Up next: court challenges

posted at 11:36 am on March 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The passage of the ObamaCare bill and its certain signing by Barack Obama now moves the fight from Congress to the courts.  While the politics on Capitol Hill will continue for at least a few days on the reconciliation sidebar bill that will go to the Senate, the main damage has already been done with the vote last night in the House.  States have already begun preparations for constitutional challenges, mainly based on the unprecedented creation of federal mandates on individual citizens:

The next chapter in the health care fight will play out not only in the midterm elections, but also in the courts. Attorneys general in three states — Virginia, Florida and South Carolina — have indicated they will file legal challenges to the measure, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to purchase insurance.

In an interview Sunday, the Virginia attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, said he intended to base his challenge on two grounds: that the federal bill conflicts with a newly passed state law that says no Virginian may be compelled to buy insurance and that Congress does not have authority to impose the mandate under its powers to regulate interstate commerce, as Democrats contend.

“This is such an incredible federal overreach,” Mr. Cuccinelli said, but added that he did not plan to ask the courts for an order that would prevent the bill from going into effect because the individual mandate does not take effect until 2013. “On our basis for a constitutional challenge, there’s no rush,” he said.

The courts seem like a fruitful place to deconstruct ObamaCare.  Even the CBO warned Congress in 1993 about the novelty of requiring Americans to buy health insurance as a requisite for residence:

AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society. For example, the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires restaurants to make their facilities accessible to persons with disabilities applies to people who own restaurants.  The Federal Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from paying less than the federal minimum wage. This prohibition pertains to individuals who employ others. Federal environmental statutes and regulations that require firms to meet pollution control standards and use specific technologies apply to companies that engage in specific lines of business or use particular production processes.  Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law.

That’s because none other exists.  The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, not to force individuals to purchase items from that commerce.  And let’s not forget that no interstate commerce in health insurance exists, thanks to Congress keeping people from buying that insurance across state lines.

However, the politics of ObamaCare will continue to resonate this year, and into 2012.  Democrats insist that they will benefit politically from the passage of ObamaCare, but the numbers and the structure of the bill strongly suggest otherwise.  They jammed the bill through Congress using arcane parliamentary procedures despite the strong disapproval of their proposal among voters — between nine and 20 points, depending on the pollster.  In comparison, Democrats proclaimed a landslide when Obama won office by an impressive seven points among the popular vote, one of the larger margins of victory in the past 20 years.

The structure of the bill is another problem.  Very few of the benefits of ObamaCare even begin before 2014, but all of the taxes and business mandates start this year.  The extra expense on businesses (Caterpillar estimated it would cost them $100 million a year) will keep companies from hiring or investing in expansion.  That will kill any employment recovery in a weak economy, meaning that high unemployment will continue for the next several years.  Health care will cost more, be less available, and people will remain out of work.  In that kind of environment, Democrats will have to answer for their government takeover, and the results won’t be pretty — nor should they be.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Vastly increase the cost to us through taxes. At that point I think CK is correct and we will see a VAT imposed.

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 12:29 PM

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 12:22 PM

So, is this what Biden meant about “controling the insurance compaies”?

If only the offending portion is stricken out of the bill and the industry still has to absorb the additional costs, they will soon need to be “bailed-out” like the banks and the Dhims have accomplished “single-payer” through the back door.

On Beck the other day they had a clip about the proceedural antics being part of the long term plan. Could this methodology of taking over insurance by larding them with unmanagable demands causing bankruptcy and taking over by bailout also be what they intended from the outset?

Archimedes on March 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

the individual STATE NATIONAL GUARD units outnumber the FEDERAL army.

GarandFan on March 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Maybe I’m mistaken, but aren’t they run by the federal government? I believe Bush was the one who ordered them into New Orleans after Katrina.

