Yes, today is Groundhog Day! The day when Punxsutawney Phil emerges from his hole, takes a look around at the world, then lets us know whether or not things will be getting better anytime soon.
So when the groundhog pops his head up, just what is he going to see in this strange world of Hope n' Change? He'll see the fruits of the president's "engagement" policy as countries throughout the Mideast boil over with revolutionary fervor and an uncertain future. He'll hear a president who refuses to acknowledge the seriousness of our debt crisis, and plans to borrow even more money in the belief that solar shingle research will usher in a new age of 1950's Soviet-style greatness.
And the groundhog will learn that a federal judge has ruled that Obamacare is an unconstitutional power grab because it forces citizens to buy a government-designated product...and that the Obama administration has granted over 700 wink-wink nudge-nudge waivers to politically-connected groups (40% of whom are unions), despite Mr. Obama's declaration that the system will only work if everyone is forced to pay.
The groundhog will see that House Republicans can create and pass bills...but those bills will subsequently be killed by Harry Reid in the Senate, or with a single stroke of Barack Obama's veto pen, essentially meaning no substantive problems can be solved until after the 2012 elections.
All of which would explain why the groundhog might sigh deeply, retreat back into his hole, pick up a revolver, and...and...shoot the TV.
Wait - what did you think he did?
-
19 comments:
Thanks for mentioning the other two judges that have already ruled that the Healthcare reform bill was perfectly legal. That brings the score to 2 for 2, as this thing makes its way to the supreme court. It's ok though, most conservatives find it difficult to factually present data that might contradict their opinions.
Also, if the Repubs in congress can't get a bill through the Senate or the White House, then the obviously can't pass a bill. So poor little Phil is just going to see the same lame duck as he's seen for the past two years. Not to much of a change.
Phil's biggest issue today, w/ trying to see ANY thing is the 18" of snow and ice that buried him yesterday...
As far as finding it difficult to present data, how about O'Care NOT covering everyone (even all the "20 million" currently 'not covered); NOT lowering prices; NOT allowing you to keep your own Dr; NOT improving care, especially for the elderly; driving Dr.s and Big Pharma out of biz, etc, etc...
Plain and simple, it's BAD
Most of the current "data" in Obamacare is still buried in the thousands of pages, most of which have nothing to do with "health care".
I'm sure Phil didn't see any sign of global warming. As a matter of fact, maybe we should blame the decrease in Hummer sales for this last destructive storm that swiped half the country.
StupidLiberal - as the court cases go up the chain the upper courts sometimes overrule the lower courts whose judges aren't as versed or experienced in law as the upper court judges (in theory). Some judges even rule a certain way just to get it out of their jurisdiction so it can get to a higher court and be decided. That may have been the case here with lower court judges recognizing what they ruled wasn't going to amount to a lasting decision. So, they ruled it being one way or the other knowing full well the petitioning party would take it to the next level.
Often times, cases are filed in courts where the petitioning party knows how a particular judge will most likely rule, so they file the suit in that jurisdiction. Imagine that...jurist shopping.
Some judges play politics, too. If they are liberals, they tend to rule liberally. If they are conservatives, they tend to follow the legislative spirit and intent of the law...as it should be. I know of one USSC Justice who was never even on the bench as a judge. What was your position on this appointment? (sarc)
So, your tied score doesn't really mean anything, in the whole scheme, at this point. No reason to mention it. I suppose if two courts had ruled Obamacare unconstitutional and then two courts had ruled afterwards that it was constitutional, you would be the first one to point out the two decisions in your favor without even the slightest mention of the two against?
Stupid Liberal,
For the past 2 years the left has controlled the house, senate and Whitehouse. How is that "lame duck"? It's ok though; most leftists find it difficult to factually present data that might contradict their narrative. Additionally, this isn’t a sporting event, and the points are not equal. A leftist judge declaring a bill legal does not make it Constitutional.
BTW: a conservative wants to keep things the same and a liberal wants to change the status quo. Therefore, in the strictest sense, you are the conservative and I am the liberal. (Credit – Milton Friedman). There is nothing “liberal” or liberating about the left. Quite the opposite is true. The left would have the masses tightly controlled by the ruling elite. Freedoms and LIBERTY do not fit well in that equation.
Readers- Thanks for saving me the trouble of explaining the court system, the legislative system, and reality to Stupid Liberal. Well done!
Rush did a good job of explaining why the recent federal judge's ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional outweighs and supercedes previous findings that it is constitutional. The short version is that the "no" always wins.
Of course SCOTUS will have the last word if it's not repealed by then, but for now, Obama is required to abide by the federal judge's ruling. He isn't which is contempt of court or something like that. He can't be arrested but the fact of his contempt for this ruling should be made public.
Arrested? Arrested? My, my, my...music to my ears...for it is criminal what we have allowed him and his croonies have done to this nation. The Fundemental changes made to the USA will be (if ever) a long time correcting themselves. The Progressive Socialists have driven us down to third world status and we allowed it happen since the Wilson years. The ONLY shining light in the entire parade of politicos was Ronnie and he had to fight them in the congress...America guarantees nothing but the "chance" to get ahead. Those who think that they are "entitled" to the fruits of other people's labors are nothing more than leeches and as such, should be plucked off and allowed to go their way. But, as leeches do...they lie dormant until an unsuspecting,fat host presents itself and they again propell themselves to life. food for thought.
Parasites SUCK!
Be they eight legged, six, or even just two...
Hey Stupid liberal. It doesn't matter how many judges rule in favor of Marxism. As soon as it goes to the Supreme Court, it will be killed by the Judges that Obama made enemies in his first SOTU. Boy for a puppet that won the Nobel Piece Prize (no I didn't miss spell it because it is a piece of something)Obama sure makes a lot of enemies in the world. Thugs, Liberals and Terrorist hated America before Obama but at least America was respected. Now it is the punchline of every joke from Iran to Russia to the E. U. thanks to your little god.
Angry Hoosier Dad: Unfortunately, I believe the judge ruled that things are to continue as is (with the bill in force) pending appeal. The justice department is questioning the right of the lower court (Florida District Court) to “stand in judgment of the federal government”. This is exactly what the 10th Amendment is about! States DO have the right to stand in judgment when the actions of the Federal Government are unconstitutional!
"Stupid Liberal"
Redundant.
Stupid Liberal... What an apt Nom de Plume...
Why Liberalism is a Psychological Disorder (This clearly fits here)
It can be explained with great clarity why the kind of liberalism being displayed by Barack Obama and his liberal minions can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do.
A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do.
And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and overtaxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.
It is clear the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
The roots of liberalism – and its obvious associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains, and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious…
Don't feed the lefty trolls.
Man, I didn't see one valid, or sane, arguement in any of those 12 posts. Way to stick it to me, guys!
Bobo: You're completely right. Just because one court upholds a law as constitutional it doesn't neccesarily mean it is. The reverse also works. Just because a law is deemed unconstitutional in a court of law, doesn't neccesarily make it so.It makes me wonder though, why Stil didn't mention that this might also be of interest to our buddy, Phil.
Chuck: Chuck! Buddy! What the heck are you even talking about? If conservatives want to keep things the same, and libs why are the working to CHANGE things back to the way they used to be? Doesn't really make much sense to me.
Also, the last thing I want is Big Brother knocking on my door, believe you me, all I want is an government that takes the ethical action to make healthcare available to me as a tax paying citizen. Previous to Obama's healthcare reform, I wasn't able to get any sort of care due to a pre-existing liver condition that I've had since I was a teen. Since, the healthcare reform of the past two years, I have been able to get care because of this legislation.
As to the lame duck thing, I would say that besides healthcare reform, our federal legislature has been completely effective at being cowed by a Repub minority. It was only when you anti-choice midwestern yahoos voted these Tea Party neanderthals into office did they wise up and get to work on real change, like repealing DADT.
Necron99: Wait....who's crazy?
An answer to the question of why the statists so love the idea of government as mommy and daddy is simply that they know that SOMEONE has to be in charge, and they expect it will be THEM. If the citizenry are to be sheep, someone has to guide the herd. Who better for that job than a POWER JUNKIE? That's what it's all about--who gets the POWER? Adults want to hold power over themselves alone, power junkies want power over you and me and everyone else they can rule. Pure and simple.
How and when did it become the government's job to control health care? When the power junkies got together enough booger-eatin' morons who don't want to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.
Stupid Liberal- As someone pointed out, feeding trolls tends to be a mistake. But being a compassionate conservative, I always hope a few liberals can be saved through reasoned discourse... until proven otherwise.
This being the case, I'll note that actually a law is considered unconstitutional when so held by the court...unless that ruling is successfully appealed in a higher court. See, this is why we have "courts" and "judges" who make "decisions."
I'm sorry about your liver condition and am sympathetic to the difficulties and expenses associated with previously existing conditions - and it's something I know about. But your argument seems to be that everyone's rates should skyrocket to cover you...and since your president is handing out waivers like mad, that suggests that the real goal is to stick the higher costs of healthcare to those who aren't politically connected. Which sure sounds like Big Brother to me.
As far as the name calling about "anti-choice midwestern yahoos," you're failing to abide by the president's tearful wish (at the memorial for a child who was killed) to use words that heal instead of wound. But then again, your idea of "choice" is all about killing children... so I guess one more is no big deal to you.
The Supreme Court (nine people with lifetime tenure) will decide whether or not Obamacare is constitutional. It will probably be a 5-4 or a 4-5 decision. It will be a classic testing of federalism and individual liberty. When you vote for your next president, know just who your guy will nominate to the Supreme Court; and if it's more than a two-way race, know if he can win.
Stupid Libtard, I will not label you as crazy, you do a good enough job of that all by yourself.
Post a Comment