Front page news: Obama campaigning against the court!!!

Front page of today's Review-Journal

It was front page news today in the Review-Journal. A savvy AP reporter revealed for the first time that Obama has turned the pending ruling by the Supreme Court on ObamaCare into a campaign issue.

“The emerging Democratic strategy to paint the court as extreme was little noted in this week’s hubbub over Obama’s assertion that overturning his health care law would be ‘unprecedented,’” writes Anne Gearan.

WSJ cartoon

What insight! What perspicacity!

What news?

I seem to recall a headline Tuesday proclaiming, “President warms up his stump speech against the ‘unelected’ court.” The astute writer went on to observe, “Actually, it sounded like Obama was practicing his post court ruling campaign speech in which he will blame a bunch of unelected people for taking away all the goodies in ObamaCare …”

On Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger wrote of Obama’s Oz-like proclamation against the court, “And so it was on Monday that Barack Obama, anticipating a loss before the Supreme Court, added the third branch of government to the list of villains he will run against in his re-election campaign.”

Well, perhaps it was startling news to the readers of the R-J, since the Tuesday edition, following the Monday press conference, contained no mention whatsoever of the president’s attack on the court in which, using political sleight of hand, he said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Pay no attention, Dorothy, to the fact that “strong majority” was a 219-212 vote in a predominantly Democratic House and a no-wiggle-room 60 votes to override a filibuster in the Senate that was obtained by outright bribery and chicanery.


44 comments on “Front page news: Obama campaigning against the court!!!

  1. Steve says:

    Note the popularity of this law is only rivaled by the popularity of Congress itself and the TEA movement has not “gone away” as Reid wanted, it has become entrenched.

    First June, then November. This year determines the direction we take in that fork up ahead.

  2. nyp10025 says:

    Who was “bribed”?

  3. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. That was in all the papers. Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase.


  4. nyp10025 says:

    1. Those legislative compromises were not included in the bill that was signed into law.
    2. The examples you cite involved gain to the lawmakers’ constituents, not to the legislators themselves. Are you saying that a legislator who votes in favor of a bill because it favors the interests of the citizens of his state is engaged in “bribery”?

  5. Venality can be direct or indirect.


  6. nyp10025 says:

    1. I have no idea what “direct or indirect venality” means. It is very Zen-like, but it fails to answer a simple question: are you saying that a legislator who horse trades in order to obtain a better legislative deal for the citizens of his state is engaging in “bribery”? Seems like the kind of question that a straight-talking person could answer with a “yes” or “no.”

    2. No, the video you embed does not help. Rather, it hurts, since it expands on your own earlier misrepresentations. The so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” and the “Lousiana Purchase” were not in the legislation as enacted. And the “deem and pass” procedure cited in the video was never used. So the video (like your post) retards understanding instead of advancing it.

    3. When Romney wins and the Republicans take the Senate I will watch closely to see if you denounce legislative horsetrading, use of reconciliation procedures to enact policy-changing legislation and “deem & pass” measures as examples of “bribery” and other forms of corruption.

  7. Yes.


  8. nyp10025 says:

    You don’t really believe that.
    You are simply trying to elide the consequences of your obvious misrepresentation.

  9. I thought you guys were all for social justice. How can favoring the consituents of one over those of another be fair?


  10. nyp10025 says:


    Oh, now I see.

    Swift would be proud.

  11. Athos says:

    The commie rat petey is back and weighing in!

    go petey! go petey! go petey!

  12. Steve says:

    What? The kickback was not included in the final bill? Why did Ben vote for it then… no wonder he’s not running for re election.

    Senate is still a toss up in November

    Democrats try to spin the court before the court rules, so they are spinning it both ways. Now that is humor.

  13. No, I’m serious. All citizens should be treated equally and fairly. No one should be singled out because of where they live, who they live with, how much money they make, the color of their skin, etc., etc. No affirmative action. No punitive action.


  14. Vernon Clayson says:

    Forget trying to explain, Mr. Mitchell, NYP10025 misses the point entirely, Harry Reid and his henchmen bought votes from Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, those two and likely many more members of the Congress gambled on futures, it happens all the time. There are Harry Reid people here in Nevada that believe they will be exempt, union members for example, but they will come to the same conclusion that Ben Nelson did, resistance is futile. When the people of Nebraska see what Nelson visited on them he couldn’t get a job as dog catcher. Nelson and Landrieu will, of course, not be covered by this atrocious health care plan, they are royalty and will retain their royal health plan which doesn’t have palliative care and death panels, and Harry Reid will retain his. Nancy Pelosi said the plan had to be passed to see what’s in it, she didn’t mean herself, she meant the citizenry. She will wither and age at the same pace all people do, the difference is she will enjoy far better medical care, plus 10, 20, or 30 years from now her face will have the same stretched and painted grimace it does now. Life is good for those blessed by politics.

  15. Tough critique, Vernon.


  16. nyp10025 says:

    Tough, but stupid. The health reform law expressly covers members of Congress. The idea that they are not covered by the law is a lie, pure and simple. And it is disgusting to make an ugly personal attack on Nancy Pelosi simply because one disagrees with her politics.

  17. Athos says:

    Sorry, petey. In every society (especially the socialist ones) there is a ruling class. The ones that know better for the unwashed masses.

    Reid and Pelousy are in it.

    You (and I) are not.

    That is why I’m fighting for a return to the original Constitution as our law of the land.

    Why you’re fighting us, is a mystery to me. Or is it simply …… you’re deluded to think you’re exempt?

  18. nyp10025 says:

    Actually, although I don’t normally engage in your sort of crudely-Marxian class analysis, I suppose I do qualify as a member of the “ruling class.”. That may be why I see how you guys have been bamboozled.

  19. Want to bet their “exchange” will be the same or better than their current Cadillac plan?

    H.R. 3590: D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

  20. nyp10025 says:

    Oh, we have covered this zombie lie so many times already. The health plans that are made available to members of congress under this provision are the same as the individual policies made available to citizens who can’t get insurance through their employer. It actually reduces the very good group plans the members of Congress currently have.
    In other words, the law (stupidly, in my opinion,) imposes restrictions on members of Congress that it imposes on no other citizen.

  21. nyp10025 says:

    Plus even if they get exactly the same health plan they currently have, that is not a special exemption, it is what he law provides for every American who is lucky enough to have a decent health insurance plan through his employer.

  22. Athos says:

    petey, you tool, you are allowed to be as ignorant as you want to be, but please don’t assume conservative means stupid.

    Congress critters receiving the same treatment as us common folk? We may have been born in the morning, petey boy, but it sure wasn’t yesterday morning.

    And if you can make anything out of the “law” that Tom posted, you have a black belt degree in legalize. (otherwise known as “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS”)

  23. Steve says:

    The Amendment portion leaves a rather wide door for whatever they could want.

  24. nyp10025 says:

    You guys are flailing.
    The Amendment disadvantages members of Congress compared to the rest of us. If ordinary citizens get their health insurance through their employer they dont need to buy insurance through a plan offered on the Exchanges. The only people to are forced to use an Exchange plan even though their employer offers a health plan are members of Congress. Doubt it all you wish, but you cannot disprove it.

  25. Steve says:

    Trouble is you cannot prove it.
    Congress gets to make amendments, any time they want.

  26. Athos says:

    Any bets on how affective the new “insider trading” bill will stop our congress critters from jumping on those IPOs?

    Wait a minute! There already IS a bill that prohibits Americans from insider trading. Why would congress have to pass a special bill that bans them from a practice that is already against the law, petey?

  27. nyp10025 says:

    To “athos” – because the current law does not clearly cover situations in which pending, non-public legislative information would affect the price of a stock traded by a member of Congress.