–My wife and older daughter use one here in Texas. I’ve given up arguing with them about why they need to use one down here and why it’s not a good idea generally to get tanned/sunburned.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM

We have plenty of sun down here. I’ve never understood the success of tanning salons in warmer climates.

Though you could try showing them pictures of what years of tanning will do:

http://www.spray-tan-byron-bay.com/images/sundamagedskin.jpg

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

the individual STATE NATIONAL GUARD units outnumber the FEDERAL army.

GarandFan on March 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Maybe I’m mistaken, but aren’t they run by the federal government? I believe Bush was the one who ordered them into New Orleans after Katrina.

Good question – it is actually called the ‘national guard’, not a ‘state guard’. And many are serving now in the ME at the command of the President, not state governors.

Interesting – I’m not really sure how the command authority of the various state ‘national guard’ units works.

Midas on March 22, 2010 at 12:33 PM

I think, personally, that people may be very disenchanted with capitalism.

They may actually be willing to trade high taxes for security.

I say that seriously. I never thought that was possible, but then I watched in this last decade as mortgage lenders became shysters, insurance companies cheated, etc.

I’m not so sure that the GOP shouldn’t acknowledge this reality.

Yes, people should have known better. But you can’t deny that the insurance companies, for example, had decades of good reputation. Why would people ever dream that they were really being ripped off?

Ditto for mortgage lending companies.

It’s really tossed us like salad, I think.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

the individual STATE NATIONAL GUARD units outnumber the FEDERAL army.

GarandFan on March 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Maybe I’m mistaken, but aren’t they run by the federal government? I believe Bush was the one who ordered them into New Orleans after Katrina.
Good question – it is actually called the ‘national guard’, not a ’state guard’. And many are serving now in the ME at the command of the President, not state governors.

Interesting – I’m not really sure how the command authority of the various state ‘national guard’ units works.

Midas on March 22, 2010 at 12:33 PM

As the title “Commander in Cheif” implies, the president has final say over all the armed forces. Ant attempt to challenge this authority would never be heard in any court, let alone be entertained by SCOTUS.

This is a non-starter.

Archimedes on March 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Interesting – I’m not really sure how the command authority of the various state ‘national guard’ units works.

Midas on March 22, 2010 at 12:33 PM

I’m not either, but I believe I remember an uproar about Bush waiting on sending them in, which I believe was because Gov. Blanco needed to first request them or else Bush would have been “invading” a state.

It seemed to me that she didn’t have as much authority over the Guard as Bush did.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

We were all pushed into 401K plans, giving up defined benefits.

And then Wall St. cheated, too.

It really is pretty much a tusnami of greed and cheating people.

How are we suppose to regain trust in any of these industries?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Not personal?

I call shenanigans.

Scott H on March 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

And now, Toyota. Toyota!

True, not an “American” company entirely, but darn close.

Even Toyota was lying.

I think the public is just feeling, rightfully, so betrayed.

I honestly don’t know what the solution is. How do you undo this type of betrayal?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM

How are we suppose to regain trust in any of these industries?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

There will always be greed and corruption … however, most of it is facilitated by government involving itself where it shouldn’t.

darwin on March 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Ahhh, now I see. Thank you, again, all for goading me to step back and see.

Of all of Leviathan’s minions, the most useful are those who pretend to respect the tools of the other side (reason).

In the end, the Ring must be destroyed. ;)

Scott H on March 22, 2010 at 12:40 PM

So, those of you a bit worried that the public will “go” for a more socialistic system have reason to fear, I think.

I don’t discount this fear as “silly.”

I honestly think the public is very, very discouraged by various industry betrayals, lies, etc.

I think we’re truly vulnerable.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:40 PM

It’s really tossed us like salad, I think.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

The problem with this line of thinking is that it fails to recognize the government’s role in helping these companies “cheat” and hide this “cheating” from the American public. Many of the failures we’ve watched had little to do with straight capitalism and much to do with government intervention.

And of course, with individuals who were themselves trying to cheat.

If you can’t afford a down payment and can only affording housing payments at their very cheapest, then you’re trying to rip off your bank by getting an ARM. That it backfires is no one’s fault but your own. That giving these kinds of loans backfired on banks was their fault alone until we decided to take away the penalty for their risk.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

There will always be greed and corruption … however, most of it is facilitated by government involving itself where it shouldn’t.

darwin on March 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I know. I really do understand that.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

ou’re trying to rip off your bank by getting an ARM. That it backfires is no one’s fault but your own. That giving these kinds of loans backfired on banks was their fault alone until we decided to take away the penalty for their risk.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Honey, everyone I know is under water, and they weren’t trying to do much other than just pay for a home. These aren’t the “wheeler-dealer” types of folks.

And they are under-water today.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I know. I really do understand that.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Then why are you blaming it on capitalism?

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:44 PM

New Taxes for Health Care Help Obama ‘Spread the Wealth Around’

darwin on March 22, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Thanks, I was looking for something like that.

mbs on March 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM

True_King on March 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM

What a foolish statement. Rush has exactly one vote like every other citizen in this country. The people are responsible for what they get by voting for their own corruptocrat each time he or she is up for reelection.

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Even if the courts strike down the individual mandate, which I think has a greater than 50/50 chance, they are not going to touch the pre existing conditions.

WisRich on March 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM
States regulate most utilities. These utilities have gone to court to protest regulations that prevent them from earning a profit. The courts have almost always ruled in favor of the utilities in such cases. I believe the SC will be sympathetic to a complaint that a regulation will make impossible to stay in business.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I hope your right but as I watched the vote last night, I was thinking about how strange it was that the insurance industry was utterly silent on this Statist healthcare issue. Obama had bought them off with the individual mandate and regulation, making them essentially into utilities meaning they don’t have to compete (just look at their stock prices this morning).

Think about this: What side do you think the insurance industry will be on once the individual mandate is challenged in the courts? If they have already sold their soul, they’ve got to defend it. Don’t they? Scary.

WisRich on March 22, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Honey, everyone I know is under water, and they weren’t trying to do much other than just pay for a home. These aren’t the “wheeler-dealer” types of folks.

And they are under-water today.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I’m not saying they all intended to scam banks, but they knew what they could afford and signed on the dotted line for something that they couldn’t afford, saying they could.

If an insurance company tells you it will pay for all your medical treatments and then later tells you it can’t, because it can’t afford to, wouldn’t you consider that a scam – even they didn’t intend it?

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Ann, if you understood that greed and corruption are traits inherent to fallen man, you would also understand that the only person to blame for not expecting it is yourself.

Your comments have shown here that you either do not understand this, or expect someone else to be held responsible for your acting as if this risk does not exist.

Either way, you abrogate your personal responsibility for this, and thus part ways with conservative thought. The fact that you attempt to state that you believe this conservative thought betrays your actual purpose.

Scott H on March 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM

I think, personally, that people may be very disenchanted with capitalism.

They may actually be willing to trade high taxes for security.

I say that seriously. I never thought that was possible, but then I watched in this last decade as mortgage lenders became shysters, insurance companies cheated, etc.

I’m not so sure that the GOP shouldn’t acknowledge this reality.

Yes, people should have known better. But you can’t deny that the insurance companies, for example, had decades of good reputation. Why would people ever dream that they were really being ripped off?

Ditto for mortgage lending companies.

It’s really tossed us like salad, I think.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Excepting Hollywood stars who make so much money they have no idea what they are paying in taxes, people are willing to see other people who make more money pay high taxes so that they can be ‘secure’, whether they work hard or not.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM

My understanding is that Insurance companies must issue policies beginning this year for preexisting conditions but no funding begins until 2014/2015. The one area that may get funding is for preexisting conditions of children but don’t quote me on it.

