Posted on 03/20/2010 8:05:28 AM PDT by MaestroLC
If they (mis)use Slaughter, then couldn’t a case be made that the entire bill is unconstitutional? Whereas if this highly unpopular bill narrowly passes by a (more or less) normal voting, then a case can be brought against specific measures (the individual mandate, for eg) but not necessarily against the bill in its entirety? (The case that Congress is prohibited from passing laws on healthcare is popular on FR, but everywhere else it is taken for granted that the ICC can be stretched (to the breaking point) to accommodate it. As for the belief that the USSC would refuse to interfere with the use of the Slaughter Rule in a manner far more sweeping than any previous use : The state AG’s are lining up , so they seem to think something could be done after the fact. If-*IF*-I am right, then passage via slaughter *might* be the best way to not only kill the bill, but seriously piss off all republicans, most independents, and quite a few Democrats, just in time for the November elections.(No, I don’t think this will be forgotten by then : Especially when more people learn that no, they WON’T get free “health care”, but will be forced to buy (very expensive ) health insurance at gunpoint.)
“Oh yeah! At Waterloo, Obama did surrender . . .”
Yup, Stupak had to be important to “horrible” or she would not have risked ticking off the infanticidal maniacs.
Since when did the Executive Branch merge with the Legislative Branch making obama the boss?
(Rhetorical question only)
That's the problem with this kind of "inside baseball" info right now: it could either be good news or bad news.
I am still stunned at how much trouble the dems are having getting this thing through. On paper, this should be a slam-dunk.
I have been thinking that the election of O has done more for conservative/libertarian values and political activism by our side than anything in recent memory. If that sodden old fool McCain had been elected, he would be ramming the same stuff through. I am wondering if the best thing for con/lib values would be for this beast to pass with the maximum amount of chicanery.
It's time to force a crisis on our terms.
Just got through to Stupak.....very quick call, they are inundated with calls. Asked if I opposed or support the bill.....OPPOSE. He said, thank you and have a good day.
You know, when you look at her face, and at her unskillful attempt to beautify it with makeup, you just know she can’t do a convincing job finding the right shade of lipstick for this pig either.
[Somebody tell Stupak he is in the wrong party]
No, he is in the right party. He supports this bill other than the abortion language.
Please post this picture to the “Natural Law” thread, because it is such a graphic reminder of the Creator-endowed liberty a child in the womb possesses—a liberty the Congress, Senate, and Administration want us all to assist in denying.
The bill is blatantly unconstitutional even without slaughter. Several AGs are already preparing lawsuits.
I’m curious, look at thehill.com’s count (link below), they claim opponents need 38 “no” votes to defeat the bill, the current “no” count is 36, but Joseph Cao (R-La.) is not listed as a “no” or “undecided.” Cao said he is a “no,” that would bring the “no’s” to 37. What is thehill.com up to?
Obama’s waterloo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80deST3naq0
No it doesn’t. She has been advised by the pro-abortion feminazi congresscritters that they have 40 votes ready to vote no if she attempts to remove abortion funding language. It’s easier for her to manage the 12 pro-life “no” votes than to hit the brakes and corral the 40 baby-killer votes that are threatening to go AWOL.
It’s simple math. She can’t please both masters, so she chose the easier path to passage.
I hope this can be defeated in Congress and not reply on SCOTUS to overrule. Considering they upheld mccain-feingold (initially) and Kelo (sp?), SCOTUS rulings are not always constituional.
“she has been told to fall on her sword by Obama.”
I wish that wasn’t just a figure of speech. I would pay a healthy pay-per-view to see that happen.
Wouldn’t it be ironic that abortion aborts this abortion of a bill....
This bill has finally brought to light the truth that we all knew all along. There is no room in the Dem party for a person who is pro-life. Stupak has to stand pat or else he makes his whole political life a lie. You cannot say that you are pro-life, say a bill violates that stand and then later cave and vote for that bill. He seems to understand that. I don’t think he will cave.
Some of his group may sell out. If so, they will just prove that life is for sale in the Dem party. And for sale, cheap. People who are pro-life will not be able to support a pro-life Dem as an alternative to a Republican anymore. The term pro-life Dem has no meaning. They either sell out or just get shouted down by the pro-abortion members of the party.
Maybe we should tell the Stupak “gang” we will support them if they vote no. Raise money for them, help them get reelected. I think Stupak’s group are in the cat bird seat if they stick together.
If the Dems go Slaughter then it is war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.