172 responses to “The Candyass Republicans (9mar12 update)”

1. 

   Douglas Keachie

   08 March 2012

   Michael, I don’t quite see me wearing “serious pants” in creating that image, which, BTW, is doing OK on Flickr.com at 21 views already.

   LikeLike

2. 

   Ryan Mount

   08 March 2012

   You guys get off topic quickly. My suspicion is that everyone in Nevada County as a “script” judging by the all the 45mph drivers on 49.
   Anyhow, regarding the individual mandate, and by extension this contraception mandate (I believe they are related), the issue before the SCOTUS is the Interstate Commerce Clause. And this is huge because it could be a referendum on New Deal policies that have informed (and funded) our government for the past 70 or so years.
   Will they (the SCOTUS) throw it out? I honestly think it’s up in the air given the construction (pardon the pun) of the current court. It will probably pass because of judicial precedent. But it may not, and if it doesn’t it could really turn things on it’s head.
   BTW, the Supreme Court has uploaded all of the PPACA initial briefs here:
   http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx
   (Note: you’ll probably need a fire under your butt in order to keep you awake while reading these pleadings, but none the less, they’re interesting.)

   LikeLike

3. 

   George Rebane

   08 March 2012

   RyanM 944am – thanks for that link; probably more than we want to know, but it does make the point. And I agree that the big issue is the modern review of the Commerce Clause. It’s like a big old lumpy rug that has had so much garbage swept under it over the years that it’s now hard to navigate across it.
   DougK 751am – for a man staring at what sounds like certainty in November, what kind of odds are you willing to give on Obama’s victory?

   LikeLike

4. 

   Douglas Keachie

   08 March 2012

   George, odds, 1:1, why give away the store, when suckers roam the planet?

   LikeLike

5. 

   Ryan Mount

   08 March 2012

   George-
   Obama’s a shoe-in 2012 unless there’s a massive unemployment upswing or someone discovers a gimp under this Whitehouse bed. If Romney gets the nod, just think how the “Obamacare” debate will go:
   Obama: “I’d like to thank Mitt model for my healthcare reform.”
   I’m not going to be voting for Obama as I’ve said here and elsewhere (nor the GOP for that matter), but I’m willing to wager $50.00 on Obama being President November 8th and put that towards the Hospitality House. Anyone in for the bet?
   A more interesting and difficult wager would be on the upcoming SCOTUS/healthcare mandates.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Tony Loro

   08 March 2012

   You guys all miss the point of this. Here it comes
   George Rabanne’s daughter is a slut who has exorbitant sex and when she was in college her dad paid for her contraception. Let’s watch videos of her having sex.
   Now George you know what was going through the minds of her parents.
   Or the minds of millions of other parents who wisely paid for or arranged for contraception for their daughters. Anyone with a daughter old enough to use contraception was painted with the same brush that this fat ex-drug addict used.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Steven Frisch

   08 March 2012

   Ryan, thanks for posting a better link to the briefs. As I said over in a previous thread the issue of individual rights to specific coverages are not an ICC issue, but of course, if the entire PPACA is tossed due to ICC issues, the issues around coverages are moot.
   And if the PPACA is tossed, the previous status quo antebellum reigns, and women’s reproductive rights, and the general law of who gets what coverages stands.
   What I find most interesting here is that anyone would object to covering women’s reproductive health, since it is a clearly established medical right, upheld by the SCOTUS on several occasions. To say this is a “freedom of religion” issue is equally specious, since there is clearly defined law that defines which classifications of employees are covered under a conscience objection, laid out in the 1972 law and the EEOC.
   So what the Blunt amendment was trying to do was expand the definitions of who could be denied coverage under conscience objections. But the Blunt amendment, and two others, failed to pass. If they had passed they would have likely been quickly challenged and overturned in appellate corts.
   Consequently, the opponents of the current law really only have ONE other path to having thier will be done—take the Senate(and now they will need a 60 seat majority because you better believe this will be a Democratic litmus test) and hold the House, pass the new law, and either a) hope the appellate and SCOTUS uphold it, or b) gain the Presidency and wait for a more favorable SCOTUS.
   If this is the case, then the strategy they are pursuing, demonizing the messengers, alienating women and fighting the battle on the grounds of contraception rather than religious liberty, is exactly the wrong way to win thier case.
   Thus, every day this ridiculous fight goes on is a victory for women’s reproductive rights.
   So, keep it up boys; you could not be doing more to re-elect the President.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Steven Frisch

   08 March 2012

   By the way, I did read most of the briefs last night, and although I think it will be a close vote, I would find it hard to believe that the SCOTUS would throw out more than 75 years of precedent. My guess is the swing in a 5-4 will be Anthony Kennedy.
   The problem with throwing out 75 years of precedent is that they will be faced with dozens of cases trying to re-define the Commerce Clause, many of them playing out over a 10-15 year period. The conservative justices, looking ahead to the next election, and the likelihood that Obama may have 1-2 more SC nominations, has got to be worried that we may end up with an even broader interpretation of the commerce clause, one closer to what Alexander Hamilton proposed.
   Cooler heads will prevail.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Steven Frisch

   08 March 2012

   I’d say Tony just laid it out pretty well……George may not want to hear it, but that is what at least 80% of parents and 30% of swing women voters heard, whether he likes it or not.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Ryan Mount

    08 March 2012

    Steven wrote: “…it hard to believe that the SCOTUS would throw out more than 75 years of precedent.”
    I agree with that. But the debate will be fascinating. And to your “slut” alienation comment, you’re right, the GOP is in trouble with swing voters now. Big trouble.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Steven Frisch

    08 March 2012

    The vote will be Ginsberg, Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer / Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia.
    But I guess we will need to listen, wait, and see eh?

    LikeLike

12. 

    Steven Frisch

    08 March 2012

    Here is an interesting commentary go Justice Kennedy’s previous opinion re: the commerce clause:
    http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-los-angeles/health-care-reform-s-constitutionality-part-2-what-will-justice-kennedy-do

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    08 March 2012

    DougK 1016am – I think your odds and assessment are both questionable. You will verify this yourself by counting the number of planet roaming suckers who will take your bet at 1:1 odds, which are a verifiable indicator of a belief tenet of extreme doubt, or of total ignorance of the underlying matter.

    LikeLike

14. 

    George Rebane

    08 March 2012

    TonyL 1020am – I’m afraid your little bon mot needs a tighter connection to the issue at hand. What on earth does parents voluntarily paying for their daughter’s contraception costs in college have to do with the interpretation and/or expansion of government mandated entitlements for providing the same benefit to a putatively self-sufficient adults?
    Rabanne??

    LikeLike

15. 

    John Galt

    08 March 2012

    I see that Steve brought in another Saul Alinsky team member. Welcome Tony Loro. I presume Steve’s declaration that he hadn’t read the full version of “Rules for Radicals” inspired you to jump in. (Still he’s pretty good for having read only the Cliff Notes.)
    So here’s what the Rules for Radicals team would like us to understand:
    One wrong does make a right (a la Bill Maher)
    Two wrongs Do NOT make a right (a la Rush Limbaugh)*
    Three Wrongs make a right again (a lo Tony Loro)
    * Note, Exception, 2 wrongs do make a right for liberals (a la Ed Shultz)
    In summary, debate for the radicals is merely a means to occuly the conservatives while they busy themselves writing letters to the editors and collecting petitions. The notion of an exchange of ideas with such radicals is a masquerade.
    –John Galt

    LikeLike

16. 

    Ryan Mount

    08 March 2012

    “John Galt”-
    I thought Steven’s observations were right on the mark. I’m not sure why you guys keep dragging this Saul Alinsky guy into the equation, but it seems, and pardon my criticism, a weird obsession. I’ve been around plenty of “radicals” (some wacky, some reasonable) in my time and never heard Alinsky once mentioned until Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich recently evoked his name. Yeah, that’s an anecdotal observation, but I’ve done plenty of tours through the Liberation/Marxist hoopla in college many years ago, not once hearing his name until recently.
    “John Galt” wrote: “The notion of an exchange of ideas with such radicals is a masquerade.”
    That is quite overstated. From what I’ve observed here, we have people talking past each other followed by some name calling and slurs. And Mr. Frisch seems to being trying to take the high road here. Mr. Loro seems to be talking past the discussion with some heated rhetoric. But if you read through the fire, as Mr. Frisch did, you’ll see that he has a good point: the Mr. Limbaugh’s comments really screwed the GOP’s pooch. And to George’s original “candy ass” post, it’s relevant. Where’s the GOP’s response? Where’s the leadership? Where’s the damage control for the swing voters? It’s nowhere to be found.
    BTW, I give Mr. Rebane a great deal of credit for trying to keep people on target.