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I believe you are correct. And with the mandate of insurance companies required to add pre-existing conditions, watch for everyone’s premiums to skyrocket.

capejasmine on March 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Here’s the cold comfort for real people. OK, you win. You talked us into 401K funds and then, ripped us off. You offered us fake insurance policies and then, ripped us off. You even went so far as to sell us cars that are dangerous.

You win.

But here’s the final deal. Go get your profits from the third world. Good luck, btw.

We’re pretty much broke. We’re all now “pocket-book” voters.

Get used to the new world.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

It’s a great time politically for libertarians, I guess. *haha

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Excepting Hollywood stars who make so much money they have no idea what they are paying in taxes, people are willing to see other people who make more money pay high taxes so that they can be ’secure’, whether they work hard or not.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM

True, but even lots of them die broke.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

You do realize, that a large portion of the blame goes to the government, and their interference in the free market systems, correct? If insurance was allowed to open up to crossing state lines for coverage, we wouldn’t be discussing this right now.

capejasmine on March 22, 2010 at 12:54 PM

You talked us into 401K funds and then, ripped us off.

Do 401Ks have to be invested in the stock market?

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 12:54 PM

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:44 PM

You are only underwater if you bought the house as an investment. If you bought it for a place to live and can afford the payments then the concept of being underwater is meaningless.

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Interesting how this change might change things.

I guess I am not thrilled with Kennedy getting more power and influence leaning liberal (more “that is how they do it in Europe” does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling), but in some cases it might be a good thing.

Mr. Joe on March 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM

True, but even lots of them die broke.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM

You assert something, and then when you are challenged change the subject. Go do your stream of consciousness anti-capitalism rant somewhere else.

ProfessorMiao on March 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

You are only underwater if you bought the house as an investment. If you bought it for a place to live and can afford the payments then the concept of being underwater is meaningless.

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM

That depends on your location and when you bought.

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

We have plenty of sun down here. I’ve never understood the success of tanning salons in warmer climates.

Though you could try showing them pictures of what years of tanning will do:

http://www.spray-tan-byron-bay.com/images/sundamagedskin.jpg

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

–Oh, man, is that one gross picture. I’ll use it.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Egad, where did that post picture of Nazi Pelosi come from? Her normal appearance is bad enough, but here she looks like a flying monkey!!

That’s enough to drive a person to drink!

CantCureStupid on March 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Though you could try showing them pictures of what years of tanning will do:
Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

DANG!!! That is nasty!!!! A chinese sharpei has less wrinkles.

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Re-read the post. More slowly this time. She said the employer couldn’t afford the new taxes and her existing health care premiums.

MarkTheGreat on March 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM
The employer is probably referring to an array of taxes.

Some of them state-level. Taxes of concern to employers:
- Expiration of the 2003 tax cuts.
- Property taxes (I heard many states are hurting for money).
- Higher capital gains taxes (within and outside the health care bill).

WashJeff on March 22, 2010 at 12:06 PM
–The only expiring 2003 tax cut that should affect most employers is the higher capital gains rate. The other federal stuff relates to individuals (reduced regular income rates, AMT “fix”, reduced tax on some dividends and long term capital gains, estate tax). But I’m sure some states (like Illinois) have/are planning to increase property taxes and might be thinking about changes to corporate income taxes.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 12:15 PM

As I underdand it, individuals who own rental property will see a tax increase. A lot of small businesses will also be subjected to increase tax to pay for Obamacare.

Rental Income
Royalties (Many restaurants pay a royalty fee)
Franchise Fees
Investments

TN Mom on March 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

There will always be greed and corruption … however, most of it is facilitated by government involving itself where it shouldn’t.

darwin on March 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM

This spot on! Tell me, when was the lat time you read the word corruption being used in a report that did not involve a Gov’t official? In a free market those offering inferior/corrupt, services/products go out of biz, unless they seek the protection of Gov’t.

It may very well be possible that without Gov’t, corruption may be impossible. Ergo, expaneded Gov’t equals expanded corruption.

