCOTUS ruling.

Companies have sued again

Obama issues offshore drilling ban and pulls all permits

Oil companies sue

Judge says "BS no authority" issue permits now

Obama admin ignores ruling

Oil companies sue again

Same judge say hey assholes, issue permits now!

Obama still ignoring.

What will happen with this "clarification". Also, keep in mind that they were forced to ask for a clarification because one of the suing States (AK) said that based on the ruling they would not enforce that law.

Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 12:30 PM (M9Ie6)

22 Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 12:30 PM (M9Ie6)
Rashid Khalidi taught me the tactics of negotiating with the West.

Posted by: Barack Obama at February 19, 2011 12:33 PM (70J1E)

23 On last report, the entire Obama cabinet was seen fleeing to an undisclosed bulwark in Mountain View, California with their fingers in their ears yelling, "I can't hear you!".

Posted by: Mainlined Skittles Media at February 19, 2011 12:34 PM (Sos7/)

24 Has this group of community organizers done any legal proceeding according to the law?

A real application of the law will burn them every time, but we cannot expect that to happen given the current crop of bench legislators.

Posted by: SouthTexas at February 19, 2011 12:35 PM (pqTvj)

25 Fuck you Toonces. I. Will. Not. Comply.


Come get some, bitch.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd at February 19, 2011 12:35 PM (eCAn3)

26 Really? Given the import of this case, I'm thinking the odds of getting a stay from the Eleventh Circuit is 100%.

I agree, but the Admin is going to get smacked around by judges first. It's bad PR.

Posted by: Jahiliyya at February 19, 2011 12:35 PM (LO3jz)

27 Rahm Emanuel at February 19, 2011 12:29 PM (tvs2p)

Rahm, dude, they are right up your... uh... alley.


Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2011 12:35 PM (DjPot)

28 Guy's you've heard of Scottish law, are you aware we are living with Kenyan Law. Boils down to this, white man law is racist.

Posted by: Krugman: NOBEL at February 19, 2011 12:36 PM (fy8R6)

29 Whoops. That was me above writing on my bro's computer.

Also, Drew, if the Obama Admin were right that the DJ doesn't affect implementation it would never have to ask the Eleventh Circuit for a stay.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 19, 2011 12:36 PM (LO3jz)

30 Worthing calls it "dishonesty" and I'll be straight with you: it's certainly misleading
It was designed this way on purpose.
The last thing the Obama Administration legal team wanted to do was to lose another point to the plaintiffs. Thus, they picked an obviously bad argument to get a point of clarification from the judge without specifically asking for an injunction. Most likely an injunction would speed up the process of going to the SCOTUS, which they would like to avoid so this can be drawn out until after the law goes into effect.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 19, 2011 12:38 PM (tvs2p)

31 Fuck you Toonces. I. Will. Not. Comply.You just paying your old premiums? I don't know about you, but my H.Ins premiumswent up 85%+ the months after this shitstain signed the bill...
I don't want to comply, but I can't roll the dice on that bet.

Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2011 12:39 PM (70J1E)

32 Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 12:30 PM (M9Ie6)

I sense... a pattern. It's almost as if... no, nice Republicans don't call Obama lawless. That would make John Boehner cry, and once his spigot is open you need a shamwow to clean up the mess.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 19, 2011 12:40 PM (AZGON)

33 31

Fuck you Toonces. I. Will. Not. Comply.

You just
paying your old premiums? I don't know about you, but my H.Ins
premiumswent up 85%+ the months after this shitstain signed the bill...

I don't want to comply, but I can't roll the dice on that bet.



Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2011 12:39 PM (70J1E)

No, when my health coverage is shut down because of this shit, and they attempt to force me into some third world program, I ain't playing. I figure by then, the camps will be in operation, and I ain't living on my knees.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd at February 19, 2011 12:41 PM (eCAn3)

34 How would that work out in the real world?

WND says the Supremes will give the eligibility case another look, and Wise Latina and Kagan have to recuse themselves.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 12:43 PM (mHQ7T)

35 the obamunists will just keep dragging it out.....

Posted by: FU52 at February 19, 2011 12:44 PM (BSVaa)

36 Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 12:43 PM (mHQ7T)

WND says a lot of shit I wouldn't bet a penny on any of it.

I'm sure they are going to blow the lead off of Bill Clinton's ties to drug deals via Mena, Arkansas and the murder of Vince Foster any day now. Then they'll get him thrown out of office once and for all.

Keep hope alive!


Posted by: DrewM. at February 19, 2011 12:47 PM (HicGG)

37 Constitution? And that applies to me exactly how? I am a constitutional law professor and you should believe that because I say so.

Posted by: Barack Obama at February 19, 2011 12:50 PM (mka2b)

38 That may be a different case than Ed was talking about. It was retired Colonel Hollister, who is serves in the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve. He says a Chinese nationalist leader Sun Yat Sen was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed
on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent
Obama was born in Hawaii." He also, before he retired honorably, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because
President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest
marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were
at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate
the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 12:50 PM (mHQ7T)

39 if the Obama Admin were right that the DJ doesn't affect implementation it would never have to ask the Eleventh Circuit for a stay.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at February 19, 2011 12:36 PM (LO3jz)


Seems they just want to run out the clock as much as they can. They don't want to ask for a stay and they don't want Vinson to hold them in contempt.

Given how they deal with everything else, they might just not have a friggn' clue what to do next

Smartest administration ever!

Posted by: DrewM. at February 19, 2011 12:51 PM (HicGG)

40 Search Hillbuz for news that the Supreme Court will take up the question of the pResident's eligibility for the Presidency.

When at first we practice to deceive ...

Posted by: Interesting Connections at February 19, 2011 12:52 PM (+RLX4)

41 http://tinyurl.com/68fgcbk

Rivkin, lead attorney in the case, computers hacked. Highly organized.
If I were Vinson, I'd have bodyguards 24/7. Obama plays for keeps.