    LikeLike

17. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    I already have one such sucker, Woodsy on The Union Towntalk, previous a commenter there, along with myself, back before the Evil Empire (Swift) shut down the fun. Made the bet over a year ago, he has stopped referencing it as of late. I wonder why?

    LikeLike

18. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    “You will verify this yourself by counting the number of planet roaming suckers who will take your bet at 1:1 odds, which are a verifiable indicator of a belief tenet of extreme doubt, or of total ignorance of the underlying matter.”
    Nope, it’s a simple matter of controlling risk, to match my available budget. I gather nobody one Rebane’s blog is going to bet against Obama at 1:1. What sort of odds would you consider, then? Do you need $10 return for every $1 risked? Would that level the playing field for you? Nope, not even Todd? I’m rather guessing there will be no takers at anything less than 3:1, that would be read as three of my dollars to one of yours, for the uncertain out there.

    LikeLike

19. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    You can see the odds offered by the pros at http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html and notice that I am not too far out of line. They give Obama at 4:9 and Romney at 2:1 and Hillary at 100:1 .

    LikeLike

20. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    I’m glad to see that Vegas has a good deal of faith in the the Secret Service, otherwise the Hillary payout would be much lower.

    LikeLike

21. 

    George Rebane

    08 March 2012

    DougK 137pm – Yes, I’d agree that 3:1 would be the threshold odds to start attracting bettors at this date. Today my own belief that Obama will go on to win 2/3. This will, of course, change as the weeks pass and things happen.
    RyanM 1244pm – Saul Alinsky is not an “obsession” in the sense you (de)mean it. Alinsky is cited here and elsewhere only because he describes a behavioral model for political thought and activism. Reading his prescriptions for radical leftists is a reliable predictor of what such people do and will do, and it efficiently explains away what they have done. Therefore it has value for that per se, and also serves as an efficient way to compactly communicate such notions with others familiar with his work.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Ryan Mount

    08 March 2012

    George, Hi. Again as always, thanks for the forum.
    I’m pretty sure the only people who pay attention to Alinsky are American Conservatives. Much like the only people who pay attention to Rush are American Progressives.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    So Alinsky’s tome is in effect a Bible, from whence all manner of preachers can derive meanings to suit their preferred frames of reference?

    LikeLike

24. 

    George Rebane

    08 March 2012

    RyanM 224pm, DougK 233pm – Actually, I can only confirm that many conservatives do indeed pay attention to Alinsky’s writings and have done so for years for the reasons stated. I don’t know whether his material “is in effect a Bible” for collectivists, but one does not stray far from the observables to ascribe it such influence.
    Re RushL – if our progressives also pay attention to Rush, then the man does indeed have a wide audience on both sides of the political spectrum, because he does have a large conservative following.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Ryan Mount

    08 March 2012

    My point was about the people who are ironically getting their panties in a bundle: American Conservatives over Alinsky; American Progressives over Rush.
    I don’t know how I can be any more clear about this, but radicals nor their handlers aren’t reading Alinsky. Maybe they should so they can join the discussion. From what I understand, Rules for Radicals seems to be the flip side of Machiavelli’s The Prince, which I have read and enjoyed.
    Now if you said Chomsky, Foucault, Zinn and Flamboyowitz (OK, I made that one up), you’d be onto something.

    LikeLike

26. 

    George Rebane

    08 March 2012

    RyanM 257pm – using a reliable model to predict/explain the behavior of an important cohort in our society is definitely NOT getting anyone’s “undies in a bundle”. You seem to be contending something which I’m not following. Please reread – I did not claim that collectivists read Alinsky, only that they behaved according to his prescriptions. Alinsky’s advice has been given and deduced by others of the Left.

    LikeLike

27. 

    Steven Frisch

    08 March 2012

    There can be no damage control with the swing voters because Republican leadership is giving thier Presidential candidates such a wide berth. They can’t weigh in because if they do they create havoc in the electoral process for themselves. This is a natural outgrowth of the rise of social conservatism exemplified by the Tea Party movement. The ultimate irony here is that the Republicans are probably more divided now than they have been at any time since 1964 but the Democrats are increasingly more united as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan recede in importance. ( This is also analogous to the divide in the Democratic party in 1968).
    It’s a Barry Goldwater moment.
    Many of us here, and on other blogs, we’re saying that the TP would end up dividing the Republican party and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
    The big question in December of 2012 for Republicans will be “where do we go from here?” Do they try to rebuild the party on a more conservative base as Ronald Reagan did? Or do more moderate Republicans attempt to reign in the conservative radicals, betting that the American people are actually more centrist?
    I really think that George and others here are betting on the first scenario, and sincerely believe that that is a more prudent course. I really don’t doubt thier sincerity.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Ryan Mount

    08 March 2012

    OK. I’m not getting anywhere with Alinsky thing. So I’ll drop it. But I still think it’s weird.
    Mr. Frisch (above) is probably right. The only thing missing is the Daisy commercial from Obama, but that’s probably coming.

    LikeLike

29. 

    George Rebane

    08 March 2012

    Given that the Repubs do poorly this November, I also agree with SteveF’s 306pm. There will be a lot of soul searching, rending of garment, gnashing of teeth, and a wail of “where do we go from here?” An historic outcome may be the rise of a third (and possibly a fourth?) significant party on the national stage. However, looking at Obama’s swings to the left, I’m not so sure that the Democrats are flying in all that tight of a formation.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Brad Croul

    08 March 2012

    @GeorgeR, why should Republicans tell Obama, “Suck it up, this is what free speech sounds like. Limbaugh has plowed no new ground with his remarks, but followed in your own well laid and deep furrows. You are piling this crap into a high mountain only to hide your bankrupt social and economic policies during the election year.”?
    Obama did not have anything to do with the backlash and made no statement challenging Limbaugh’s free speech rights.
    Here is a link to the video containing his response to questions asked during a recent press conference:
    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/46643420#46643420

    LikeLike

31. 

    Paul Emery

    08 March 2012

    Yes Brad
    El Rushbo is Obama’s best pal and biggest asset right now. Why would they want to shut him up? With enemies like that who needs friends?

    LikeLike

32. 

    Steven Frisch

    08 March 2012

    Actually George, this is where Ben and I really agree. I would rather see a multi-party system because I think it would be a more accurate representation of the political diversity of our country ( and state for that matter). I often find myself out of step with the Democratic party on foreign policy, taxation, budget and environmental issues, falling more to the centrist side. With that said, this year Democrats and liberals and progressives will largely fall in line behind President Obama, because the see the pragmatic choice, I believe the Republican party has lost its sense of pragmatism and will need to feel the fire of thier hopes being dashed to recoup. But as I have said here many times, we are a hell of a lot closer to 4 tribes than 2.

    LikeLike

33. 

    George Rebane

    08 March 2012

    SteveF 551pm – well then, it appears we have discovered a longstanding agreement between several of us here.
    Given such a, say, four party shakeout, how everyone characterize the distinction in the core values of such a political gaggle?

    LikeLike

34. 

    Todd Juvinall

    08 March 2012

    We already have many parties but those stubborn Americans for some reason unknown to me keep populating the democrat and Republican organizations. If someone wants to take the path of a third or fourth then there are ready-made partys to use. In New York there is even a conservation party you can register in. I watch the British Parliament on CSPAN and we see the top three parties in the chamber. The Tories had to cut a deal with the liberals and labor is now out. I just love listening to them trying to make something work. Almost impossible.

    LikeLike

35. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    Well Todd, the British situation sure contrasts with the Republicans and Democrats in the House getting along so well and fixing the economy.

    LikeLike

36. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    “I don’t know whether his material “is in effect a Bible” for collectivists, but one does not stray far from the observables to ascribe it such influence.”
    I was ascribing the “Bible” aspect to how the right wing uses it to frame their versions of what they think that the folks on the left are doing.

    LikeLike

37. 

    Todd Juvinall

    08 March 2012

    He had the teachers of America. They have wrecked our youth.

    LikeLike

38. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    Wussy, underpaid, under skilled parents wrecked our youth.

    LikeLike

39. 

    Todd Juvinall

    08 March 2012

    So if those parents had no kids what would you have done for aliving? I see you signed the anti free speech petition. Don’t you feel a little dirty?

    LikeLike

40. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    I signed the let’s not donate to Rush Limbaugh’s old age pension fund via advertisers. What do you think he’s got? A government entitlement to be the most overpaid talk show host in America? Who appointed him King? Go buy from his advertisers and keep him on the air. He has all the rights to free speech as any other American citizen. Let him buy a megaphone and go stand at 6th and Mission with the rest of the nutcases. You can buy hi batteries. Nobody is denying him a right to speak. God is sending the Repo Man for the Golden microphone.

