OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

The Tea Party, Conservatism and the Constitution – a Thought Provoking Article by Professor Charles Kesler

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 7, 2014

Conservative Hillsdale College (Hillsdale) publishes a monthly newsletter called Imprimis. In this newsletter Hillsdale publishes speeches by visiting professors and other dignitaries. Most of the speeches are worth the time to read them but every now and then one is exceptional in its thought provoking and timely commentary.  The January 2014 version is such an article / speech.  It is by Professor Charles Kesler who is an editor of the Claremont Review and an editor of the Signet Classic edition of The Federalist Papers.

Professor Kesler’s article is entitled The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution.  In the article the Professor gives a timely commentary on the current state of the Tea Party and its relationship with the Republican Party with a call for both of them to work together for the good of the country.  The Professor also notes several areas in which Obamacare is an affront to the Constitution that calls out for us all to fight together against this usurpation in general and specifically the People’s right to legislate via Congress as provided under the Constitution (Hint: there is a very specific and troubling example near the end of the Professor’s article) .  You may not agree with everything the Professor states in his article (some of his conclusions seem to be generalities and in my opinion some establishment Republicans are as much of the problem as Democrats), but you will find it very worth your while to do read it.  Here is a link to the article: The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution.  The link is to the Hillsdale site and downloads the article as a PDF.  You will need Acrobat Reader to open and read the PDF.

Of course the article is the copyrighted property of Hillsdale College.  Hillsdale allows the articles to be reprinted with credit to Hillsdale but since the article is long and there is a link to obtain it as a PDF for your reading pleasure, I have not reprinted it here.

I highly recommend the article to you and that you pass it along to your friends.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

SD-34 Watch: Orange County Democrats Runs Away from Obamacare but Politicizes CalOptima

Posted by Allen Wilson on February 25, 2014

DPOC

Today, Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen releases statement in response to the Democratic Party of Orange County Chairman Henry Vadermeir for politicizing an important issue:

“It is sad that the Democratic Party would attempt to politicize an issue that is so important to so many local people in need of quality health care.

It’s curious that their alleged interest in the program appears in the middle of a political campaign and clearly shows they don’t understand the issues important to the 34th Senate District.

What’s worse is that the local Democratic operatives who issued this release are either ignorant of the facts or purposefully distorted the facts surrounding CalOptima.

They falsely stated that Supervisor Nguyen is the Chair of CalOptima, got the number of CalOptima patients wrong, inaccurately stated that the audit will take years to complete, and conveniently left out the fact that the audit was a routine, standard audit not caused by any one person’s actions.

Supervisor Nguyen stands by her actions to reform CalOptima because they were necessary to ensure transparency, accountability and quality services for the county’s most vulnerable population”

Orange County Democrats are conveniently running away from Obamacare and will do anything to politicize an issue such as CalOptima.

Orange County Democratic Party Chairman should be ashamed of himself!

Posted in 34th Senate District, Democrat Central Committee, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Orange County, Santa Ana, State Senate | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Sen. John McCain – Obamacare Rubber Stamp man

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on September 26, 2013

I have long felt that John McCain is neither a conservative nor a liberal but a politician of the Party of John McCain. He goes off on his own tangents sometimes advocating a position I agree with but most often not.

However his performance in the Senate this week and the statements he made about Sen. Ted Cruz and Obamacare were over the top and I believe a fundamental disconnect for him from his role as a Senator from Arizona. Rather than just quietly voting for the close of debate after Sen. Cruz finished his filibuster, Sen. McCain essentially stated on the Senate floor that because President Obama was reelected we just have to accept Obamacare as is. Ben Shaprio over at Breitbart has a short and well written post about this at http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/McCain-bashes-Cruz I recommend it to you.

As Mr. Shaprio noted, I guess the people of Arizona did not know they re-elected John McCain to not advocate legislation to fix or replace Obamacare but just accept it as is. And to call how the bill was passed “fair” is to ignore history. In addition Sen. McCain is giving a pass to President Obama for all of his unconstitutional exemptions and postponements of Obamacare’s requirements to big business, labor groups, anyone working inside the Capital dome but not the American people (no exemption of the “individual mandate”). These types of edicts / exemptions by President Obama are more in line with a banana republic than a country where the elected leaders respect the rule of law and U.S. Constitution. Sen. McCain should have been challenging the President and the Democrats over these unconstitutional edicts and not rubber stamping those actions by going a long with Harry Reid.

What Sen. Cruz was doing was not just about Obamacare (which is bad enough) but about whether we as a people are going to push back against a President who rules by edict and ignores and flaunts the U.S. Constitution. Sen. Cruz was calling the President out on this as well and Republican Senators should have been joining him in at least adding their voices against this threat to the rule of law!

I hope the people of Arizona are seeing this and will find a better representative when Mr. McCain is up for re-election.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Do Justice Kennedy’s Prior Rulings Tell Us What He’ll Do in the Prop 8 and DOMA Cases?

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 26, 2013

I usually loathe reposting old stories from our blog, but in light of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8 case) today and United States v. Windsor (DOMA case) tomorrow, I thought I would repost the story I wrote back on February 8, 2012, after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Prop 8.  (OC Political was a mere nine days old at that point, with our first post going up on January 31, 2012.)  The Supreme Court will likely issue its ruling in June.

Everyone expects Justice Anthony Kennedy to be pivotal in deciding what will happen in these two cases.

Here’s what I wrote on February 8, 2012:

After yesterday’s ruling from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Prop 8 supporters jeered, and Prop 8 opponents cheered.  The news showed jubilant same-sex marriage supporters celebrating the ruling and resolute traditional marriage supporters vowing to appeal.

In the May 2009 California Supreme Court ruling in Strauss v. Horton, the result was the opposite, with Prop 8 upheld.  The August 2010 U.S. District Court ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger struck down Prop 8.  Yesterday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Perry v. Brown upheld the District Court.  Prop 8 proponents have 90 days (well, technically, 89 as of this morning) to decide whether to appeal to an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If there’s any lesson to be learned from all the court battles involving Prop 8, it’s that it doesn’t matter what a particular court rules, the side that wins hails the ruling as a historic victory in defense of the legal concepts they support while the side that loses vows to go to another court.  The only way this cycle ends is to take this to the highest court in the land: only the United States Supreme Court can decide this issue once and for all.

In all likelihood, U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito will vote to uphold Prop 8 while Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan will vote to strike down Prop 8.  This means that whether marriage means one man and one woman or whether it means two people of any sex in California and in America rests in the hands of one man: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

There’s a certain irony that Kennedy will be the key to this issue, since Prop 8 comes from California, and Kennedy is a native Californian who spent the majority of his life in this state and was appointed to the Supreme Court by fellow Californian Ronald Reagan.  A Catholic educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Kennedy was a lawyer in private practice and has been a law professor at McGeorge School of Law during his time as a lawyer and continuing to the present day.

Kennedy’s judicial track record does not make it clear how he’d come down on this issue.

In Beller v. Middendorf (1980), Kennedy (a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge back then) wrote the decision that upheld the ability of the U.S. Navy to discharge sailors for “engaging in homosexual acts.”  In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), he joined a unanimous Supreme Court opinion allowing the St. Patrick’s Day Parade to exclude an Irish gay group.

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Kennedy wrote the decision invalidating a Colorado ballot measure prohibiting sexual orientation from becoming a protected class (protected classes include race, religion, etc.).  In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), Kennedy voted to uphold the right of the Boy Scouts of America as a private organization to exclude gay men from being scoutmasters.

Both sides of the issue can find favorable parts of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where Kennedy wrote, “the Texas [anti-sodomy] statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual” but also wrote that the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”  So Lawrence v. Texas tells us that Kennedy opposed attempts to regulate the conduct of consenting adults but also wanted to make clear that the decision did not affect marriage.

In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), Kennedy joined a court decision that allowed a public school to refuse recognition to a student group that wished to exclude gay members.

Kennedy’s dizzying array of court decisions leaves little clarity as to how he will rule.  However, there is little doubt that the fate of Proposition 8 and of the definition of marriage in California and America rests in the hands of one Californian above all others: Anthony Kennedy.

Of course, we mustn’t forget that Chief Justice John Roberts could somehow determine that traditional marriage, same-sex marriage, all forms of marriage, Prop 8, or DOMA is a tax, and comes up with a ruling that surprises everyone (see excerpt of June 28 post below), but then again there is the marriage penalty:

The second opinion of the day was the one everyone was waiting for: in a 5-4 decision in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the entire health care law officially known as the Affordable Care Act but often called Obamacare.  The individual mandate was held unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause but was upheld under the power to tax.  The shocker: swing voter Anthony Kennedy was in the dissent.  It was conservative Chief Justice John Roberts who not only voted with the four liberal justices but who wrote the opinion.

Posted in California, National | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Congressman Gary Miller’s Weekly Newsletter

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on July 14, 2012

This came over the wire from Congressman Gary Miller’s office yesterday…

July 13, 2012

Repeal of Obamacare Act Passes House

In response to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court to uphold the$1.8 trillion Democrat health care law, the House of Representatives voted on Thursday to repeal the law in its entirety. The law, which has failed to reduce the cost of health premiums as promised, poses a serious threat to the current health plans of millions of Americans as well as future job creation. As the law now stands, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as twenty million Americans could lose their Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 39th Congressional District | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law; Declares Lying About Receiving the Medal of Honor is Free Speech

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 28, 2012

In a busy day at the Supreme Court, the justices issued their first opinion of the day.  They ruled 6-3 in United States v. Alvarez that it is within a person’s First Amendment rights to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor, striking down the Stolen Valor Act as unconstitutional.  Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined conservative swing voter Anthony Kennedy and the court’s four liberal justices: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The dissenters were conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.  Kennedy authored the opinion.

The second opinion of the day was the one everyone was waiting for: in a 5-4 decision in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the entire health care law officially known as the Affordable Care Act but often called Obamacare.  The individual mandate was held unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause but was upheld under the power to tax.  The shocker: swing voter Anthony Kennedy was in the dissent.  It was conservative Chief Justice John Roberts who not only voted with the four liberal justices but who wrote the opinion.

Posted in National | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

The dumbest dialogue on Obamacare yet

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 3, 2012

In the wake of the recent oral arguments to the Supreme Court, politicians with stakes on both sides of the issue have exercised their liberty to open their mouths about it. With matters that are complex enough to necessitate Supreme Court intervention, politicians would have been well served to exercise restraint. As the saying goes, better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

POTUS seemed to lob the first grenade in this nonsensical war of words with the following disposition of his genius.
“I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress” Gee, I don’t know Barry, but maybe a clue exists in the cases of Marbury v. Madison, McCullough v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden. In all of these cases the high court determined that Congressional or State Legislature actions were either appropriate or inappropriate under the powers granted to them by the Constitution. Judicial review? Ever heard of it? Just because the majority of a democratically elected Congress voted that we should all covert to Buddahism, does not mean that the court is going to allow such a law to stand.

I believe that Barry attended and graduated from Harvard Law School, even though I have not seen any official transcripts, BUT, my question would be whether or not he passed Constitutional Law after a comment like that. The popularity of the law, or the strength of the majority on the vote have no bearing on the grant, or lack thereof, of power to Congress, in the Constitution. I get that he is confused when he is losing on an issue, and is not very good on his feet, but these recent comments sound much like, “Oh yeah, I know I am but what are you?!” Genius. Articulate. Our POTUS.

Then, we have Mitt Romney being questioned about the comments of the President and we get this gem.

“So judicial activism is not following the Constitution. Judicial activism is departing from the Constitution”

Giving Mitt one tiny break, you can not impart a meaningful explanation of the concept of “judicial activism” in a one liner. When we have Obama jumping up and down crying “judicial activism” you can’t merely say, “judicial activism is not following the Constitution”. He could have said, the court will do what it has always done, and strike down laws that are not constitutional. That is their job, it is what we want them to do. He seems stunned by the question and ill prepared to address it. His retort sounds as childish as the comments from Barry and is tantamount to “Yeah, well come over here and say that!”.

Mitt, I understand, also received a Juris Doctor from Harvard, and I’m pretty sure it’s not one of those online law schools.

Judicial activism, is not like super-twins-powers-activate!, that you get all power and unsuspected, otherwise humanly impossible victory for your team whenever it is invoked or granted to your side. It is a criticism of the judiciary that they are allegedly utilizing and relying upon their own personal biases and politics when they are interpreting an issue of First Impression, which is that it has never been addressed before. Judicial activism then, is the battle cry of the whiners on losing side. Not unlike complaining about how blind the Umpire was at your kids Little League game.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, somebody is always unhappy, somebody leaves the building a loser, and somebody cries “injustice”, and yes, someone raves”judicial activism”. It just ain’t fair. It is the way the system works, and works pretty effectively. This utter lack of reverence and political demonizing of this branch is something that should be offensive to us all.

I have seen several comments questioning that if the court can be “activist” on Roe v. Wade, then why not be “activist” on overturning the PPACA (Aka Obamacare). THIS is the most illiterate and incomprehensible of all the dumb comments so far.

Roe, whether you like it or not, is a case protecting fundamental rights of individuals, primarily under the 14th Amendment. The focus is the individual and the protection afforded to all of us within the 14th Amendment. The PPACA case involves the POWER of Congress to do what it has done. This legislation is so breathtakingly broad, it is difficult to even start to describe the plethora of overstepping the powers of Congress that has gone on here. Just on its face, it compels businesses to provide health insurance coverage for employees, compels individuals to purchase health care coverage, and compels the same insurance companies to provide insurance to those whom they might otherwise not wish to have as clients. I don’t care at all about how “human” Obama wants to characterize this, Congress can not go around dictating who will do business and contract with whom, and dictating what we will purchase. While we get mired in whether Congress had the POWER to do ANY of this, we don’t even get to the question of the First Amendment Rights to Association that my be impacted by the various “mandates”. Breathtakingly broad. There is no other way to describe this abomination. In both cases, the court is the last vestige of defense and the one thing that protects the individual by curtailing the government.

Congress has overstepped and abused its powers. It is really that simple, and that complicated. It likely goes down, but Barry is obviously nervous, and he is the consummate campaigner. Sorry, the Supremes don’t work that way and their lifetime tenure make them generally immune (hopefully) from such public relations games by the Great Campaigner. As officers of the court, as elected officials, do these politicians not have the job to instill CONFIDENCE in the court? Please, all of you verbose campaigners, stop scapegoating the most distinguished branch or our government with your sore loser rhetoric. An ounce of respect and dignity for the branch that is literally our last defense against this kind of government infringement, socialism and tyranny, and all sorts of invasions of our rights and privacies.

Obamacare will likely be overturned because it is bad law, and it is the JOB of the Supreme Court, to overturn bad laws that violate the constitution.

Mitt, you can use that next time someone asks you.

 

Posted in National, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 14 Comments »