Posted by: Derak at February 19, 2011 12:54 PM (CjpKH)

42 Wouldn't the time to establish eligibility have been sometime BEFORE being in office for 2 years?

Plus the media has the right idea. Just badger Republicans into chanting, We believe Obama is a citizen and a Christian. Don't ask us how we know this, because we don't. We simply believe it.

Posted by: kansas at February 19, 2011 12:55 PM (mka2b)

43 Keep hope alive!

The Democratic House passed an unconstitutional healthcare bill they never read, so I don't trust them to vet their own nominee. Until Obama produces a birth certificate, then I will continue to "keep hope alive!" These are strange times we are living in.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 12:59 PM (mHQ7T)

44 Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2011 12:35 PM (DjPot)

Awesome hash.

Posted by: Holger at February 19, 2011 01:00 PM (YxGud)

45 Just badger Republicans into chanting, We believe Obama is a citizen and a Christian.

They even got to Sarah Palin, who fights back against everyone but those pesky Alaskan bloggers who drove her from office.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 01:01 PM (mHQ7T)

46 It depends on what the definition of "unconstitutional" is.

Posted by: Bill Obammy at February 19, 2011 01:04 PM (xs5wK)

47 Search Hillbuz for news that the Supreme Court will take up the question of the pResident's eligibility for the Presidency.

Hillary started the whole birther issue, and Bill kept it alive when he said he thought Obama would make a great president provided he was eligible. It was the primaries, though.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 01:06 PM (mHQ7T)

48 Things were much worse than this when that non-constitutional scholar Boooooosh was in charge.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 19, 2011 01:07 PM (eh+ki)

49 I ain't playing. I figure by then, the camps will be in operation, and I ain't living on my knees.
Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at February 19, 2011 01:07 PM (70J1E)

50 When at first we practice to deceive ...

Hillbuzz is making the case Obama hid his BC cuz his "real" name is Soda Back? Really??

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 01:13 PM (mHQ7T)

51 50 Hillbuzz is making the case Obama hid his BC cuz his "real" name is Soda Back? Really??
------------
Clearly, that time that Hillary tripped climbing into her aircraft was a secret message to the birthers apprising them of Barack Obama's ambition to be the next Gerald Ford.

Well, that's what *I* got from the Hillbuzz article...

Posted by: Anachronda at February 19, 2011 01:22 PM (6fER6)

52 Joe Klein has come out scolding the unions.

We are in strange times.

Posted by: CAC at February 19, 2011 01:29 PM (Gr1V1)

53 OT: Maybe it's from watching too much CSPAN, but I'd like to correct a mistake made last thread. The sponsor of H.R.1 (he gets the credit)is Hal Rogers, R-KY. This is because he and his committee actually drafted the bill.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 01:31 PM (yfJ6g)

54 To get a stay, the Administration will have to demonstrate (1)
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood the it will suffer
irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of a stay will
substantially injure the other parties in the proceeding; and (4) that
the stay is in the public interest.

One would suspect that the House defunding ObamaCare implementation might become a point of interest in that "irreparable harm" defense

Posted by: Frank G at February 19, 2011 01:32 PM (4X0aT)

55 52
Joe Klein has come out scolding the unions.





We are in strange times.

Posted by: CAC at February 19, 2011 01:29 PM (Gr1V1)

I got a theory about that, it would make sense only from the standpoint of "hey you guys are showing our hand waaaaay too blatantly".

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd at February 19, 2011 01:34 PM (eCAn3)

56 I got a theory about that, it
would make sense only from the standpoint of "hey you guys are showing
our hand waaaaay too blatantly".


Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd at February 19, 2011 01:34 PM (eCAn3)
It amounts to a cat scolding another for coughing up a hairball infront of everyone.

Posted by: Holger at February 19, 2011 01:35 PM (YxGud)

57 Posted by: Anachronda at February 19, 2011 01:22 PM (6fER6)

Well played!

Posted by: CAC at February 19, 2011 01:29 PM (Gr1V1)


Obama approval ratings at 45% (3 pt drop) and dispproval at 53% today.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 01:37 PM (mHQ7T)

58 Why would the judge bother issuing an injunction? Because, you know... unconstitutional? What more does he have to say?

Okay, we're dealing with Obama - "You talkin' to me?"

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at February 19, 2011 01:41 PM (viRuz)

59 Every time my FireFox plugin for audio shuts down it makes an annoying noise. Is there a remedy for this?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 19, 2011 01:42 PM (SJ6/3)

60 59
Every time my FireFox plugin for audio shuts down it makes an annoying noise. Is there a remedy for this?

Hit your computer keyboard with a wrench repeatedly. It worked for "fixing" Mir.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 19, 2011 01:44 PM (9hSKh)

61 I got a theory about that, it
would make sense only from the standpoint of "hey you guys are showing
our hand waaaaay too blatantly".


Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd at February 19, 2011 01:34 PM (eCAn3)
Bingo.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2011 01:45 PM (BvBKY)

62 I got a theory about that, it would make sense only from the standpoint
of "hey you guys are showing our hand waaaaay too blatantly".

Klein sees it going over so badly with the non-union public he fears one of Ace's 'preference cascades' against public-sector unions throughout the country.

Posted by: nickless at February 19, 2011 01:47 PM (MMC8r)

63 Obama Admin: "Excuse Me, I'm Sure I Didn't Hear You Right. Did You Really Really Just Call My Healthcare Law Unconstitutional?"

The ideal Vinson response: "Yes. Would you like the word spelled out for you?"

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at February 19, 2011 01:49 PM (nD3Pg)

64 As long as I am still able to get free glaucoma medication.

Posted by: Eric Cantor DIAF at February 19, 2011 01:52 PM (SJ6/3)

65 I didn't even know there were 11 circuit courts. I bet we could get that number down significantly. Eight seems about right.

Posted by: Axe Cop (formerly Truman North) at February 19, 2011 01:55 PM (8ay4x)

66 >>Klein sees it going over so badly with the non-union public he fears one of Ace's 'preference cascades' against public-sector unions throughout the country.