Archimedes on March 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM

–Oh, man, is that one gross picture. I’ll use it.

Jimbo3 on March 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Good. Pale can be very beautiful.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

No it does not Ann. The concept of underwater is about what you owe on the loan and what the property is worth. If you view your house as an investment and you owe more that its present value then you consider yourself underwater. If you view it as a home then its monetary value is of little meaning.

chemman on March 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Good. Pale can be very beautiful.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

You got that right.

OmahaConservative on March 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM

I have more faith in my my ability to change water into wine than in the SCOTUS preserving the Constitution. Still, they may surprise me yet.

Extrafishy on March 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Interesting – I’m not really sure how the command authority of the various state ‘national guard’ units works.

It has absolutely nothing to do with “command authority”. It has to do with every service member having to make an individual choice on whether or not they will follow unconstitutional orders, say to forcibly disarm Americans, or if they will remember the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

And remember that “I was only following orders” is not a valid excuse.

SDN on March 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Interesting – I’m not really sure how the command authority of the various state ‘national guard’ units works.
It has absolutely nothing to do with “command authority”. It has to do with every service member having to make an individual choice on whether or not they will follow unconstitutional orders, say to forcibly disarm Americans, or if they will remember the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

And remember that “I was only following orders” is not a valid excuse.

SDN on March 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Hence, “Oathkeepers”.

Archimedes on March 22, 2010 at 1:12 PM

34 states could require an amendment to the Constitution.

1. Florida
2. SC
3. VA
4. Idaho
5. NC
6. GA
7. Utah
8. MO
9. AK
10. Arizona
11. Arkansas
12. Wyoming
13. W. Virginia
14. Kansas

more?

stenwin77 on March 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I honestly don’t know what the solution is. How do you undo this type of betrayal?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM

The President seems to think the solution is to have the Government lie enough to keep up with everyone else.

If an insurance company tells you it will pay for all your medical treatments and then later tells you it can’t, because it can’t afford to, wouldn’t you consider that a scam – even they didn’t intend it?

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I’ll tell you something every Insurance Commissioner in America knows* — keeping them solvent is a form of consumer protection too.

*Save our current SecHHS, who is applying what she learned to wipe them out, apparently.

DrSteve on March 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM

We have plenty of sun down here. I’ve never understood the success of tanning salons in warmer climates.

Though you could try showing them pictures of what years of tanning will do:

http://www.spray-tan-byron-bay.com/images/sundamagedskin.jpg

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Good lord, that’s gross! Does that woman go thru a molting process? YIKES!!!

capejasmine on March 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM

I’m not either, but I believe I remember an uproar about Bush waiting on sending them in, which I believe was because Gov. Blanco needed to first request them or else Bush would have been “invading” a state.

It seemed to me that she didn’t have as much authority over the Guard as Bush did.

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Legally, Bush COULDN’T order them in without her permission under the Posse Comitatus laws. He had to get permission from Louisiana first.

As far as Blanco goes, I think that Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu, now the Mayor of New Orleans, may have had direct control over the Guard units but Blanco’s permission was what was needed in order to turn control over to the Feds. She just dithered for 24 hours before making the decision because she’s an idiot.

teke184 on March 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM

stenwin77 on March 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM

15. Louisiana

teke184 on March 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM

I’m a young lawyer and would like to know how I can help on any legal battles. Nothing I learned in law school allows this kind of mandate.

Byzantine on March 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Same here. I just graduated from Law school and I’m currently awaiting my California Bar results.

This was never taught in any Con Law text book or in any Con Law book I’ve ever read.

The founding fathers must have turned in their graves last night.

Conservative Samizdat on March 22, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Don,t know if it,s true or not but there is a reliable leak out of the republican caucus this morning that as many as 10 to 12 Dems in the house who voted no last night have file paper work with the rep. leadership to switch parties by the end of this week.Take it for what it,s worth.

thmcbb on March 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Unless they spoke up “in opposition”, it’s just a ploy to keep their jobs.

jack herman on March 22, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Rush is pointing out that he Dems are not doing a “victory lap” and are still in damage control mode and even Obama is going to Iowa soon to keep trying to sell it. Strange. If it’s so good for the country then why the constant campaigning to spin this even after it passes?

Yakko77 on March 22, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Then why are you blaming it on capitalism?

Esthier on March 22, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Because, as a Progressive agitator, pretending to care about capitalism, her purpose here is to muddy the waters. I’d bet fifty bucks she’s getting paid for it, too.

JDPerren on March 22, 2010 at 2:37 PM

You can probably add Alabama and Mississippi to the challenge list in short order. Apparently there already are challenges being raised in Montgomery and Jackson. Expect Tennessee to join in as well.

viking01 on March 22, 2010 at 3:10 PM

With so many States lining up against this massive big govt juggernaut I can’t help but think of the Battle of Britain,

June 4, 1940
“We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

June 18, 1940
“Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’

August 20, 1940 – On the Battle of Britain
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

Yakko77 on March 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Sharpton says Socialism won the election per the people. They are acknowledging thats what this is. I dont want a country where we lay around and have our government come wipe our butts and feeds us. While we contemplate backlash for this, Limbaugh and Hannity had better prepare for potential backlash while forging on with an ‘undo’ for this mess.

johnnyU on March 22, 2010 at 3:50 PM

And now for something completely different….a discussion of the solutions from a self-professed eeyore.

I ranted alot lately about the impossibility of stopping this from passing, but said little about what can be done once it is passed. Now we can finally accept the reality and focus on this aspect.

The states have the best chance to stop this in the courts, that is until the makeup of the USSC changes in the leftists’ favor (it will happen, just a matter of time really). Until that time, the current court seems well suited to handle this.

Unfortunately, the real battle will not be won by republicans, that being the retaking of the major cities from where the democrats draw the most power. The only way to regain our freedom is to eliminate the democrat party, and all descendants, by any name. Education is the key here, people need to learn what leftists are, what they say, what they want, and how to avoid voting for them ever again. Talk about your daunting tasks. But it starts in the big cities. Yet again, the republicans are simply not up to the job. Pity.

runawayyyy on March 22, 2010 at 3:56 PM

This is such an incredible federal overreach,” Mr. Cuccinelli said, but added that he did not plan to ask the courts for an order that would prevent the bill from going into effect because the individual mandate does not take effect until 2013. “On our basis for a constitutional challenge, there’s no rush,” he said.

I don’t know if this has been said but Mr Cuccinelli – DO NOT WAIT. SCOTUS is likely to change makeup and become more liberal over the next 3 years. Do not wait one week. Get in there now and fight.

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 22, 2010 at 5:49 PM

We were all pushed into 401K plans, giving up defined benefits.

And then Wall St. cheated, too.

It really is pretty much a tusnami of greed and cheating people.

How are we suppose to regain trust in any of these industries?

AnninCA on March 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Start by taking some effing personal responsibility. Not all of us dumped all of our eggs in one basket. It’s not my fault if you don’t know how to diversify your own portfolio. If you wanted safety and security, you could have left your 401(k) in a MM fund, or put it in Treasuries. But no, you had to be “greedy” and try to make more. That’s how it works, Ann: You want the chance of a greater reward? The risk is going to be higher. There’s not a single thing in life where that’s not true.

JHC on a pogo stick, I am so sick of this current crop of trolls. Can’t we just ban them all and start over? They’re all of poor quality.

NoLeftTurn on March 22, 2010 at 7:54 PM

The Demonrats say you must have full coverage health insurance for the right to exist… just to be alive…. This is called servitude, eg slavery… Including, criminal prosecution for non compliance… A criminal, just to be alive…

royzer on March 22, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3