Here is my big thought on the recent noteworthy study that only seems to diss conservatives.
I agree with Joe in the thread and others that this election is shaping up to be a lot like 2004, which means the election will be close and decided in Ohio and Florida. It might also mean that the campaign with the best turnout machine prevails. (Good news for Obama.) It might also mean that Rubio might actually make a difference as the VP candidate. (Those candidates usually–as in 2004–don’t make a significant difference.)
I’m still waiting for Obamacare supporters to become born-again supporters of judicial restraint, and so able to distinguish between the unanimous decision of BROWN and the judicial legislation from divided and politicized Courts in ROE and BUSH v. GORE. There is an argument that the principle of limitation that would overturn the mandate and so probably the law as a whole shouldn’t come from a 5-4 vote. But because no one is making that argument with “authenticity” that comes from recognizing the error that was ROE, I’m for striking down on the narrowest possible basis.
March 31st, 2012 | 5:55 pm
Absent the individual mandate, Obamacare’s combination of community rating, guaranteed issue, and insurance coverage mandates very likely cause a “death spiral” of premium increases and exits from the insurance market (until one gets sick) that destroy privately held insurance (either individual or employer-provided.) It might have done that even under the mandate. I suspect that the long-term point of the plan was to chip away at the private insurance market so that it could be drowned in a bath tub by some later president. But getting rid of the mandate and keeping guaranteed issue, etc. would speed up that process. That doesn’t mean that the Supremes should strike down what they would otherwise consider to be constitutional regulations because the writers of the legislation only expected them to be workable under a federal individual insurance mandate. It does mean that striking down the mandate and upholding guaranteed issue, ect. will almost certainly push “private” health insurance into crisis fairly quickly.
I don’t see that they should strike down the Obamcare tax increases, insurance subsidies or Medicaid expansion.
March 31st, 2012 | 6:21 pm
Rubio? Nope, I don’t think so. Neither Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal will ever be either Veep or POTUS. Here’s why. . .
Both men’s parents were foreign nationals, they were not U.S. citizens so neither man is a natural born citizen.
Don’t bother arguing that point – it is acknowledged that they were born on U.S. soil and are, therefore, citizens but they are not natural born citizens as required by Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Your arguments will fail because we do not agree with your arguments and never will. Ergo, if either man gets the nod to run on a presidential ticket, two things will happen. . .
First, lawsuits will fly and we will totally embarass the GOP as the hypocrites they are and. . .
Second, we (and trust me there are many, many ‘we’s who feel this way) will vote third party or stay home enmasse. That will hand the election to the Democrats. So, my fellow conservatives, be careful of what you wish for as it may bite you in the ass. Choose wisely.
March 31st, 2012 | 6:25 pm
“Second, we (and trust me there are many, many ‘we’s who feel this way) will vote third party or stay home enmasse.”
Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Now excuse me, I’m expected back on planet Earth.
March 31st, 2012 | 6:36 pm
Clever reparte, Pete, but meaningless. Do you not understand the implications of a significant percentage of the base voting 3rd party or not voting at all in the presidential election because of an ineligible candidate on the ticket? Why take that chance? There are other good candidates – just don’t pick Rubio or Jindal.
March 31st, 2012 | 7:25 pm
Pete, Pete, lighten up, take a breath! Two fingers of bourbon over ice, and gather yourself. But, please, remember politics and ethics/morality go hand in hand. We really shouldn’t vote against our principles.
March 31st, 2012 | 8:14 pm
Bob, I’m not against anyone voting for whatever principles they think they have.
prsmith, I’m all for the birther-first remnant voting whatever way they want. I’m also for the Republican Party ignoring their theories of presidential eligibility. I don’t think they rise to the level of meriting scorn from major public figures (me on the other hand…) There are lots of fringe elements. If either Jindal or Rubio are the right choice, they will bring in more votes than will be lost from the die hard WND constituency.
March 31st, 2012 | 9:22 pm
“I’m also for the Republican Party ignoring their theories of presidential eligibility.”
————-
For that, I label you a traitor. You do understand why.
“If either Jindal or Rubio are the right choice, they will bring in more votes than will be lost from the die hard WND constituency.”
——————-
Possibly but I still maintain that finding other qualified candidates makes more sense than losing the millions of votes such a choice would cost. But you do it your way.
April 1st, 2012 | 7:14 am
prsmith, if what you write is true, how were our first presidents, through Jackson, at least, elibible for the office? None of their parents had been U.S. citizens at the time of their birth and those men were merely citizens because they had been born on the soil that became the U.S..
Try thinking instead of feeling your politics.
April 1st, 2012 | 8:53 am
Kate, I sure hope you are not being serious, least you let your ignorance show. Perhaps you’re just”feeling” your way around this blog. Now ,if you were being serious perhaps you should actually read the constitution for the answer to your question.
I’m with prsmith. I’ll have to stay home or maybe vote third party with a Rubio or Jindal VP, as they are not eligible.
April 1st, 2012 | 9:46 am
“For that, I label you a traitor.”
Heavens to Betsy.
“than losing the millions of votes such a choice would cost” I think you should have said tens of millions. If you are going to exaggerate the size of the dead end birther-first constituency, go all the way.
April 1st, 2012 | 2:26 pm
@PLawler-
Peter, I don’t think I agree with your point about judicial restraint and Obamacare. Just because a case is decided 5-4 doesn’t mean it was done out of “judicial activism,” and just because a case is decided unanimously doesn’t mean it was done out of “judicial restraint.” Sure, a 5-4 or a plurality decision may hold less weight, and it may be a telltale sign of judicial activism, but it’s by no means a necessary implication. There was a long stretch of extreme judicial activism during the Warren Court and many of those cases were decided unanimously- including one of the big busing cases, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg. I am actually not in full agreement with Alex Bickel et. al. that “judicial activism” is necessarily a bad thing either, but that’s a different beef
April 1st, 2012 | 8:12 pm
I read the Constitution and prefer to understand it as it was written and not with a nativist bias. Where does it describe “natural born” as defined above by prsmith? Jinadal and Rubio are “natural born” by US legal definition.
April 2nd, 2012 | 8:22 am
Mr. Wolfe, What you say about SWANN etc. is true. But someone what might add that the Court shouldn’t and probably can’t, over the long run, decide what needs to be decided by an election–such as the election of 1936 or 1860. I actually don’t think that the mandate issues are anywhere near as important as those surrounding slavery, the founding of the welfare state, or abortion etc. But still, the effectual truth of striking down will be to politicize the Court still more.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact