Wisconsin Supreme Court says elections still matter.

Well, apparently elections still matter in Wisconsin.  Apparently a party can’t lose an election, and then stop a vote on a bill brought by the majority which was just voted into the majority by simply leaving town.  Apparently that group can’t then complain about what happens in the State Senate when they were on vacation.  Apparently those that are able to yell the loudest, despite being in the significant minority, can’t take over an entire state.  And finally, apparently one judge can’t overrule an election.

Yesterday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed the legislation regarding public unions to be published, thereby making it the law of the land.  Democracy seems to actually work sometimes.  I’m sure those that yell the loudest aren’t done with their protests, but their likelihood of success is certainly less now than it was two days ago.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Requiring Workers to be Legal. Left is Confused.

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law which allowed for the suspension or revocation of a business’s license to do business in Arizona if the company was found to be intentionally employing illegal immigrants.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which obviously has some significant members that like cheap labor, challenged the law, arguing that it is preempted by federal law.  For those of you out there who are aren’t boring, “preempted” simply means the federal government controls the issue completely, thereby leaving nothing for the states to do.  Here, the feds had enacted their own law that punishes businesses that knowingly employ illegals with civil or criminal sanctions (money damages or jail time).  The federal law also expressly prohibits state laws from doing the same thing.  Thus, preemption.  However, the federal law also expressly allows states to impose their own sanctions “through licensing and similar laws.”

The majority, made up of the so-called “conservatives” on the court, ruled that Arizona’s law, which instructs courts to suspend or revoke the licenses of Arizona businesses that knowingly employ illegals, clearly fell within the federal exception allowing a state to issue sanctions through its “licensing” laws.  To that I say: Hooked on Phonics works.  The majority also upheld Arizona’s law that required each employer to confirm the immigration status of potential employees by using the E-verify system.  E-verify allows an employer to send information supplied by the employee to the federal government via the internet, and then be told whether the employee is able to be legally employed.

This was a beneficial decision because it will allow Arizona to try and put an end to illegal immigration by targeting its catalyst: employers.  It also gives every other state a template to use in their own legislation.  Finally, it was also an easy decision, because the Arizona law does exactly what the federal law said it could do: impose sanctions through its business licensing laws.  Of course, three of the four “liberals” on the court sided with the Chamber of Commerce; although not because they like big business (the fourth lib, Elena Kagan didn’t hear the case).

I’m not going to bore you with the details of the three dissenting opinions.  Let me just say that the justices had to go through some serious contortions of law and the English language to even approach well-reasoned decisions.  Their “legal” reason for trying to strike down the law: while Congress may have specifically made sanctions through “licensing laws” an exception to federal preemption, Congress didn’t actually mean it.  The real reason why they wanted to strike down the law: it increases the possibility of a business discriminating against someone of non-European heritage (despite the existence of anti-discrimination laws).  Oh yeah, the law also makes it harder for illegals to get jobs.  And without jobs, the illegals may go back to their countries of origin, thereby making it more difficult for community organizers to get them registered to vote so that they can vote for Democrats.  [Places broad brush back into bag].

Bottom line: good decision.  The easiest, and cheapest, way to combat illegal immigration is to go after the businesses that employ them.  And since the federal government has no interest in enforcing its own immigration laws, while at the same time turning a blind eye to cities like Chicago that blatantly advertise themselves as “sanctuary cities,” someone had to do something…and Arizona’s on the front lines.  Oh, and the law clearly falls into the federal exception.  So no “activist” judges here.  Which is good.

Don’t think about that! It’s Now Interstate Commerce.

REGULATE IT!

Well, a federal judge from the District of Columbia has ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional.  The score card now sits at 3-2 in favor of its Constitutionality.  Of course, the score doesn’t matter because the Supreme Court will be making the ultimate decision, hopefully sooner rather than later.  I’m posting about the D.C. decision because I find it truly terrifying that a federal judge would issue a ruling that says this:

It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting,’ especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

Read that again, and absorb just what is being asserted here.  Let’s remember that the Constitutional issue with Obamacare is whether Congress can compel a private citizen to purchase a product on the private market.  Our government argues it possesses this power under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.  The Commerce Clause says this:

The Congress shall have power…. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

The Commerce Clause constitutes one of the very few enumerated powers given to Congress, and its scope seems pretty clear.  Of course, thanks to the Supreme Court, this short clause has been twisted into a pretzel, and now serves to support Congress’ regulation of just about everything.  Congress has never before tried to force the American people to buy something, however, so Obamacare is truly unprecedented. 

O.k., now that we’ve had our review, let’s evaluate the scope of the D.C. ruling. 

It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting…’

Here, the D.C. court is simply agreeing with the government’s argument that, by doing nothing, one is actually doing something.  Take this assertion to its logical conclusion, and Congress can force us to buy whatever it wants.  Hopefully it chooses a tank.  Because owning a tank would be awesome.

In my opinion, the D.C. court goes beyond that though. 

Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.

By using this assertion as a basis for its ruling, the court argues that Congress can literally regulate one’s thoughts under the Commerce Clause.  I’m crazy, you say?  Well, think about it.  Where does a decision to not do something reside?  It isn’t manifested in physical action, as a decision to do something would be.  Instead, it resides only in your brain.  The D.C. court believes the decision living in your head can be regulated, it’s that simple. 

Am I going too far with this?  Maybe.  But everyone needs to realize that, if the individual mandate in Obamacare is found to be Constitutional, then there is literally nothing Congress cannot regulate.  And if the D.C. court has its way, that would include your own thoughts.

How many waivers will it take before Obamacare considered failure?

It seems everyone with any shwag is getting a waiver for Obamacare now-days.  What is a waiver from Obamacare you ask?  Well, in its effort to create awesome health care benefits out of pixie dust and rainbows, the new health care law compels  privately-owned insurance providers to give at least $2 million in annual benefits to insureds by 2013.  Well that sounds like a great idea!  Unlimited insurance benefits for all! 

It turns out that there’s a small problem with requiring companies to provide a certain level of coverage to all insureds though.  It’s called reality.  A company like McDonald’s, for example, provides some health benefits for its low-wage workers because the premiums aren’t terribly high…so it’s affordable.  Do you think $2 million a year is going to be affordable?  Probably not.  Hence the waivers.

The waivers allow health insurance plans to limit how much they will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage for a given year. Under the new health care law, however, such annual limits are phased out by the year 2014. (Under HHS regulations, annual limits can be no less than $750,000 for 2011, no less than $1.25 million in 2012 and no less than $2 million in 2013.)

So far, 222 organizations have been granted waivers from having to comply with Obamacare.  The most recent: three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).  No, this isn’t about unions per se.  Fact it, lots of large companies and charitable organizations have been issued waivers.  The purpose of this post is to simply inquire into whether Obamacare can be defined as a good thing if no one can afford to comply with it (I know, this question often vexes liberals)?

Let’s face it…the new health care law is an entitlement program whose purpose is to provide good healthcare, at a cheap cost, to those deemed most at risk.  Unfortunately, good healthcare at a cheap cost doesn’t exist in the real world.  So, what needs to happen?  Well, first, the big political donors need to be satiated.  Hence specifically exempting them from the law.  Second, those low-wage employees of the big political donors will need to be subsidized in some way by the government.  Why?  Because if Obamacare results in janitors not receiving the same annual insurance limits of everyone else, even the libs will admit failure.

You see, there is no such thing as a free lunch.  A company can’t survive by offering cadillac plans to everyone, and not charging appropriate premiums to everyone.  An insurance provider can’t afford to offer  insurance to someone with heart disease who smokes five packs a day, while only requiring the premium of a healthier person.  But the government doesn’t exist in the real world, and that’s why the end result of Obamacare will be a lack of private insurance providers offering benefits to everyone else. 

But that’s the point, isn’t it?

 

S.F. Bans Happy Meal. No Word on Children Eating Parents.

In its continuing effort to make sure no children live anywhere near it (and with real estate prices being what they are, few parents could afford them anyway), San Francisco has banned the Happy Meal.  Why, you ask?  Well isn’t it obvious:

‘Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color,’ said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

No Supervisor Mar, your children aren’t sick.  They’re fat.  In fact, they’re apparently so ridiculously fat, they have eaten their parents so as to make obtaining Happy Meals that much easier.

‘This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children’s health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment,’ Mar said.

I’m sure you can include Taco Bell in that wide range of restaurants.  Well, probably not.  In San Francisco, Taco Bell is a cherished landmark.  It does, after all, provide quick and easy access to cheap burritos for all those  folks who, after a night of clubbing at the Leather Rodeo, like to enjoy a little smokey-smokey (for medicinal purposes only).

In other words, I think San Francisco may have some moral social issues that, while self-inflicted, might have a greater impact on their children than Happy Meals.  Not to mention the whole parent-eating thing.

Court strikes down Prop 8 without actually addressing real issue

To marry next?

What is marriage?  That’s the question of utmost importance that was completely ignored by the District Court of Northern California judge when he ruled on whether Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.  Quick recap: Prop 8 was passed in California as an amendment to the California constitution.  The essence of it was to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thereby not allowing gays to marry.  The California Supreme Court found it to comply with the California constitution because, well, it was a part of the California constitution.  So, some gay people who wanted to get married filed suit in federal court, arguing that the amendment violated the federal Constitution.  Got it?  Good.