    LikeLike

41. 

    Paul Emery

    08 March 2012

    I’ve said it before and it bears repeating. All it would take is one election cycle where an overwhelming majority vote anyone but Republicrats to competently change the landscape. Imagine, the entire House wiped out in one cycle.
    The Republican sponsored and and voter approved so called “open primary” will make it more difficult for sure.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Douglas Keachie

    08 March 2012

    I would have sold real estate, insurance, or gone into law. Actually originally intended to be an ethnographic cinematographer. Divorse made grad school messy, along with child support.

    LikeLike

43. 

    Russ Steele

    09 March 2012

    Michelle Malkin is putting her money where her conservative, free-market principles are.
    The full announcement about our new Twitchy.com ad buy with Rush Limbaugh is here.
    A snippet: “As a small business owner, defender of capitalism, and advocate of free speech, I am putting my money where my conservative, free-market principles are. TWITCHY.COM is proud to join companies across the country that advertise with talk show giant Rush Limbaugh and his Excellence In Broadcasting network. Today, we will begin running ads on the RushLimbaugh.com website.”
    Like I said yesterday and have been saying for years, we need to unite against the progs’ collective, coordinated whitewash of Barack Obama and the organized effort to criminalize and silence conservative dissent. However you can do it, large or small, please step up!

    LikeLike

44. 

    Gregory

    09 March 2012

    “What I find most interesting here is that anyone would object to covering women’s reproductive health” – Frisch
    No one is; that’s the false Democratic talking point the whole brouhaha was meant to enable, starting with Stephanopoulos’ introduction of the topic as a debate “moderator”.
    The objection was over the Feds forcing the coverage of birth control pills without copay or limits, no matter the objection of the folks forced to pay for the policy.
    It ain’t over till it’s over, and the fat lady hasn’t even arrived at the Met, let alone started singing. Charlotte should be interesting; who isn’t expecting the stone cold loony 1% of the 99% to make Charlotte look like Chicago ’68?

    LikeLike

45. 

    Gregory

    09 March 2012

    European style proportional representation isn’t likely to catch on in the US. Dream on.
    “I believe the Republican party has lost its sense of pragmatism and will need to feel the fire of thier [sic] hopes being dashed to recoup.” -Frisch
    I think Frisch is just longing for the good old pre-Gingrich and later Nancy Pelosi days when Republicans were too few in the Congress to do anything but vote for Democratic bills with a few bones tossed in their direction.

    LikeLike

46. 

    Steven Frisch

    09 March 2012

    Sorry Gregory, It was not George Stephanopoulos who introduced the Blunt amendment. Nor did he ask the question in a vacuum; he asked it after Rick Santorum brought it up on the campaign trial.
    By the way, I notice no one has answered my question about why we should pay for diabetes medication for people who eat too much sugar, or blood pressure medication for people who eat too much fat, or viagra for the guys who can’t get it up any more, or dental care for people who don’t brush their teeth.
    I object to paying for these things (I don’t really, but I’m making a point).
    Reproduction is as much a fact of life as heart disease…or …going bald….or whatever.

    LikeLike

47. 

    Russ Steele

    09 March 2012

    Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post: Limbaugh attack boomerangs on the White House
    Perhaps the left carried on a little too long and a little too loudly regarding Rush Limbaugh’s nasty language about Sandra Fluke. Conservative activist Penny Nance, executive director of Concerned Women for America, has sent a letter to the White House chief of staff demanding President Obama’s super PAC live up to the same standard Democrats have articulated for Republicans and Rush Limbaugh.
    ooo
    Why have all the lefty bloggers crying foul about Limbaugh fallen silent on this subject. When will own lefty blogger get the Democrat memo to back off?

    LikeLike

48. 