That horse has already left the barn. The Tea Party movement and the prevailing attitude last fall that government had grown to big, was too powerful and cost way too much didn't just disappear on election day. Liberals and even some of our limp wristed representatives in DC have been in denial about just how angry and determined to roll this abusive shit back really are.

What's going on in WI and in other states like Ohio is exactly what this last election was about. The tide has turned and the unions see the gravy train coming to an end. Last gasps of a dying movement.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 19, 2011 01:55 PM (TMB3S)

67 Obama approval ratings at 45% (3 pt drop) and dispproval at 53% today.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 01:37 PM (mHQ7T)
The first time his approval ratings took a hit was during the beer summit fiasco. I like to think it was the first time the persuadables saw him for who he really is.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2011 01:58 PM (BvBKY)

68 59
Every time my FireFox plugin for audio shuts down it makes an annoying noise. Is there a remedy for this?


Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 19, 2011 01:42 PM (SJ6/3)
Yes, yes there is.Jackass.

Posted by: Bill Gates at February 19, 2011 02:00 PM (BvBKY)

69 I've been trying to spot morons/ettes in the crowd in Madison. I was hoping HeatherRadish would have a sign with the Dems' short bus on it.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 19, 2011 02:02 PM (UOM48)

70 59 68 What I thought was a system noise was actually my cell phone running out of power. Imagine my chagrin.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 19, 2011 02:03 PM (SJ6/3)

71
okay, I have the House Republicans' logic distilled down to one short sentence:

We will submit Democrat-esque bills to the Democrat-led Senate because those types of bills are most likely to pass the upper chamber.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:04 PM (uFokq)

72 Obama makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

That SOB needs to be impeached, but it won't happen because the R leadership is too weak and the public too stupid.

I really don't know if we can fix the damage that's been done, even if we do stop Obamacare that's just the tip of the iceberg of criminality that is the Obama Administration.

Deliberate disguising of illegal campaign contributions, shutting down investigations into political allies by illegally firing investigators, smearing state and local politicians in the process of either defying Federal law on Immigration or attacking State lawmakers on employment law, administrative theft of bondholders' funds in the case of GM and hiding evidence of Toyota's innocence in another smear campaign, defiance of courts AND Congress in the case of the FCC's "neutrality" efforts, defiance of Congress in the case of the EPA, defiance of the courts in the cases of Oil Drilling permits, Obamacare, and probably others.

Oh and of course the assassination policy in the NSS (against US citizens without trial, not just foreign non-uniform combatants), the repeated bribes-for-offices scandals still being (poorly) investigated, the "teachers bailout" including Federal funds essentially going straight into Democrat coffers, we never did get a full investigation of the car dealership closings as part of the UAW bailout, early indications is that they were driven from the top and politically-motivated.

Oh, and the race-based prosecutorial policies of the DOJ, and the $20 billion BP deal that was probably an unconstitutional tax levied on a specific company by the administration, though we don't know what actually happened in that backroom deal, and the oil drilling contracts that had already been properly done that were canceled by Salazar, and I don't know if Obama's interference in Honduras and Kenya were actually impeachable but they were damned-well sickening, and did anyone ever get to the bottom of DHS investigating the political background of requestors and ignoring requests by Republicans?

I'm sure there's more, but that should be enough to get started.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 19, 2011 02:05 PM (bxiXv)

73 The first time his approval ratings took a hit was during the beer
summit fiasco. I like to think it was the first time the persuadables
saw him for who he really is.

COOTUS just isn't that sexy.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 19, 2011 02:05 PM (mHQ7T)

74 71

okay, I have the House Republicans' logic distilled down to one short sentence:

We
will submit Democrat-esque bills to the Democrat-led Senate because
those types of bills are most likely to pass the upper chamber.


Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:04 PM (uFokq)
Fellow Repubs, Let us not antagonize our Dem brethern and sistern! Our job is to pass legislation, not stand for principles or something. We might embarrass a Dem or two if they had to explain why they would not vote for a limited budget. Besides as we are told daily by the MBM, those jackasses that voted us in won't remember a thing in 2011.
Be right back, I have a K Street fund raiser to get to.

Posted by: Hrothgar _ Speaker of the Outhouse at February 19, 2011 02:13 PM (DCpHZ)

75 The tepid air guy is on NARN.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 19, 2011 02:14 PM (SJ6/3)

76 72
Obama makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

I said the exact, same thing to my husband last night.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 19, 2011 02:15 PM (UOM48)

77 Can't continue implementing the law without a stay on Vinson's declaration that the law is unconstitutional?
POTUS interruptus, lol.

Posted by: Speller at February 19, 2011 02:15 PM (J74Py)

78 Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 19, 2011 02:05 PM (bxiXv)
Minor points, but you left out firing of Various IGs and the illegitimacy of the Isreali settlements as a formal US position by the illustrious Hillary C. Both of these rattle my cage!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 02:17 PM (DCpHZ)

79
The Stupid Party thinks we're stupid.

How's that for a nice-kick-in-the-pants-howdy-do?

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:17 PM (uFokq)

80 79

The Stupid Party thinks knows we're stupid.

How's that for a nice-kick-in-the-pants-howdy-do?



Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:17 PM (uFokq)
FIFY.How many R(INO) incumbents got returned to their positions?

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 02:19 PM (DCpHZ)

81 76
72
Obama makes Nixon look like a choir boy. I said the exact, same thing to my husband last night.

When you look back, many Democrats make Nixon look like a choir boy. It wouldn't surprise me if, when Watergate was boiling, he said to people, "What's the big deal, Jack [Kennedy] got away with worse than this! And don't even talk to me about Lyndon."

Posted by: Bill Gates at February 19, 2011 02:21 PM (BvBKY)

82 Microsock off.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2011 02:21 PM (BvBKY)

83
Too many, evidently.

And Marco Rubio isn't exactly kicking ass and taking names, either.

