The Mule & The Pig

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

When Judge Vinson in Florida ruled that the whole of ObamaCare was unconstitutional some states took that to mean they don’t have do anything to prepare for the Health Care Armageddon of 2014 (you know where 10 years of taxes pays for 6 years of expenditures in a dishonest bookkeeping maneuver and what the current 734 waivers, mostly to Unions, were for).

The Feds went back to the judge for clarity. <<wink wink nudge nudge>>

He ripped them a new one for stalling on the appeal to the Circuit Court or The Supreme Court and said, effectively “ok, I’ll suspend my judgment but you have to appeal within a 7 days or else” No stalling.

Whoops.

And then Sen. Anthony “The Whiner” Weiner  (D-NY) wants Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the deliberations, gee I wonder why, could it be because there’s a 4-4 split of Liberals and Conservatives and Justice Anthony Kennedy? So he’s just trying to stack the deck more in his favor?

With Justice Sotamayor from the Solicitor General’s Office most recently she would be the more likely to have to recuse herself but she’s a Liberal so that will never happen.

Now that’s the “transparency” the Administration promised! 🙂

That’s so transparent it’s not even an atom thick.

Like the farmer in that old gag about the proper management of mules, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson tried to be polite to the Obama Justice Department. On January 31, he ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional but stopped short of granting the plaintiffs in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services an outright injunction against further implementation. Instead, he awarded them “declaratory relief.” This, as Judge Vinson  explained at the time, is t

he “functional equivalent of an injunction” because there is a presumption that “officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.” In other words, the judge was asking them nicely to halt implementation of ObamaCare until the appeals process had run its course. Vinson failed to realize, however, that he was dealing with a particularly vicious specimen of that famously stubborn beast — the government (Liberal Progressive) mule.

And the beast remained true to form. The Obama administration made no effort to halt implementation of the unpopular health care law. In fact, the President and his health care bureaucrats openly declared their intention to move briskly forward with their plans to foist ObamaCare on an unwilling electorate. Moreover, when two states announced that they would treat the ruling as an injunction unless and until a higher court overruled the decision, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had the audacity to present Judge Vinson with a   motion to clarify: “This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of this order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review.” In effect, the DOJ asked Vinson to issue a stay against his own ruling.

The judge was not amused. In his   request to the plaintiffs for an expedited response Vinson wrote, “Because I determined that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, it was also necessary to declare the entire statute void. The defendants have now, two and one-half weeks later, filed a motion to ‘clarify’ that order.” Florida’s   memorandum in opposition called the motion a “thinly disguised request for a stay,” and asked Vinson to deny it. And this is what most experts expected him to do. Indeed, many legal scholars wondered aloud why the DOJ would deliberately provoke a judge with a well-deserved reputation for irascibility. As Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown University, put it: “Having lost one game of chicken when it came to the severability of the mandate, the government is now challenging the same judge to back down on whether his decision is binding.”

However, instead of taking a two-by-four to the government mule in order to get its attention, Vinson did indeed issue a   stay against his previous ruling: “After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED.” This was not, however, an unalloyed victory for the Obama administration. The judge made his stay conditional on the Justice Department’s expeditious pursuit of an appeal to his January ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Noting that it is in the country’s best interests to have this matter resolved quickly he wrote, “[T]he stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court …” In other words, the Justice Department must file an appeal by March 10.

And the wording of Judge Vinson’s order makes it clear that he was not taken in by the pretext behind the DOJ’s motion: “While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused …” He then “clarifies” key points in his original ruling: “The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that ‘essential’ provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void.” He then discusses what he meant to accomplish when he granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs: “This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the ‘practical’ and ‘functional equivalent of an injunction’ with respect to the parties to the litigation.” Finally, he points out what he did not intend: “It was not expected that [the administration] would effectively ignore the order… then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.'”

All of which begs the following question: Why, then, did he not apply the two-by-four?! It is already blindingly obvious that this particular beast does not respond to reason. This was clearly demonstrated by the utter contempt with which the administration treated Vinson’s January order. And such behavior is by no means limited to the various ObamaCare challenges. Even as the administration pressed Judge Vinson to force states to implement a health care law he had pointedly ruled unconstitutional, the President and his Attorney General declared their intention to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama and Eric Holder obviously believe that they, rather than the Constitution and the courts, are the ultimate arbiters of a law’s validity. And their behavior in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services suggests that they hold similar views concerning judicial rulings.

It is to be hoped that, having been given a second chance to comply with a ruling from the U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, the Obama administration will depart from its usual pattern of mulish obstinacy. However, yesterday’s statement from the DOJ’s Deputy Director of the Office of Public Affairs contains an unmistakable note of defiance: “We strongly disagree with the district court’s underlying ruling in this case.… There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Affordable Care Act.” This is nonsense, of course. The only “clear and well-established” precedent associated with ObamaCare involves the stubborn refusal of the Obama administration to remain within its constitutional limits. Will this obstinacy end without a firm application of the two-by-four to the government mule’s occiput? We’ll know in seven days. (David Catron)

This would be the same mule that refuses to drill for Oil or really let anyone else do it either. It interferes with their “green” agenda.

Wants to regulate what you eat. What Light bulbs you can buy.

Wants to favour “green” energy that cost vastly more than conventional energy. New York Times 2009: Some experts not aligned with either camp estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant. Built into the calculation is the need for utilities that rely heavily on wind power to build backup plants fired by natural gas to meet electricity demand when winds are calm.

And wind and solar power are generally more expensive than the fossil fuels they are meant to supplant. If carbon dioxide penalties made coal power more expensive, as some environmentalists argue is inevitable, the relative cost of renewable energy might decrease. But consumers will still pay more.

Candidate Obama 2008:

The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington.

The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake, and climate change is a great example.

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election.  People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks…they’re going to destroy the economy.

This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is.  If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes,  there is going to be  some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson.  You can be the master of Washington.  You’re not gonna get that done.

Now put that with the “persuasion” of the Left for Obamacare. Where if they just talk about it endlessly you’ll give in and agree with them.
When people to this day still don’t, They weren’t “persuasive enough”.
They crammed it down your throat, you gagged, they crammed it down again and then put a ball gag in your mouth. But don’t worry, they will “persuade” you eventually. 🙂

Now that’s transparent isn’t it?

This is the Mule that Wants to SPEND EVEN MORE! even with a $14 Trillion Dollar debt!!

They are like a kid with a sever sunburn that howls every time you touch them, in this case any of the Liberal spending or government spending at all.

So the Left new tact is to claim we aren’t actually broke! it’s just that the rich are too greedy!

The New York Times: It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends. A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more “broke” than a family with a mortgage or a college loan. And states have to balance their budgets. (But we, the Feds don’t!)

So the $14 Trillion Debt is a scare tactic meant to crush the Liberal’s Utopia Sand castle that the tide of both public opinion and economics is washing away and impose a Corporate Oligarchy that will crush the “middle class”.

Uh….yeah…<<<looking for the guys in he white coats that go on backwards!>>

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok