Healthcare Hypocricy?

[1979Shocker]

Obama Fox News Interview Gets Mixed Reviews

[wu_shizzle]

I didn't see the interview, but after having read a lot of Obama's responses to pressing questions over the past year, he sounds like an aspiring dictator who is seething inside when he's expected to conduct himself like a servant of the people.

It is a good interview effectively demonstrating, to any reasonable observer, how vapid the arguments for this legislation really are.

Baier is actually doing his job – as frustrating as that might be. I doubt Obama will grant Baier similar access for the foreseeable future.

I watched the interview, and I thought it was clearly evident that Obama didn't want to answer directly and just wanted to fillibuster.

For all of his "Let me be clear..." cliches, openness is not what he's looking for.

[wu_shizzle]

Obama Fox News Interview Gets Mixed Reviews

It's not the role of the press to provide a platform for the President to pontificate.

[Maggie]

Obama Fox News Interview Gets Mixed Reviews

Of course. :roll:

[wu_shizzle]

Obama Fox News Interview Gets Mixed Reviews

Of course. :roll:

Couldn't you say that anything "political" gets mixed reviews?

[Maggie]

Obama Fox News Interview Gets Mixed Reviews

Of course. :roll:

Couldn't you say that anything "political" gets mixed reviews?

Yes. Hence the.... :roll:

But where is the defense of the President’s performance……

[Maggie]

Here you go Sub....

America's Comeback

[shocker3]

What legal theory or theories would provide a basis for a constitutional challenge?

I'm not the expert but reading thru the article they had some constitutional law people talking about it some. And I don't know how many states would have to join in for something to really have an impact or for them to change things or whatever. But I'm always interested to see what can/will happen when states at least try to stand up to Washington and say you can't continue to regulate our citizens like you are and take more power for yourselves. Washington has more power than it was ever supposed to have and I find the struggle between them and the states at least interesting.

Well – a fundamental problem (and I only skimmed the article) is that federal law supersedes state law – when the feds choose to “occupy” a field. You see this with environmental legislation for example. States can be more restrictive but they can’t turn the knob the other way – so to speak - the fed is the floor in terms of regulation.

Now the federal government compelling its citizens to purchase a product I don’t think, and I could be wrong, has ever been done. Also, should the House use the “Slaughter Rule” to pass the Senate bill – that might raise some constitutional issues as well.

I just wonder if the States are spinning their wheels.

The procedure now dubbed the "Slaughter Rule" has actually been used a lot over the years. The real name for this procedure is a self-executing bill also known as "deem and pass". It was first used in 1933 and has been used numerous times since then. One of the heaviest users of this rule was the 2005-06 House which used it 36 times (Republicans had control then).

It has been used more frequently in recent years by both parties.

I guess that doesn't necessarily make it right or constitutional, but there is certainly a lot of precedence for using that procedure.

[Maggie]

The procedure now dubbed the "Slaughter Rule" has actually been used a lot over the years. The real name for this procedure is a self-executing bill also known as "deem and pass". It was first used in 1933 and has been used numerous times since then. One of the heaviest users of this rule was the 2005-06 House which used it 36 times (Republicans had control then).

It has been used more frequently in recent years by both parties.

I guess that doesn't necessarily make it right or constitutional, but there is certainly a lot of precedence for using that procedure.

This type of procedural tap dancing has never been used to attempt to enact legislation of this size and scope. That the Speaker feels she has to do this – says everything.

[Maggie]

I decided to geek out this morning and I watched this live. What follows is Rep. Paul Ryan owning Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee.

Congressman Ryan



Regardless, I fear this will pass on Sunday.

[SubGod22]

I decided to geek out this morning and I watched this live. What follows is Rep. Paul Ryan owning Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee.

Congressman Ryan



Regardless, I fear this will pass on Sunday.

that was amusing

[shocker3]

I decided to geek out this morning and I watched this live. What follows is Rep. Paul Ryan owning Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee.

Congressman Ryan



Regardless, I fear this will pass on Sunday.

The funniest thing about that almost 10 minute clip was that they never talked about the bill before them, they spent the whole time talking about Congressman Ryan's plan for medicare.

[Maggie]

I decided to geek out this morning and I watched this live. What follows is Rep. Paul Ryan owning Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee.

Congressman Ryan



Regardless, I fear this will pass on Sunday.

The funniest thing about that almost 10 minute clip was that they never talked about the bill before them, they spent the whole time talking about Congressman Ryan's plan for medicare.

The goal was to make Ryan look bad - the typical "you don't care about seniors", ect. With regard to their bill, it is difficult to discuss something you know very little about substantively with someone who has a firm grasp of the actual substance.

This bill is not about health-care and has not been for sometime.

[Maggie]

Ryan on C-Span now.

[shocker3]

What legal theory or theories would provide a basis for a constitutional challenge?

I'm not the expert but reading thru the article they had some constitutional law people talking about it some. And I don't know how many states would have to join in for something to really have an impact or for them to change things or whatever. But I'm always interested to see what can/will happen when states at least try to stand up to Washington and say you can't continue to regulate our citizens like you are and take more power for yourselves. Washington has more power than it was ever supposed to have and I find the struggle between them and the states at least interesting.

Well – a fundamental problem (and I only skimmed the article) is that federal law supersedes state law – when the feds choose to “occupy” a field. You see this with environmental legislation for example. States can be more restrictive but they can’t turn the knob the other way – so to speak - the fed is the floor in terms of regulation.

Now the federal government compelling its citizens to purchase a product I don’t think, and I could be wrong, has ever been done. Also, should the House use the “Slaughter Rule” to pass the Senate bill – that might raise some constitutional issues as well.

I just wonder if the States are spinning their wheels.

The procedure now dubbed the "Slaughter Rule" has actually been used a lot over the years. The real name for this procedure is a self-executing bill also known as "deem and pass". It was first used in 1933 and has been used numerous times since then. One of the heaviest users of this rule was the 2005-06 House which used it 36 times (Republicans had control then).

It has been used more frequently in recent years by both parties.

I guess that doesn't necessarily make it right or constitutional, but there is certainly a lot of precedence for using that procedure.

I don't know if it was due to all of the protests (including the Washington Post) but it looks like they are NOT going to use the deem and pass procedure after all to pass the health care bill.

Maybe there were some hold-outs that would only vote yes if they included a straight up and down vote on the Senate Bill.