I expected more. And so did you. And you. And...

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:21 PM (uFokq)

84 79 The Stupid Party thinks we're stupid.How's that for a nice-kick-in-the-pants-howdy-do?
If you're talking about Cantor, he's both right and wrong depending on who you ask, what you're measuring against, and how you're measuring.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 02:22 PM (yfJ6g)

85
I'm referring to this:

"“I don’t think the chairman of the full committee likes the CR very
much. If he did he wouldn’t have been required to write it three times,”
joked Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) in the closing debate. And many
on the committee believe that its initial bill, making $32 billion in
cuts, was a far more realistic target given the makeup of the Senate."

--from Politco, and Laurie David's Muff or whatever

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:25 PM (uFokq)

86 Merovign, what about giving away Britain's defense secrets? The general foreign policy of dissing our allies and sucking up to our enemies?
We are barely scratching the surface.

Posted by: real joe at February 19, 2011 02:26 PM (w7Lv+)

87 That's the irony of the Watergate scandal... Nixon didn't do anything the dems weren't doing or had been done before.. it's just the press and the dems were actually out to get him, and had been since his time in the house.
The press ignored Kennedy stealing Chicago , they ignored LBJ stealing districts in Texas. All fun and games..
The dems and the press have been in cahoots and actively shaping the narrative and persecuting the GOP and conservatives for 30 years.
Thankfully, with the Tea Party upwelling.... most average people are saying enough... we want our country back. No more games!

Posted by: yip at February 19, 2011 02:28 PM (SyLEU)

88 O/T:

The National Christmas tree which has stood behind the White House since Jimmy Carter the first was in office, just snapped and blew over. Winds of change, they are a-blowing.

Posted by: Downscaled Upscale at February 19, 2011 02:28 PM (IhHdM)

89
goin' green!

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:31 PM (uFokq)

90 h/t, iowahawk via twitter:

"Can't make this up. US Rep David Wu (D-OR) deemed mentally ill by own staff;
drunk tiger suit pix surface"

http://tinyurl.com/4jco26l

This is a must-click for the pic at the story.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2011 02:31 PM (BvBKY)

91 84

79 The Stupid Party thinks we're stupid.

How's that for a nice-kick-in-the-pants-howdy-do?


If you're talking about Cantor, he's both right and wrong depending
on who you ask, what you're measuring against, and how you're measuring.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 02:22 PM (yfJ6g)
Well, I just don't see how giving up all your negotiating points on day one is a successful strategy.
I can understand, technically, the short remaining budget year, but if our repub leaders are too stupid to figure that out in advance and give us a pro-rated number up front, then I don't think they will be smart enough to do anything else they promised.
They should have CUT, CUT, DEFUNDED, and CUT the budget and forced the Senate to produce an alternative Senate version that would then be discussed in public (and gracious me, maybe even debated) -- you know with people making pertinent points and all to justify their positions.
Yes, I know a CR is a lousy way to do business, but it allows the bloated bureaucracy to limp along stealing our money as usual, but providing the critical services we always hear about so the heartless Repubs actually have a mechanism at their disposal to keep the government running while the few Constitutionally inclined Rs in Congress try and re-establish the concept of PRINCIPLES in the wasteland of DC.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 02:32 PM (DCpHZ)

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2011 02:34 PM (BvBKY)

93 Holger, I did include the IGs, I just called them investigators and not IGs.

People, the Obama Scandal List has 1700 items on it. I don't know if there's a Pixy Post Size Limit, but if there is I'm sure that list would exceed it.

And while Obama pissing all over Israel (or Britain for that matter) is catastrophically stupid, immoral and wrong, I don't think it's impeachable.

If he actually intervened in Honduras re: trying to reinstall a dictator, that might be.

Not saying my list was a legal document or anything, just there was a reason I didn't include some things.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 19, 2011 02:35 PM (bxiXv)

94 Easy to see the logic. Asking for a clarification is a genius move. It buys time at no cost. When this fails they will wait as long as possible and then ask the same judge for a stay, then if they can come up with way they will ask for some sort of rehearing to keep the case there as long as possible. Repeat at every appeal step. Any attempt to kick it on up to the Supremes will be fought with every bit of clever lawyering and threat they can come up with.

Give this mess time to pass out enough bennies, change everyone's insurance policies, get the tax revenue flowing in and no court will stop it. By Jan 2013 he hopes enough is in place no POTUS would dare sign a repeal, even if by some miracle he either doesn't get reelected or they get a hand picked (media and Operation Chaos in reverse) RINO replacement.

Posted by: John Morris at February 19, 2011 02:35 PM (41hR3)

95 Trust me, that last post was important.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2011 02:35 PM (BvBKY)

96 The National Christmas tree which has stood behind the White House since
Jimmy Carter the first was in office, just snapped and blew over. Winds
of change, they are a-blowing.

Probably committed suicide. Couldn't stand another Carter, and a muzzie at that.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 19, 2011 02:36 PM (UOM48)

97
Some of you don't understand why others keep pushing the Republicans rightward and holding them to high standards.

The reason is because if we didn't, they'd revert back to their center-right/spending ways. In other words, we're doing what the Republicans in the House should be doing to the Democrats: Giving them 10lbs of sand and expecting them to fill a 5lb bag.

If we didn't, the Republicans would put 1lb of sand in the bag and sweep the other 4lbs under the rug.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:37 PM (uFokq)

98 Isn't the "lack of high standards" essentially "no standards"?

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 02:39 PM (DCpHZ)

99 85 LaTourette (an appropriator himself) is right about Rogers, and no one can deny it. He lead the effort to restrict the cuts initially*, he was against further cuts, and he led the primary effort against the further cuts yesterday (along w/ TP freshmen opposed to finite cuts). At least Ryan and his friend Hensarling get to write the FY '12 budget, and they're giving some ideas as to what's in it. Now we just have to hope the Top 3 (since Rep. H is #4) don't stifle those two.
As for LaTourette, though, I saw himoffer his amendment about how his little pet projects were being cut and he was just airing more dirting laundry. Appropriations has been having a family feud on the House floor for the entire week (whenever I've turned to CSPAN), andBoehner needs to knock their silly little heads together.
*Which Ryan voted for every amendment offering further cuts yesterday.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 02:40 PM (yfJ6g)

100
Isn't the "lack of high standards" essentially "no standards"?

Two sides of the same coin.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:41 PM (uFokq)

101 91 84 79 Well, I just don't see how giving up all your negotiating points on day one is a successful strategy. [...]
Here's what they did:
"Well, right, so the score at that time, off of the only baseline that existed, and I know this takes me a second to explain it, was the President’s budget, because the Democrats didn’t do a budget. And then, it did save $100 billion dollars, going to those…you see, the problem is there’s two conflicting points in there. ’08 levels, $100 billion. ’08 levels, if they were enacted at the beginning of the year, off of the Obama budget, would have saved $100 billion dollars. ’08 levels now don’t save that much money for two reasons. We’re halfway through the fiscal year, and our Senate colleagues, Mitch McConnell and others, did a good job in the lame duck by defeating the Obama omnibus appropriations bill at his levels, knocked us down to a flat funding C.R., and that already started saving us some money. So we went in a lame duck down to 2010 levels from 2011, saving right there, and then the Democrats blew spending out for the next five months, ending in March, costing a lot. So we went down to those levels, doesn’t clearly save as much, and now we’re going to go even deeper than we would have done. We actually annualize, and we will save $170 billion dollars with what we’re doing this week, because we’re going back and getting the spending, the money that was already spent over the first five months of the year. So if you want to take this out for what we would have saved, annualize it over the whole year, $170 billion dollars."

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 02:42 PM (yfJ6g)

102
Which brings us to the wise words of John Paul:

He's a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody!

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:43 PM (uFokq)

103

You see, Congress is like a car. And that car has been driven into a ditch...

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 02:46 PM (uFokq)

104 BULLSHIT! A Dec Action is a form of a statutory remedy BINDING at adjudication! In the case at hand, Judge Vinson's ruling was conclusive and legally binding. PERIOD. In re. Subject matter Obamacare, Vinson ruled it to be unconstitutional in toto.
If an appellate court were to deny review, shall the Obama administration not be constrained by Judge Vinson's ruling on point relative to the constitutionality of the statute? Or, as what appears to be argued here, some sort of final, final clarification be sought in order to establish its constitutionality. Of course not and ipso facto. The fricking thing is unconstitutional so application of same would be in contravention of Judge Vinson's decision rendered in conformance at federal law pursuant to statutory authority availed him in jurisdiction.
FUCK.

Posted by: journolist at February 19, 2011 02:49 PM (nIn4R)

105 Over at Gateway, Jim Hoft, Andrew Breitbart, and Brad Thor were in Rockford, IL on the hunt for the Dem fleebaggers. Love the name.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 19, 2011 02:49 PM (UOM48)

106 Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 02:42 PM (yfJ6g)
Ah, if only this were the after action description of the final budget signed by the Zero, rather than the pre-action pontification about what the intent, not the reality, was going to be!
If my feeble attempt at math is correct one half of 170 billion is 85 billion. 85 does not equal 61!

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 02:51 PM (DCpHZ)

107 Is there an official Obama Scandal List with 1700 items on it? Where is it? Link?

Posted by: Axe Cop at February 19, 2011 02:54 PM (8ay4x)

108 As I read that "motion to clarify", the Judge declares a key part of the bill unconstitutional - and then further says the whole tangled, inter-twined ball of string cannot be unraveled by the judiciary. Team Obama comes back and says: 'clearly you are too stupid to unravel it, you teabagger - we can do it in a motion, read this'.

That motion seems like a real mistake.

Posted by: Jean at February 19, 2011 02:57 PM (CPefM)

109 I read the motion. It is a big f*&king deal!

Posted by: Joey Biden at February 19, 2011 02:59 PM (YZISw)

110 The dems and the press have been in cahoots and actively shaping the narrative and persecuting the GOP and conservatives for 30 years.
That puts you at 1980. You're at least a couple decades off. They've been at it longer than that.

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2011 03:03 PM (oVQFe)

111 Over at Michelle Malkin's blog the other day, birthers were claiming that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are also ineliigible to run for POTUS, because their parents, though legalimmigrants and US residents, weren't yet US citizens when their sonswere born here.
Whodathunkit--- a "nation of immigrants", we call ourselves, but some want to keep the American-born children of legal immigrants from being able to run for POTUS.
reason: it's that "dual loyalty" thing --- apparently the children of those who fled Castro's Cuba will be torn by conflicted loyalty to...Castro's Cuba.
Makes perfect sense --- if by "perfect sense" you mean "crazier than a shithouse rat".

Posted by: effinayright at February 19, 2011 03:04 PM (CfQ+e)

112 on the hunt for the Dem fleebaggers.

I love it. Oh, the symbolism. On a day that started with lawmakers having worked into the wee hours to attempt to cut spending, the national christmas tree is broken, snapped at the base, lying in ruin at the steps to the White House, while elected officials flee to another state to avoid performing their elected duties.

Best line of the movie Falcon and the Snowman, "This is not America".

Posted by: Downscaled Upscale at February 19, 2011 03:07 PM (IhHdM)

113
...a "nation of immigrants", we call ourselves

We do?

I call America a Nation of Laws.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 03:07 PM (uFokq)

114 Hey, you know what? I am super happy that the House GOP has decided to try to ask the Democratic Senate and the President to please, please cut 0.016 of the budget.
Or, in other words, the amount we borrow in approximately 22 days.