    George Rebane

    09 March 2012

    SteveF 825am – The extension of entitlement ‘medical’ care has no end as I have pointed out here and you again bring to the fore. It is the logical analog of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, only without constitutional basis. With arguments that you have given, where indeed are the limits before the entire field of medicine, cosmetic procedures, transgender manipulations, … is an ever expanding area of state enterprise. It is a valid issue to discuss, and I’m afraid that the boundary, if one is ever imposed, will be quite arbitrary.
    I’m looking at the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum that reports on recent advances in “becoming bionic” that describes how AI, neural interfaces, and robotics are promising the remaking of our bodies. I’m sure all of that will be melded in as a soon to be pursued ‘right’ that government will guarantee through another entitlement expansion.
    But coming full circle, the more government demands to spend and redistribute, the less freedoms and money I have to live my life as I see fit. Somewhere a line must be drawn under the current system, because none of it is sustainable and Obamacare is the current Big Lie bilking the nation. I am for drawing it sooner than later. Other solutions have been suggested and rejected for reducing healthcare costs and making it more broadly available.

    LikeLike

49. 

    Douglas Keachie

    09 March 2012

    No need to back off. It is not a free speech issue. The beauty of SuperPacs, Obama has no control over returning donations, and people including Russ Steele have to PAY to listen to Bill Maher, and thus it is NOT a public use of the airwaves. You don’t like Maher? Boycott your private tv dish or cable provider. In the meantime plans are afoot to have a trailer that is pulled about town with the names of local advertisers who support Rush on KNCO. Of course it will absolutely up to code for everything, and equipped with front and rear videocams, and obeying the laws religiously. Now that’s free speech! I have no desire to have KNCO go silent, I just want them to make better use of those three hours. If reducing local advertising revenue is going to “hurt” them, then consider the following:
    If KNCO gets national attention directed at GV/NC for dropping the Rush show, it may bring a lot of interest, new people, moving in, and/or being tourists. In short, more money, and more local advertising. losing Rush could be the start of a whole new and more prosperous world, and I really doubt that the major advertisers dropped him without doing a lot of market research, and realized that he was becoming a liability even before he psuhed the slut button. It was a great out for them. “Gee (to loyal ditto-ites) we’re so sorry we had to drop him, but you do believe in family values, don’t you?”
    Speaking of which, should a school teacher EVER even vaguely suggest, even in unintentionally overheard private conversation, that a colleague, an administrator, a parent, or God totally forbid, a student, was a SLUT, Steele and Todd would have their job instantly. So, the moves against Rush are payback for your and Rush’s attitudes towards teachers, as seen everywhere. Rush can go to 6th and Mission, and blab all he wants. He has no special entitlement to a nationwide microphone, or an Armed Forces radio network microphone.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Steven Frisch

    09 March 2012

    George Rebane | 09 March 2012 at 08:58 AM
    I coud not agree more that one core issue: the definition of the ICC and its scope, it an entirely valid issue. Actually, a review of my posts will show I have been saying that all along. The issue of whether or not the government has this authority is an ICC (and perhaps to a lessor degree a ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause) issue. The issue of WHO gets coverage and what coverages is allowed is covered by the Civil Rights Act and its revision in 1972 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
    Believe me, I am not disputing your right to question how far the ICC extends. This has been a core constitutional debate for almost 230 years…..its debated in the Federalists…the issue of the tension between individual rights and the rights of the state is central to our republic.
    I do dispute the contention that extending these ‘rights’ is without constitutional basis….as I have pointed out here and on other threads, the use of the ICC to authorize activities like Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and other applications pertaining to taxation, drug regulation, worker safety, etc, goes not just back to the 1930’s, but to our founding, and, as careful reading of the SCOTUS briefings show, has been tested many times.
    The key point is that these ‘rights’ are fungible–they are stated intentionally vaguely in the constitution with a system set up to interpret or amend them based on the times and the application– and the role of the courts is to mediate that interpretation. The question where do we draw the line is fungible–it re-answered over and over, by each generation, and our system is theoretically designed to facilitate that.
    I think my key point regarding how Republicans and right wing talk radio handled this, from a politically pragmatic point of view, is that if Rush and others had addressed this from a ‘limits of constitutional power’ perspective, and stuck with that message instead of a contraception or trumped up personal behavior issues, and argued the case effectively, they would have been much better off.
    The question–what are the limits of constitutional authority would have been a much more interesting debate. Instead the people you are defending walked into a mine field.
    By the way, I think that medical devices (bionics) or even genetically created prosthetics would be covered in the future, as they move from the experimental to the mainstream, kind of like the Cochlear implant has. Are we to draw a line in the sand on where medicine ends and your individual ethics begin? Toothpaste is difficult to get back in the tube.

    LikeLike