In a 132 page opinion, the judge ruled that the amendment violated the federal Constitution because it denied gay people the fundamental right to get married without a good reason.  For many, this was a “no duh” ruling.  It apparently was for the presiding judge as well.  The problem with the judge’s ruling, which ultimately will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, is that he utterly failed to determine what constitutes “marriage. ” In fact, he didn’t even give it the old college try.

Why does this matter?  Well, everyone agrees that marriage is a fundamental right.  Thus, the proponents of Prop 8 will need to make some factual showing that the government of California has a compelling state interest in keeping gays from getting hitched, which will never happen.  However, what is marriage?  Does any two people wanting to get married constitute marriage?  What if I want to marry my sister?  We’re both consenting adults.  What if I want to have multiple wives?  We’re all consenting adults.  Using the court’s reasoning, the government would need to have a compelling reason to keep me from doing either of the above.  And since the District Court expressly stated procreation doesn’t have any impact on who can marry, the possibility of having a baby that looks like Chunk’s friend in the Goonies shouldn’t stop me from making my sister the ol’ ball n chain.

The fact is, “marriage” actually has a definition in the history of both this nation and others, and it isn’t just two people who want to get “married.”  I have to imagine the Supreme Court will want to determine what marriage is, before determining whether it’s unconstitutional to keep two homosexuals from walking down the aisle.

Well, what comes next?  The case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which will most certainly affirm the District Court’s ruling.  Why?  Because the Ninth Circuit is without question the most liberal circuit in the country, and it would probably allow me to marry my cat while lighting up a joint next to the church I accidentally lit on fire because my lighter wasn’t sufficiently cat-proof.  After that, it will go the Supreme Court, where I expect it will likely be affirmed again.  Then I will file my lawsuit asking the court to recognize my right to marry a mail order bride from every country in eastern europe.

WhiteHouse.Gov Blogger Knows Just Enough to be Dangerous

Looks like a great idea.

Why would the White House, if it was so certain about its position on the constitutionality of the healthcare bill, have Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President for Special Projects (huh?) blog about the ruling in Virginia that I wrote about here yesterday? I’m not sure, but reading Ms. Cutter’s post is similar to listening to progressive talk radio; it’s full of over-generalized statements of certainty with no underlying support.

Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government.

That’s the Obama Administration’s shout-out to those annoying courts.  How dare they function as the third branch of government?  Who do they think they are evaluating legislation for its constitutionality?  Stupid Constitution.

Today’s decision merely said that the Virginia Attorney General has standing to challenge the lawsuit – which means that the court has jurisdiction to hear further arguments.

The assertion that the court merely ruled that the Virginia Attorney General has standing to challenge the legislation (not the lawsuit, as Cutter incorrectly states) is what we, in the fancy, smarty-pants legal world refer to as a lie.  Standing was only one basis for the government’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s complaint.  A second, and far more important reason, was the government’s assertion that Virginia didn’t state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.   In other words, the federal government argued that Virginia’s complaint failed, as a matter of law, because Congress could clearly do what it was trying to do.  The court, rightfully so, said it isn’t clear that Congress can do what it is trying to do, i.e., force citizens to purchase a product on the private market or face a penalty.

The fact is, all of this liberal meme about how the healthcare law being supported by long-standing and well-established legal precedents is complete garbage.  Ask any person making this assertion to provide one such example of Supreme Court precedent and you know what you’ll get?  Crickets.  That’s because there isn’t any.

Now that this preliminary stage has ended, the government fully expects to prevail on the merits.   The Affordable Care Act falls well within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.   As President Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried recently wrote, ‘the health care law’s enemies have no ally in the Constitution.’

Sigh.  Well if a Reagan Solicitor General who is a Harvard law professor thinks so then it must be true!  Look, contrary to what many like to say nowadays, Reagan was not some conservative god.  Yes, he was better than our last four presidents (and certainly the mental midget that came immediately before him), but is that really saying much?  Simply put, Charles Fried is an unabashed Obama supporter, and the arguments he sets forth in his Boston Globe Op-Ed make me think I could be a professor at Harvard.  Fried’s absolutely certain that Congress can force people to buy health insurance because it can regulate interstate commerce.  Unfortunately, he jumps right over the fact that telling someone that they can’t sell something is a lot different then forcing them to buy something.  It must be his Harvard intelligence.

After all, over 70 years of settled law is on the side of the Affordable Care Act.

Where?  Can anyone tell me where?  Look, I’m aware that the Supreme Court has rarely limited Congress’s authority under the commerce clause.  But all of those cases share one thing in common: they involve Congress regulating an economic activity, not compelling people to take part in an economic activity.  The Supreme Court may go along with the Obama Administration on this one, but it’ll have to use some serious White-Out on Webster’s dictionary to do it.