Posted by: Axe Cop at February 19, 2011 03:07 PM (8ay4x)

115 110 Holy Shit they've been at it probably forever but at least since Korea. I'm not old enough to remember that but I do remember dad ranting about the washington post and Walter Cronkite in the mid-60s.
We determined that there wasn't any anti-military bias until Korea--which is the first war we fought the communists. McCarthy was right as proved by the Verona papers. Journalism and Hollywood et al were communists. They still are but now call themselves progressives or liberals--same fucking thing.

Posted by: dagny at February 19, 2011 03:08 PM (XW2az)

116 Totally the reason I bled, sweat and sobbed for the entirety of 2009 and 2010: 0.016 of what Obama wants.

Posted by: Axe Cop at February 19, 2011 03:09 PM (8ay4x)

117 I snuck away from my family to go to the March 21-22 Obamacare protests, spending upwards of $500 I didn't have and putting 2000 miles on my ancient car. And the fuckers can manage to beg the Democrats for 0.016 of what Obama wants.

Posted by: Axe Cop at February 19, 2011 03:10 PM (8ay4x)

118 ...a trip my kids haven't forgiven me for to this day. For 0.016.

Posted by: Axe Cop at February 19, 2011 03:11 PM (8ay4x)

119 Yeah, I'm getting tired of that nation of immigrant thing. I'm no immigrant. What if your family was here long before the revolution? Are you still considered the descendant of immigrants?

Posted by: dagny at February 19, 2011 03:11 PM (XW2az)

120 Fuck them all.

Posted by: Axe Cop at February 19, 2011 03:11 PM (8ay4x)

121 110
The dems and the press have been in cahoots and actively shaping the narrative and persecuting the GOP and conservatives for 30 years.
That puts you at 1980. You're at least a couple decades off. They've been at it longer than that.
Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2011 03:03 PM (oVQFe)
To add to this, I'll put it at the Nixon Kennedy debates. With television the press realized that the weaker candidate could actually come off seeming stronger to the public. Now they no longer had to just report facts, but they could utilize the perception and people wouldn't always call their bullshit because its what they "saw" as well, or what others told them they saw.

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2011 03:11 PM (oVQFe)

122 The biggest obstacle to saving the USA is not the Democrats.

It's the GOP Fat Farts.

Posted by: eman:People's Front of Wisconsin at February 19, 2011 03:12 PM (VmVG3)

123
Interesting way to look at it, Axel.

Woo hoo, the Republicans might have reduced Obama's reckless spending agenda to 98.4% its original size!

woo hooooooo!

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 03:12 PM (uFokq)

124 Calling the US-born kids of legal immigrants ineligible for POTUS is stupid.

Posted by: eman:People's Front of Wisconsin at February 19, 2011 03:16 PM (VmVG3)

125 70 59 68 What I thought was a system noise was actually my cell phone running out of power. Imagine my chagrin.
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 19, 2011 02:03 PM (SJ6/3)
On the way to taking my car in to find out what the odd clanking was whenever it rained, some nice person got my attention to tell me that the buckle on my raincoat was closed on the outside of thedoor.
Imagine my chagrin

Posted by: dagny at February 19, 2011 03:19 PM (XW2az)

126
yeah, it is stupid

that's why the whole thing stinks of trollism at Michelle's blog.

The Left loves to bring up the fact Michelle's parents were illegals or whatever. So this sounds like another cute way to take a dig at her supposed hypocrisy.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at February 19, 2011 03:20 PM (uFokq)

127 The Left loves to bring up the fact Michelle's parents were illegals or
whatever. So this sounds like another cute way to take a dig at her
supposed hypocrisy.

Her parents were not illegals. They immigrated to the U.S. legally and became naturalized citizens. Her grandfather fought with MacArthur in the Philippines.

Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 03:26 PM (M9Ie6)

128 106 Ah, if only this were the after action description of the final budget signed by the Zero, rather than the pre-action pontification about what the intent, not the reality, was going to be!If my feeble attempt at math is correct one half of 170 billion is 85 billion. 85 does not equal 61!

Technically the $58B produced $100B in savings, which was admitted by pretty much everyone-- including the freshmen. So it's a question of cuts versus savings and what you're using as the baseline. They've been measuring from requests, not necessarily always levels. The other factor is that the CBO estimate is constantly changing. Overall, then, Cantor is technically right (and so is Ryan here), but Cantor is wrong in saying that's real and not savings...and I'm starting to feel like a pretzel. I've had this explained to me a number of times and the arcane math was even admitted to be technically correct by the other members of the RSC.
Then you have the issue of whether the cuts are $61B or $66B. Which is it?I would also like to know how the total number of cuts made by amendment changed the CR. It seems they haven't been added into the final numbers.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 03:26 PM (yfJ6g)

129 Even I understand what this Judge Vinson stated in his decision and the WH can't?

And I pretend to be a lawyer while watching law shows on television. What mooks in the WH.

Posted by: mpfs at February 19, 2011 03:33 PM (3TjSM)

130 128 Okay, so $170B is what they would have saved and what they actually saved is closer to slightly above $100B as compared to Obama's request. That's what was said.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 03:34 PM (yfJ6g)

131 And I pretend to be a lawyer while watching law shows on television. What mooks in the WH.
Posted by: mpfs at February 19, 2011 03:33 PM (3TjSM)
But they're actual lawyers. Its the kind of profession that results in someone going "That depends on what you're meaning of the word 'is' is" They're so super smart and knowledgeable of everything. You need that law degree so you can know that words written in plain english do not actually mean what is written and there is actually a nuance to them that only they can see.

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2011 03:55 PM (oVQFe)

132 Thought so. It's $66B as compared to 2010 enacted levels, which the Rs measuring according to budget requests.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 19, 2011 04:12 PM (yfJ6g)

133 If they'd been smart, they would have asked for the stay before the decision on the merits
-------------
But we all know they are neither smart nor experienced. Barry and the kids from Chicago have shown a level of ineptitude in the courts you wouldn't think possible even from this lackluster band 'o Bozos.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 19, 2011 04:12 PM (Do528)

134 101 ...So if you want to take this out for what we would have saved, annualize it over the whole year, $170 billion dollars."
-----------
What will you do with the money you've saved?