  28. nyp10025 says:

    To “Steve” : you have now conceded my point. The ObamneyCare law does not give an “exemption” to Congress. To get such an exemption they would have to amend the law.

  29. Wait till 2014 and we shall see.


  30. nyp10025 says:

    You know, this discussion started out with Mr. Mitchell accusing various legislators of having engaged in criminal acts. It then turned out that the deals he accused them of having engaged in never took place, and that, in any case, Mr. Mitchell’s definition of “bribery” turned out to encompass completely legal, everyday political horsetrading. Then some commentators accused Congress of having created a special exemption for themselves from ObamneyCare. That too turned out to be completely false.

    So now what we are left with is the argument that even though ObamneyCare doesn’t do the things that Mr. Mitchell and his commentators accuse it of, perhaps some future Congress could change the law to create special exemptions. Well, OK. I guess I can agree with that point.

    But don’t you guys feel even a little bit embarrassed about being so wrong about facts that have been exhaustively discussed over the past three years? Or have you adopted a postmodern attitude towards factual accuracy?

  31. Steve says:

    You still cannot prove your point. Just as we cannot currently prove ours.

    My single concern with the health care law is currently under consideration by the one place that can provide the answer. I wait patiently for June.

    Again why did Ben Nelson vote for the law once his deal was removed? That bribe was an attempt to provide him cover so he could get re elected and it did not work. He was looking for a reason to explain his vote is all. Harry tried to give it to Ben. Ben retired. Nothing to see here, move along.

    Romney is correct, the states have the power to enact this law, the feds….we wait.

  32. nyp10025 says:

    Of course I can prove my point. The ObamneyCare reforms expressly require members of Congress to obtain their health coverage from the plans set up for people buying health insurance on the individual market. Mr. Mitchell helpfully provided the specific statutory cite above.

    The fact that I cannot prove that some future Congress won’t repeal that part of the law doesn’t disprove my point.

  33. Steve says:

    You cannot prove it because it has not kicked in yet. You can only prove it once it actually happens. That is your argument for our contention as well.

  34. nyp10025 says:

    What are you talking about??
    It is the law!!

  35. Steve says:

    Currently it is law scheduled to begin in 2014. I see no exchanges, do you?

  36. Athos says:

    Gee, petey, that was a good answer (April 8, 2012 at 5:22 am). I can’t tell if it reminds me of:

    1. Algore’s “There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.” explanation, or

    2. Charlie Rangel’s “Well, I wouldn’t think that you know what they are since what I did or did not is being investigated by a committee, by me,” or

    3. my favorite Mel Brook’s movie line” It’s good to be King!”.

    Wanna help me out here?

  37. nyp10025 says:

    I guess there isn’t any individual mandate in ObamneyCare. After all, that provision has not yet kicked in.

  38. Steve says:

    Are you really insisting nothing will change between now and 2014?

  39. nyp10025 says:

    I dunno. I just know what the law says and what it doesn’t say. The ObamneyCare law says that members of Congress are forced to use the individual health plans offered through the Travelocity-like insurance exchanges, and that they cannot simply use their employer-sponsored health plans. That puts members of Congress at something of a disadvantage compared to ordinary citizens. Perhaps the law will change before the system comes into full effect. Perhaps a huge meteor will strike the Earth, ushering in a new Age of the Dinosaur.

    All I know is what the law says and what it doesn’t say.

  40. Athos says:

    “Perhaps the law will change before the system comes into full effect.” When it comes to our ruling class Congress (you know, the ones that have automatic pay raises, and can’t pass budgets – WHICH IS WHAT THE LAWS SAYS!) you can bet your last dollar, petey, that millionaire health coverage for Congress will continue.

    Some animals are more equal than others.

  41. nyp10025 says:

    If you don’t like what your elected representative does, vote to remove him from office.

  42. I plan to do just that.


  43. Steve says:


    Then November.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s