The remaining portion of the White House blog doesn’t analyze the law.  It explains why the mandatory buy-in is necessary for the healthcare law to work.  That’s mostly window dressing as far as the case goes.  The central issue is whether Congress has the constitutional authority under the commerce clause to compel people to purchase insurance, and if they don’t, to penalize them.  That’s it.  Considering the fact that the current Administration and its cohorts believe the healthcare law is so clearly constitutional, it’s more than a little disingenuous to call the Virginia court’s denial of their motion to dismiss due to a lack of such clarity just a procedural step.

And Stephanie Cutter should stick to Special Projects.

Obamacare Challenge Still Alive in Virginia

Ah checks and balances.  Like many states throughout this nation, Virginia filed an action challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Specifically, the action challenged whether the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance was appropriate.  The federal government recently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, basically arguing that the mandate constituted a tax, and therefore, could be levied by Congress.  This argument made sense…if you’re either retarded or a lawyer.  Anyone with a little bit of common sense and a fifth grade grasp of the english language recognizes the difference between a tax and a mandate to purchase a product on the private market.  Well, I’m glad to say that a Virginia judge proved he’s neither retarded nor a lawyer.

‘The congressional enactment under review — the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision — literally forges new ground and extends (the U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark,’ [Judge] Hudson said in a 32-page ruling.

I’m not going to lie; I feel a little vindicated here.  I know, I know, it’s just one judge and the matter still needs to go to trial, but at least Judge Hudson agrees with me that Obamacare’s mandate is unprecedented.  I’ve heard from some people for months that it’s just another tax or it’s clearly within Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.  Well, it appears as though I’m not the only one who thinks Congress has ventured into uncharted waters here.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the ruling rejecting the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case was a procedural step and that the passage of the healthcare reform law has ‘full constitutional backing.’

“Full constitutional backing?”  Well that’s a relief.  And no Ms. Sebelius, the denial wasn’t simply a procedural step.  In fact, I’ll go so far as to say it means the Virginia court will deem the law unconstitutional.  That’s just my gut talking though, so we’ll see.  In any event, I’ll be shocked if this issue is not ultimately taken up by the Supreme Court at some point.

Now, why does this matter?  It’s only one provision you say?  Well, it matters because without the mandate, Obamacare is dead.  Without everyone being required to purchase insurance, Obamacare will be even more expensive than it is now (yes it is possible), which wouldn’t fly with a Congress that was barely able to pass the monstrosity in its current form and is looking likely to move a lot more to the right come November.

Looting: How the Bored Respond to Perceived Injustice

Another day, another artificially manufactured racial issue.  Brief replay of facts: Johannes Mehserle, a former transit cop, shot Oscar Grant in the back while trying to subdue him during a confrontation early on New Years Day 2009.   He was charged with murder.  During the trial, Officer Mehserle testified that when he went to grab his taser, he accidentally grabbed his handgun instead, and ended up shooting and killing Grant.  Grant was allegedly resisting arrest at the time.

Present day: the Los Angeles jury convicted Officer Mehserle of involuntary manslaughter, thereby finding that he did not intend to kill Grant.  He was convicted of killing him though, and will spend time in jail because of it.  The real story here, as it is too often, is a community rioting because of perceived injustice due to racism.  See, Officer Mehserle was white and Grant was black.  Therefore, in the eyes of a small minority of people in Oakland, CA, rioting is warranted.  And of course, the race-baiters aren’t far away,

‘We are outraged that the jury did not find guilty of murder in a case that is so egregiously excessive and mishandled,’ said Benjamin Todd Jealous, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Well, thanks for the objective analysis Ben.

‘It’s unbelievable this guy is getting less jail time than someone who wrote a bad check,’ said Barbara Plantiko, a 41-year-old immigration lawyer at the protest. ‘I just don’t buy he got confused. I don’t think that it was an accident.’

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I wonder if Mr. Jealous or Ms. Plantiko think destroying one’s own community is a good way to deal with events like this?  What is Officer Mehserle had been found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death?  What would their response be if I started rioting?

Simply put, this country will never get beyond race if people like Mr. Jealous continue searching for “racism” under every rock.  Of course, the riots themselves are only half about racism.  Many of those people who were looting would be looting anyway.  Why?  I don’t know.  Maybe because they’re bored.  Maybe because they think they’re entitled to the cell phone they just stole.

Oh, and where’s our post-racial president in all of this?  I don’t know…probably golfing.  But his DOJ has announced that it will review the shooting to determine whether it warrants federal prosecution.  Keep in mind, this is coming from the same group that decided to drop its investigation of a black panther group allegedly violating voting laws with intimidation for no particular reason.  I have to ask again: Where the Hell is Kanye?!

Judge Blocks Obama Drilling Moratorium — Actual Breaking News!

United States District Judge Martin Feldman has blocked the President’s Gulf Offshore oil moratorium.

Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

That’s right Judge.  Obama’s reasoning behind the moratorium was completely illogical and unjustified.

Likely more on this later, as the liberals scream about activist judges.