Posted by: Cal Worthington at February 19, 2011 04:12 PM (6fER6)

135 Re comment 90 and David Wu

David Wu is the only Democrat in Oregon to mention that he is opposed to illegal immigration and expressed support for actually, you know, enforcing the laws. This sounds like personal destruction strategy against him by the party.

And re Michelle Malkin

She's mentioned that her parents were still legally Filipinos when she was born, and would be in favor of rewriting/reinterpreting the laws so that she would have been born Filipino. Our laws would then match most of the world, so you'd think the Dems would be in favor of this.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at February 19, 2011 04:16 PM (h35AH)

136 She's mentioned that her parents were still legally Filipinos when she was born, and would be in favor of rewriting/reinterpreting the laws so that she would have been born Filipino.

The Supremes would have to overturn Wong Kim
Ark for that to happen



But contrary to popular belief there has never been any kind of a ruling for illegal migrant children born in the U.S.

Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 04:22 PM (M9Ie6)

137 19Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 12:23 PM (Y2WVW)It wasn't a federal suit, it was a Court Martial. As far as the US military is concerned, Obama is the legal Commander in Chieff and therefore his orders are legal Imagine the logical conclusion to this...an officer says do X to a soldier and the soldier says, "Your order is legal but first, show me proof you and everyone in your chain of command is legally authorized to give it". How would that work out in the real world?
Posted by: DrewM. at February 19, 2011 12:29 PM (HicGG)
Thanks for the response DrewM.
I know it was a Courts Martial. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. So yeah, I know the proceedures are different. For example, you don't need a unanimous vote for a conviction. Also, your jurors will all be officers, unless you request a mixed enlisted/officer jury.
As far as your objection, I have never heard in the past of a soldier doing what you described. However, if it did happen, here is what would happen in the real world. Theofficer (LTC)gives the order. The soldier refuses it due to the claim that the officer giving it isnot actually an officer*. The officer then offers the soldier action under Article 15 (non judicial punishment). The soldier refuses, and demands his right to special or general courts martial. The courts martial is held and the soldier offers his defense, i.e., the LTC is an imposter, not really an officer commisioned by the President. At this point, the prosecution enters into evidence a copy of the West Point commison bestowed upon said officer when he graduated West Point, and the orders apointing said officer to command of the unit this soldier is in. This proves that the officer is indeed a properly commisoned officer, and is in charge of the unit that this soldier is a member of, and the soldiers defense fails. Conviction for failure to follow the orders follows.
Easy peasy.
Which is pretty much what I anticipated happening in the court martial of the Army Doctor I mentioned. I thought that at his court martial, basically, the above would happen, except that then the struggle would be over did the long form birth certificate have to be produced in order to prove the prosecutions case. I actually thought that maybe the long form would have to be produced, or the case would have to be dropped for lack of evidence. Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe the military judge said that the short form constituted proof of citizenship. But I just don't know.
Anyway, if anyone has any further insight, I'd appreciate it.


*(The fact that everyone in the chain is authorized to give it as well is probably not required. A battalion commander can give an order directly to a private, skipping the company and platoon leader. Also, an order can be issued by an officer, and conveyed someone else (such as an NCO or other person) who is not in the chain of command, and as long as the soldier recieves said order, it is valid. Orders don't have to be done in person.)

Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 04:57 PM (Y2WVW)

138 I know absolutely knowing about Rep. Jones except he is supposedlya member of both the Liberty and Tea Party Caucuses.
His ACU ratings for the last two years are 65/83. Is hard to imagine a Tea Party oriented conservative with ratings like that.

That being said, I noted that his district had been traditionally a Dem district when he took it in. So perhaps he being in a Dem gerrymandered district has to vote more often with the Dems.

Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 05:34 PM (M9Ie6)

139 Oops wrong thread

Posted by: Vic at February 19, 2011 05:34 PM (M9Ie6)

140 Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 04:57 PM (Y2WVW)
Do the Nuremburg trials figure here? IIRC, carrying out an illegal order just because your superiors gave the order is not a valid excuse.

Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 05:41 PM (DCpHZ)

141 I strenuously object, Judge Vinson!

Posted by: Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway at February 19, 2011 06:01 PM (swuwV)

142 107 Is there an official Obama Scandal List with 1700 items on it? Where is it? Link? Posted by: Axe Cop at February 19, 2011 02:54 PM (8ay4x)
Sorry, I had to go and see crazy killers wandering around in the park.Obama Scandal List - the 1700That big list includes a lot of small crap like flubs, mis-statements, and even more stuff from Obama's past and the past of his associates. So "1700 Obama scandals" would not be an accurate count 'cause it's all surrounding him but not all about him.Short List of impeachable offensesAlso an imperfect list, some of these are clearly not impeachable but it's all interesting reading.I'd consider these starting points for research more than definitive lists.You could make a career out of cataloging the crimes of this man and his cronies. It's really quite amazing, I think he's out-stripped Woodrow Wilson and Nixon *added* *together*.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 19, 2011 06:55 PM (bxiXv)

143 First, though, click over to Aaron Worthing writing at Patterico's because he notes the glaring error in the Administration's motion for clarification. Worthing calls it "dishonesty" and I'll be straight with you: it's certainly misleading and if I wrote that motion I'd be waking up with cold sweats in the middle of the night for fear of getting sanctioned by the Court or a bar association.

This administration has contempt for us and our institutions and everything our nation stands for. The fact that they pushed ObamaCare after this ruling - acting as if nothing had happened - was clear enough and should have drawn legal rebuke from Judge Vinson, but this new step even further in their asinine filing ought to leave no questions. This is contempt with every third world, America-hating fiber of the Precedent and his goons. This is shitting all over our nation. This is a public demonstration of lawlessness from an adminsitration that is currently the recipient of another contempt citation.
Enough already. It is time that someone started putting these third world scumbags in jail. They are thumbing their noses at us, laughing the whole time. Even as they ignore our courts or make a mockery of them, they are also knee deep in trying to foment riots in Wisconsin (something that is so far beyond Watergate, in size and seriousness) that it really boggles the mind.
Can we have just a taste of law in this nation? Just a taste? This administration needs to start spending time in jail. Not only should they be there to pay for their blatant lawbreaking, but they need to be put somewhere where they are limited in the further damage they can do.
And this all comes straight from the top. It is the Indonesian who has been pushing all of this crap. He is behind the idiocy at Justice, the idiocy at DHS, the idiocy at Organizing for Indonesia that is renting thugs for the astroturfed mobs in Madison.
It's well beyond time that this lawbreaking, America-hating, fraction-uncomprehending piece of shit to be put behind bars. He was never even eligible for the job to begin with. Having let him go scot-free on that was the start of allowing him to break any damn law he felt like ... and he has.
How much more do people have to see? How much more will America allow itself to be abused like this ... by a mind-numbing retard with the nastiest disposition one can imagine?

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 19, 2011 07:48 PM (N49h9)

144 140Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 04:57 PM (Y2WVW)Do the Nuremburg trials figure here? IIRC, carrying out an illegal order just because your superiors gave the order is not a valid excuse.
Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 05:41 PM (DCpHZ)
Hmmm... a legal point that is beyond my ability to address. But I don't think it applies here, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, it is not the substance of the order that is illegal in these above arguements and comments, it is the status of the person giving the orders.
Your hypothetical relates to orders that on their face are illegal, no matter who issues them.
For example, if the order you recieved was to torture and kill children, it wouldn't matter if the person who gave you that order was a legitimate officer, or a person impersonating an officer. That would be an illegal order.
If a legitimate officer gave you a legalorder to do something, you would have to obey it. However, if an illegitimate officer gave you an order to do something, and the legitimacy of the officer was cast into question, it is possible that refusing to carry out this order would be permissable.

Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 08:35 PM (Y2WVW)

145 One further thing...
140Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 04:57 PM (Y2WVW)Do the Nuremburg trials figure here? IIRC, carrying out an illegal order just because your superiors gave the order is not a valid excuse.
Posted by: Hrothgar at February 19, 2011 05:41 PM (DCpHZ)
UCMJ states that if you carry out an illegal order that the average soldier would know was illegal, you are guilty of carrying out an illegal order.
However, the problem with this standard is that there are many soldiers who are statistically below average. (Not a dig, just a statistical fact. All soldiers can't be above average.)
So if you happen to be a patriotic, good hearted, but intellectually below average soldier who receives an illegal order that a smart soldier would know is illegal, but a intellectually below average soldier wouldnt know, and you carry it out, ...well... you're fucked.
You are subject to being seconded guessed by the lawyers and chain of command. All of whom are smarter than you. And prosecuted by them.

Posted by: ed at February 19, 2011 08:43 PM (Y2WVW)

146 Perhaps the Supremes might look at this judgement and say "Yep, no need to look any further at this, well done, next case".

Posted by: drfredc at February 20, 2011 03:56 AM (puRnk)

147 The Administration wants to know if it can continue implementing the law without getting a stay of Judge Vinson's order first.

This, from an alleged Constitutional scholar.

Posted by: Fat Bald & Sassy at February 20, 2011 10:04 AM (3PyqP)

148 Too bad for Palpatine Obama but the constitutions the law of the land and thats so mr despot emporer

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 20, 2011 10:54 AM (vA9ld)

149 FYI: I just wanted to mention that there has been a time when a president, Andrew Jackson, ignored a Supreme Court ruling.

Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee i.e. the removal laws were held to be invalid. Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation to be illegal, unconstitutional, and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson said famously, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."

And the "Trail of Tears" was the result.

Posted by: Rosemary at February 21, 2011 10:00 PM (9+NIn)

150 coach handbags
coach handbag
Lv Handbag
gucci handbag
Lv bag
coach handbags
coach handbag
coach outlet stores
coach Purses coach handbags outlet.
coach bags

Posted by: coach handbags at February 24, 2011 08:30 AM (2fkgV)

151 Great post, look at your blog every time there is a new harvest, thanks for sharing

Posted by: chen20081 at March 14, 2011 03:14 AM (61+D/)

152 That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

Posted by: DIY garden gate plans at March 26, 2011 11:50 PM (uUsYL)

153 Every time I see blogs as good as this I KNOW I should stop surfing and start working on mine!

Posted by: wholesale Sailor Suits at April 02, 2011 05:38 AM (h9WVl)

154 It even changes the weather in the world.

Posted by: Cheap True Religion Outlet at May 19, 2011 05:40 AM (dGOSL)

155 Replica Chanel Bags
Chanel Shopping Bags


Chanel Handbags
Chanel Coco Bags
Chanel Sunglasses
Chanel Watches


Cheap Chanel Wholesale Chanel Cambon bags

Posted by: gucci sungalsses at May 23, 2011 04:46 AM (7aXKs)

156
Tory Burch

Posted by: tory burch outlet at June 21, 2011 05:51 AM (hsAcF)

157 Buy longchamp bags,Cheap Longchamp Bags on our longchamp outlet,discount longchamp online with cheapest price longchamp sale.

Posted by: longchamp outet at June 23, 2011 03:44 AM (BkYfj)

158 so long article! newport cigarettes , wholesale newport 100 cigarettes , marlboro cigarettes packs

Posted by: franklinew at July 04, 2011 03:46 AM (FmDqk)

159 Thanks for your articles.Thanks for your sharing.Just for you,Just have a look.Hope you will like wholesale new Chaussures Christian Louboutin and chaussures louboutin paris
find it here http://www.chaussurescl.org

Posted by: Christian Louboutin Schuhe at July 10, 2011 10:06 PM (1eo3j)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1381 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.1185 seconds, 168 records returned.
Page size 112 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat