The American Spectator : How Can Benefits Be Mandatory?

Text Size

Streetcar Line

How Can Benefits Be Mandatory?

By Quin Hillyer on 2.17.12 @ 6:09AM

A supposedly conservative judge pushes big-government madness.

A large number of conservative luminaries worked very hard, against determined leftist opposition, to get former G.W. Bush aide Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as a judge on the hyper-important D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. For the second time in just a few months, conservatives have reason to regret their efforts -- because for the second time, Kavanaugh has done (il)logical somersaults to give support to outrageously expansive assertions of national-government authority. The most recent, delivered on Feb. 7, was an even worse affront than the first.

In the first, Kavanaugh wrote that several plaintiffs did not have legal "standing" to challenge Obamacare, under the curious and already oft-rejected theory that its individual insurance mandate assesses a tax, rather than a penalty for noncompliance. His reasoning therein was convoluted and bizarre, but at least it was of a technical nature only, rather than undermining the merits of the constitutional objection to Obamacare itself.

The decision on Feb. 7 offered more direct succor to an unrestrained federal government. The effect of Kavanaugh's ruling is that senior citizens have little choice other than to accept Medicare benefits -- even if the "benefits" aren't desired.

The case, Hall v. Sebelius, involves five plaintiffs (including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey) who want to decline Medicare hospital benefits because they would prefer to keep their private insurance coverage. Their request is obviously beneficial for all concerned: The plaintiffs keep their freedom of choice, and the government (and thus the tax-paying public) saves money. But some bureaucrats don't see things like normal people do. Citing something called a Program Operations Manual System (POMS), the feds told the plaintiffs they could not decline Medicare unless they also gave up all claim to the Social Security annuity for which they paid through a full career of mandatory taxes.

The feds cited no statutory language forcing Social Security recipients to accept Medicare. They didn't even cite any official regulations adopted through the usual, formal, rule-making process. Instead, they merely cited the POMS, basically a manual written by nameless bureaucrats telling all the other bureaucrats how to run the system -- and they could not even explain the genesis of the bureaucratic interpretation tying Social Security benefits to Medicare in this mandatory way.

Nonetheless, writing a 2-1 decision, Kavanaugh flat-out misrepresented what the plaintiffs were asking for and ignored the key issues at hand.

Here's a key passage from Kavanaugh's decision:

Plaintiffs Armey, Hall, and Kraus all receive Social Security benefits and are 65 or older. Therefore, they are automatically entitled to Medicare Part A benefits. But they want to disclaim their legal entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits. In other words, they want not only to reject the Medicare Part A benefits (which they are already free to do) but also to obtain a legal declaration that the Government cannot pay Medicare Part A benefits on their behalf.

This is just plain wrong. I've followed this case for well over three years, and not once have I seen plaintiffs make such an argument. Indeed, dissenting Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson specifically cites the facts to the contrary (Italics mine):

Plaintiffs Hall and Armey do not dispute that entitlement to Medicare, Part A occurs by operation of law. See Reply Br. at 2 ("Plaintiffs-Appellants never suggested that they sought to renounce their entitlement to Medicare, Part A, and they did not contend that the Defendant-Appellees must allow them to… somehow declare that Plaintiffs-Appellants are not entitled to Medicare, Part A."). Instead, they argue something much more fundamental, i.e., that there is no statutory authority for the POMS's edict that an individual who declines Medicare, Part A coverage is required to forego/refund [Social Security benefits].

The whole point of their suit, contra Kavanaugh's assertion, is that they are not "already free" to "reject the Medicare Part A benefits." They want to reject those benefits and pay for care out of their own pockets, but the government will not allow them to do so without also docking them the Social Security benefits that they have unambiguously, incontestably earned.

Henderson also writes, without any contrary assertion by Kavanaugh, that "The relevant language of both statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(a) and 426(a), reads identically in that they both provide that an individual 'shall be entitled' to benefits if he meets certain qualifying conditions. Neither statute requires an 'entitled' individual to accept the benefits." And she notes the incontrovertible fact that the dictionary definition (and the Black's Law Dictionary definition as well) of "entitled" is to be "eligible" for something -- not, repeat not, that they are "required" to accept it.

By analogy, just because the First Amendment entitles me to express my opinion doesn't mean it requires me to express my opinion. Everybody has the right to keep his opinions to himself. The choice rests with the person being entitled; compulsion never enters into the equation.

In eviscerating Kavanaugh's tendentious decision, Henderson doesn't stop there. She notes that Kavanaugh doesn't offer a single word (other than in a breathtakingly dismissive footnote) on the simple fact that it is the POMS guidelines, not the Social Security or Medicare statutes, that would take away Social Security benefits -- and, worse, require repayment of SS benefits already collected -- from those who decline Medicare benefits. She compares Kavanaugh's silence on this bedrock ssue to the famous "dog that didn't bark" in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Kavanaugh does not, therefore, address the central complaint -- namely, that the POMS are not subject to any public comment, not subject to ordinary review, and not even specifically authorized by Congress. They amount to an operating manual, nothing more, without the force of, or the legitimacy, of either statutory or regulatory law. (In this case, the provision didn't even show up in the POMS until nearly a decade after Medicare was created.) The guidelines came out of thin air, in effect, without themselves even citing the statutory authority on which they are supposedly based.

As Henderson, citing ample precedent, wrote, "The authority to administer the law is not the power to make the law."

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (105) | Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 2.17.12 @ 6:24AM

What do you expect from someone Bush appointed? He was no conservative. It is why we have to get rid of the countryclub and Neocon elites who have destroyed the Republican party. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum all mean more of the same. This country can't stand that kind of worthless leadership anymore. Time has run out for such people. I love all these fools trying to defend GWBush. Wake up. He and his pals have always been the problem, not the solution.

Moe Blotz| 2.17.12 @ 9:23AM

Who appointed Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court? Whose father appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court? Frank Drackman has you pegged, Jack.

Jack in Wi.| 2.17.12 @ 10:11AM

Thomas was set up to take a fall. They knew the Democrats would destroy him by blackmail and intimidation. Then Bush would have appointed another Souter. Thomas fooled them by standing up and answering their charges forcefully. He deamnded a vote. The blacks and conservatives both believed him, so he was confirmed. In regards to Roberts and Alito. Roberts only replaced a firm conservative. Alito was the result of huge revolt by conservatives by the appointment of Harriet Meirs. By this time most of us had caught on to the tactics of the Bush clan. They all love abortion. The wives are pro choice and the guys are prolife. Who the hell can believe such nonsense?

Henry Calvin| 2.17.12 @ 11:35AM

Jack, you are correct again.It is time for us to stop defending either Bush's policies, which led to the dispicable person in the White House.

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 12:18PM

Look who confirmed him:
amongst others, but these titans of conservatism and defenders of freedom include:

DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea

Nuff said.

Moe Blotz| 2.17.12 @ 12:50PM

Read "My Grandfather's Son" by Clarence Thomas. Do those black helicopters still buzz your cheese plantation in Wisconsin, Jack?

Alan Brooks| 2.17.12 @ 9:04PM

My politics today are more a reaction against Bush than for Obama- though I like Obama as a person. My main point is and always has been that Carter was an almost unmitigated disaster; yet Jimmuh wasted *only* four years, while the Bush League wasted twelve! 3x more time wasted than Jimmuh. A remarkable achievement.

Alan Brooks| 2.17.12 @ 9:08PM

... and btw it is fair to lump the two Bush administrations together as one (as they were it goes without saying part of a dynasty and they were somewhat connected in personnel). If Amy Carter had run for POTUS in '88 you would have done the same thing.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.17.12 @ 6:41AM

To wit:

In one scene, a Mexican bandit leader named "Gold Hat"[4] (portrayed by Alfonso Bedoya) tries to convince Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart)[2] that he and his company are Federales:
Dobbs: "If you're the police where are your badges?"
Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

Clint| 2.17.12 @ 7:08AM

This Is Why There Is A Tea Party Rebellion Goin' On In America.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Mac Jehoff| 2.17.12 @ 9:25AM

TPINO Main Line bum bandit sniffing Jack's fromunda cheese.

Clint| 2.17.12 @ 9:30AM

Typical Israel Firster Smear Bund RINO-CINO Coward, Mac Off, Sniffin' Bibi's Butt.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 2.17.12 @ 10:43AM

Better than SUCKIN ON EL RONBO'S TOO SHORT SHORTS, A?????????

Clint| 2.18.12 @ 2:49PM

Obviously, RINO-CINO Fart Man Has AVery Queer Fixation With Short Shorts.

Fred Farkel| 2.17.12 @ 8:23PM

Islamist Firster TPINO Main Line bum bandit Clint
Romney/ Paul, the winning ticket. Even the NYT knows they are best buds.

Clint| 2.18.12 @ 2:57PM

Actually, Crybaby Israel Firster Smear Bund RINO-CINO Coward, Mac Off, Two of Our Valley Forge Tea PartyPatriots Organizers And Many Of Our Members Are Dr.Ron Paul Supporters.

" Mr. Paul, a 76-year-old congressman from Texas, sees his three Republican rivals as more or less the same politically. He can be tough on Mr. Romney, whom he describes as a flip-flopper with a dubious political core.

“He’s been all over the place on some of this stuff,” Mr. Paul said in a recent interview near his Texas home. But he seems to segregate those views from his personal feelings for Mr. Romney, whom he sees as a steady, dignified personality whose devotion to wife and family reflect his own values. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Alan Brooks| 2.17.12 @ 9:12PM

"TPINO Main Line bum bandit sniffing Jack's fromunda cheese."

The Main Line in Philly! remember the Main Line guy who drowned his wife in their bathtub and spent his money on an exotic dancer named 'Summer'?

Clint| 2.18.12 @ 3:05PM

That Was Over By City Line Avenue.

I Live On The Main Line, West By Horse Country.

Pecos Pete| 2.17.12 @ 7:15AM

" authoritarian administrative state"

Yep.

JAWilson| 2.17.12 @ 7:24AM

"The POMS states only internal SSA guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights enforceable at law by any party in a civil or criminal action. Further, by posting the POMS, SSA is not thereby limited from exercising its otherwise lawful prerogatives. If the content of the POMS conflicts with the Social Security Act, another relevant statute, SSA regulations, or Social Security Rulings, those authorities have priority over the POMS. "

This statement is the disclaimer in the POMS manual that the ruling referred to.

flyovermark| 2.17.12 @ 11:22AM

What it doesn't say, JAW, is that POMS cannot create new government powers in addition to the Social Security Act, another relevant statute, SSA regulations, or Social Security Rulings.

Which is the crux of the dissenting opinion that POMS has created a new government power out of thin air: that of forcing a retiree to forego or repay all entitlement to SS benefits unless they ALSO accept Medicare - which is not supported by the Social Security Act, another relevant statute, SSA regulations, or Social Security Rulings.

albert constantine jr.| 2.17.12 @ 7:42AM

I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer decides he no longer wishes to receive the US mail, and the Postal Service goes to great lengths to “reeducate” him, eventually kidnapping him and having him “persuaded” to reconsider by the Postmaster General. I wonder if Wilford Brimley is available to play Director of Social Security Astrue?

W| 2.17.12 @ 7:43AM

Why are you surprised. The feds, through unelected bureaucrats, have mandated that you purchase Medicare A, a government single payor system.

This is how it will be if Obama is re-elected and Obamacare is imposed. The first step is an individual mandate, then a mandate to enroll in the government one payor program once the private market of health insurance is reduced.

Al Adab| 2.17.12 @ 11:32AM

W:
Thus a mandate designed to force religious hospitals out of the business in order to impose the single payer syatem. Machiavellian in the extreme.

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 12:20PM

You're just getting this now?

BHO is no idiot, and we better get our acts together. The long con is bewildering our supposed leaders.

Taunto| 2.19.12 @ 3:33PM

What is this 'we', Liberalface?

W| 2.17.12 @ 4:40PM

Mark Steyn predicted that was the end game with Obamacare. You first destroy the private market through regulations, and removing the profit margin, you have then created the problem that requires a single payor system. Obama is a socialist.

John - TMF| 2.17.12 @ 8:33AM

Lets look at it from another angle. The judge, although not being completely lucid about it, is doing his job. Interpreting the law and applying it to the case at hand. So, IF (and it looks very much like he is trying) he is doing so, what does that say about the LAW and the Regulations issued in the execution of that law?

It is always useful to remember that you hunt black truffles with a trained pig.

What this ruling shows, more than some ad hominem attack on this judge, or another annoying self-defeating attack on the Bush administration (stuff is getting tiresome and is now bled into a weird "me-too, so I'm cool-ism"), is a prime example as to the legal, regulatory, and social insanity that has come of everything touching Social Security.

Medicare is tied to Social Security, though it is a different line item on your W-2, by politics and age. They are to the bureaucracy inseparable, and a prime control point for a significant voting block that is now dependent on those government stipends. If people are allowed to opt out of one, they will eventually be able to opt out of the other. By law/regulation the government still owes them the money, benefits services... and it functionally does not have the collective common sense to deal with that notion. It also hasn't the money to pay what it owes, even at reduced lump sum values.

The "System" requires participation in order to work. No exceptions are allowed.

The upshot is that there is a very real possibility that the individual mandate will be upheld by the Supreme Court BECAUSE to overturn that mandate, would also contradict prior rulings over the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare.

Can you imagine the Establishment melt down, if someone, citing the overturning of the mandate, made it to the Supremes to challenge the king of all unconstitutional mandates, Social Security and/or Medicare?

On that case would hinge the entire Welfare State, Establishment bribery/extortion system, and government dependence. All of those retired baby-boomer votes... out the door. No Leverage.

I agree that the judge's decision steps over the line into the irrational. I just think that it is the system that is irrational, the judge is just along for the ride.

r/John - TMF

2Anglico| 2.17.12 @ 9:14AM

You will be assimilated into the Borg! Resistance is futile!

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.17.12 @ 10:31AM

You act as if nothing HUGE has ever happened around here. Are we somehow different from those who came before us? Are you really saying that 'Maybe it's better, if the Mandate is upheld' because of Soc. Sec. and Medicare?

In some cases of Heart Surgery, the Surgeons remove the Patients' Heart, while they make the needed repairs. They take the Heart right out of their body, and put it in a metal tray. In some cases of severe Trauma, the patient is purposefully put in to a COMA.

THAT'S tough stuff.

Giving the Federal Government the power to make you purchase whatever they deem to be purchased, is an act of Insanity, at best. And Suicide, at worst.

A 4 year old little girl was STOPPED by a Federal Agent, so that she could INSPECT her Bag Lunch, (Made for her by her Loving Mother) so as to determine if it met all of the Federal Governments Nutritional DIKTATS. The Government Agent made the call that the Turkey and Cheese Sandwich, the Juice Pack and the Potato Chips did not meet the Government Standards set forth by Her Excellency - Czarina Michelle. The child's lunch (Prepared for her by her Loving Mother) was CONFISCATED, and she was given a bullet to the head, and her family was sent the bill, for the bullet. (Oh. Sorry about that. Wrong Communist State) She was given a State Approved Lunch, and her Family was sent the bill. (Close enough)

SIEG HEIL!

"Can you imagine the Establishment meltdown if someone made it to the Supreme Court to challenge Social Security?"

We lost a lot of good people, "Challenging" the British King. We lost Half a Million Men, "Challenging" Slavery. We lost more than that, in World War 2, "Challenging" Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany. We lost 6,000 on D-Day. We lost 8,000 on Iwo Jima. Thousands more on Okinawa, Guadalcanal and the Philippines, "Challenging" their Emperor. Now, you want to install one of our own?

How is Social Security these days? How is Medicare? I hear that Medicare is $12 TRILLION in the Red. Everybody knows that Social Security is a Dead Man Walking, especially NOW, that our Benevolent Leaders, in their Infinite Wisdom, have SHUT DOWN the only means of Funding for Social Security.

I know. Let's give them TOTAL CONTROL of our Health, and therefore, OUR LIVES, from the Cradle to the Grave, because God knows, they never Fck Up anything.

"But they do. They fck up everything they get their hands on."

"Yeah. You're right. They do turn an awful lot of Silk Purses in to Sows' Ears. I can't argue with that. BUT. Can you imagine the Establishment meltdown if.............................

Can YOU Imagine the Alternative?

Evidentaly, you haven't thought this through, very well.

John - TMF| 2.17.12 @ 11:00AM

Obviously you have a load of steam there Tim, but you didn't read what I said; just reacted to points leading to a conclusion.

"I agree that the judge's decision steps over the line into the irrational. I just think that it is the system that is irrational, the judge is just along for the ride."

If we want to win this argument, fight, counter revolution, we absolutely must understand that we are challenging something that IS the way it is for a REASON. They don't call Social Security - of which Medicare is now a critical part, the "third rail of American politics" for nothing.

I know lots of folks love to hate George Bush, but he made a manful attempt at trying to rationally reform Medicare by vouchering it and moving to a more market driven system. That's something that the angry Bush hating "Right" forgets about the Drug Plan legislation, along with MSAs. The Prescription Drug plan was an effort to shift costs to less expensive care - under the old system, the elderly, who are dependent on Medicare thanks to the Welfare state, required expensive hospitalization to get needed drugs that could have been paid for at a lower rate as a standard insurance transaction. That program was done through vouchers, too.. and actually has been successful.

George Bush almost ruined his administration trying to REFORM Social Security by moving it toward the Chilean privatized system, but was abandoned by a broad spectrum of conservatives and moderates, who merely wet themselves at the prospect of challenging the Democrats and their AARP arm. The GOP basically headed for the tall grass on the whole issue and left Bush to twist in the wind.

So, the fight ahead isn't going to be easy. It is not immediately obvious as to what to do, because just taking a meat ax to everything is going to guarantee that 2 years later the ax wielding Conservatives would be tossed out of office.

It is going to take generations of steady incremental change to get this monstrosity taken apart... OR it's going to die at the end of the plunge off the cliff.

I sympathize with your feelings on the issue. I agree that what "is", is unacceptable and actually nationally suicidal. But you don't talk the fool off the ledge by running up and shoving him off.

This judge and this decision merely reflects the irrational and foolish edifice that has been constructed over 4 generations.

That is a more inertia than can be turned around, instantly.

r/TMF

Al Adab| 2.17.12 @ 11:49AM

Imagine if you will a mandate in the name of public health ordering the cessation of circumcision. How would Jewish and Moslem organizations react to that? We stand at the precipice of the totalitarian state.

John - TMF| 2.17.12 @ 12:03PM

Al,

Not so sure that we aren't there already. We just don't seem to "know" it just yet.

r/TMF

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.17.12 @ 5:53PM

Or, it can be deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As Steve Jobs said, to the CEO of Corning Glass, when he wanted him to make a glass for his IPhones, that wouldn't scratch: "Don't be afraid. You can do it".

We don't have the Luxury of Fcking around. Or, don't you understand that?

DRed| 2.17.12 @ 4:47PM

Timmy, I explained to you yesterday that the little girl's lunch was taken away by an employee of the state government. Feel free to keep making shit up, though.

John| 2.17.12 @ 8:41AM

Another case of how the DC gop elites know better. Way to go George.

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 10:39AM

Reagan passed COBRA.

Wedge meet thin edge.

Big Tony| 2.17.12 @ 8:46AM

"supposedly conservative judge" that line is absurd. There is no such thing as a conservative judge, as the media would have you believe. There are only Democrat judges and Republican judges. If you think the statement above is not true then look at the Supreme Court vote in the Florida election case involving Al Gore and G.W. Bush the Republican appointees voted like liberals and the Democrat appointess voted like conservatives. Judge Andrew Napalitano is right, there is only one party in the USA and it's the big government party, it has 2 wings, a Democrat wing and a Republican wing.

Quartermaster| 2.17.12 @ 11:42AM

Pat Buchanan said it first. he called a bird of prey, however.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.17.12 @ 8:48AM

We have spent the last week wrangling with the same problem. Pelosi and Biden are "supposedly" Catholics, so there is something wrong with the Catholic Church contesting abortion and contraception. The answer is simple: these three people are liberal elitist first and foremost, and only coincidentally appointed by a Republican or born to Roman Catholic parents.
The second major lesson is that this regime does not understand, or denies property rights as understood in a capitalist society. The Supreme Court ruled that Social Security is not property of the contributing citizen, but essentially a tax. So the government can take away your Social Security, but it makes no sense that if you take it, you must also take Medicare. So if Medicare is something that belongs to the plantiffs as part of SS benefit, then they should be able to accept it, and then donate it to a Medicare recipient. If it their rightful property, they have the right ro dispose of the asset as they feel fit.
But it is clear that this is not about ownership rights at all. It is about dictatorial rule by a despotic regime.

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 10:51AM

As Catholics, we also have a responsibility to protect the lives of the women already here. A high percentage of women take the pill for legitimate health reasons - as does mine. My insurance has this coverage, thus mitigating a $900 cost we would bear otherwise.

I would check to determine if Catholic health benefits pay for vasectomies and Viagra. Let's go for a harder target than women, for once.

We have not demanded the inspections of seminaries and churches for evidence of child abuse. We have not applied laws to ensure that adult men are not permitted to be with young boys alone without a chaperone. We have not endorsed forcing priests, with civil marriage authority, to officiate gay marriages. But for some reason, women are still an easy target.

These Catholic institutions - not run by any diocese I know of, accept federal dollars. They should abide by the law of the land. They abide by standards of care by the AMA and FDA, do they not? They can't conjure some classical treatment regimen and expect for it to be legal, at least not yet.

JJ| 2.17.12 @ 11:33AM

Ever hear of the first amendment? That my friend IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. Now its time for the government to follow it.

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 12:11PM

and the law of the land has supported COBRA, the Medicare act, abortion and countless other "intrusions" like lunch-counter and drinking fountain laws for decades. So what of it?

If these institutions want to preserve lily-white religious freedom, then refuse federal or state dollars for care and become true charitable organizations. But guess what? Fraud and battery stil apply if they attempt to administer unsupported standards of care. Is this protected as well?
Until then, thankfully, we have sober civil control of this nation.
We also have the limit on free speech and religion under the tort of misrepresentation that should be utilized more frequently.

JJ| 2.17.12 @ 2:21PM

You obviously do not understand the bill of rights. You keep trying to put limits on these rights. If you want an abortion pill, go buy one. Don't trample on our rights in the process.

And what is this "lily white religious freedom"? It demonstrates racist bigotry on your part. Take your communism back to the USSR.

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 2:29PM

No, you have this perception that religion somehow trumps reason. The government has conceded to religious demands many times since confederation. It was government that preserved religious freedom when the majority hordes were fixing for a fight, and it will be government that defends the rights of individuals when religion oversteps their bounds - like this occasion.

The Rabbi yesterday equated a woman's predicament to someone going into a Kosher deli seeking a ham sandwich. The deli is not taking federal dollars, and a prescription for contraception is not a sandwich. Yet this guy was permitted to testify before our congress with this silliness.

JJ| 2.18.12 @ 12:29PM

Reason says that a person who wants contraceptions can pay her own copay. It says that if she wants to buy an abortion pill - just in case, she is free to do so. Reason says that the purpose of the constitution is to put limits on the government, not the other way around.
We do not have to agree with any religion. We do not have to share the same faith. I am not Christian, but I know that if the government starts violating the first amendment, it can violate mine also.
Reason also says women can go to Planned Parenthood and get birth control like candy. So reason should tell you that Obama's decision is just a cynical ploy.

fckewe| 2.20.12 @ 5:25AM

The Catholic Church has all the 1st amendment freedom it can handle. HALF of it's money should be taxes ( 35% of 100K leaves 2/3, which means their net would be 65K and 150% of that is 100K. That 50% tax free boost is HALF!)

individuals can say no to abortions, say no to gay marriages, say no to hanging negros from trees. But to deny the majority the right to choose goes against the Constitution, against democracy, against the Republic, against GOD's very will.

The Church refuses to render unto caesar what is caesar's is the utmost in both hypocracy AND heresy. To speak a lie about 'religious freedom' that does NOT stop your beliefs OR your churches fiscal policies BLASPHEMY as it directly refutes the word of GOD as spoken through Christ and written by the Apostles in the GOSPELS.

200 years ago, you would DIE for doing that just as 500 years ago Galileo was confined for saying the earth was not only round, it was the NOT the center of the universe AND it rotated around the sun!

The reason the dark ages were dark is because no fresh thought entered ANY heads at all. The age of enlightenment: Rethinking failed and refuted dogma with new and workable tenets of truth and faith.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.20.12 @ 3:44PM

"I am a 1%er, in Mensa" (fckewe 1/16/12)

"Babies cry, laugh, poop and eat and breath. If it is NOT doing these acts, it is just a scab, a snot bubble" (fckewe 1/19/12)

"in the eraly church was VERY Markist" (fckewe 2/8/12)

"Rethinking failed and refuted dogma with new and workable tenets of truth and faith" (fckewe 2/20/12)

Even sheep seeking to end the sodomization of sheep by sodomizers,

sodomizers who are the intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubbles,

know that the dogma and tenets of these intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers,

dogma and tenets of tyranny through government dependency brought about by these intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers,

lacks any credibility and integrity when 49.5% of all Americans pay no federal tax,

lacks any credibility and integrity when more than 70% of federal spending goes to government dependence programs,

lacks any credibility and integrity when more than 91 million of the 313 million Americans are dependent on government,

not to mention lacks any credibility and integrity when the unfunded liabilities of each American taxpayer this instant is well more than one million dollars each taxpayer and growing exponentially,

the lack of any credibility and the lack of any integrity in the dogma and in the tenets of intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

qrstuv| 2.20.12 @ 7:48PM

The Church hasn't taken away anybody's rights in a long, long time.

The Democratic party has been doing it recently and shows no sign of stopping.

***
I would be 100% fine with taxing churches, but it would be only fair to tax all "non-profits" including the enormous foundations that constantly crusade for socialism.

W| 2.17.12 @ 4:43PM

Canuckstani
If you have probable cause of a crime you can search a church, synagogue, mosque, anything. But under the 4th Amendment you have to have probable cause. You cannot just walk into a church or your house or a boy scout meeting to search.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.18.12 @ 8:49AM

Do you actually understand how medical markets operate? If you are a Catholic Hospital and you treat a Medicaid patient, who the hell do you think pays for it? Medicare and Medicaid are government programs.
I sold to hospitals, and Catholic Hospitals have a very difficult time since they are dedicated to charity. So they help people for whom it is unprofitable or even for FREE.
Your government, whom you love so much took people's money in taxes claiming it was for Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and stole the money. So if you are fifty, the last projection is that Social Security will run out of money just before you turn 62. You will have paid SS taxes all your life, if you work, and probably get pennies on the dollar back since the only funding will be the general fund.
BTW, if you make $50K, you are saving $40 per month the rest of this year in SS tax. But that is the only thing that is funding Social Security, so your "Dear Leader" is using a propaganda ploy to steal your Social Security benefits, fool!

fckewe| 2.20.12 @ 5:31AM

that's the commute to work for many people and it buys us a year to oust the RED menace from the House and upend the filibuster obstructionism and stagnation crap in the Senate. Wrthwhile investment in My mind.

Besides, AFTER reality is restored to Congress, they will fund SS with complete unlimited withholdings to all earners, including dividend earners. That will actually cut the 15% in about half for the duration and become a REAL tax cut for everyone.

Payng medicare will come from using RICO on medicare fraud Doctors and lawyers, by confiscating ALL the proceeds of illegal enterprise AND treble fines.

Moe Blotz| 2.17.12 @ 9:29AM

Mr. Hillyer, the First Amendment does not entitle Americans to free speech. The First Amendment tells Government that it can not inhibit our right of free speech that God has given us.

Al Adab| 2.17.12 @ 11:52AM

It is that distinction Moe which makes the United States unique. Our rights are inherent in our humanity and government exists only to protect those rights. When it becomes destructive of those ends the people retain other rights. Are we not on the verge of the "alter and abolish" clause?

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 11:53AM

God has not given the right to free speech.
He gave us the law and a Son. Period.

The law and the Son mentions nothing about ending slavery, or elevating women to the equals of men. It mentions nothing about the abolition of blasphemy laws. Ask the Spaniards and John Calvin if such "free speech" exists.

Limited freedom applies only to men, according to the law and the Son. So who is the "us" you specify?
1 Cor settles it, does it not?

Are you a strict constructionist or are you inferring something that is not written anywhere?

If you choose to follow the law, then you do not possess free speech. If you choose to follow the path of Christ, you do not possess free speech.

Moe Blotz| 2.17.12 @ 12:39PM

Take off, Hoser. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Us= We the People.

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 2:21PM

Sure, but to claim it was God that provided this and not the will of white landowners, mostly agnostic, to organize and mutiny against the crown that provided their land and ability to be agnostic in the first place is complete fantasy.

It's the same excuse provided by despots and liberators throughout history.

The US constitution is nowhere in the Bible. To the contrary, many of the "inalienable" rights enumerated have bible precedents opposing them.

If the 1st Amendment is God-given, then all of them are - including the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th.
The former only possible through a war, thus the Union was on God's side and the South was on Satan's?
Interesting thought - it may explain the Southern Strategy afterall.

Moe Blotz| 2.18.12 @ 8:01AM

The Amendments were not God-given, please re-read my statement to Mr. Hillyer above. The inalienable rights are declared by the Declaration of Independence. Since grade school I have known about the founding documents, but am now reading and studying so that I know what is in them. (Reminds me of what Nancy Pelosi said what she did about PPAACA) The Patriot Post supplies supporting literature such as the Founder's Wisdom and Essential Liberty that enable us to understand the thinking of those who established the nation we call home.

Quin| 2.18.12 @ 12:39PM

Moe actually makes a good point, and I thank him for it. I should have written that the First Amendment RECOGNIZES the speech/religion rights to which we are entitled, not that the amendment itself entitles us. It is an important distinction.

Stupidistani Quiz| 2.19.12 @ 3:56PM

true or false:

At the time the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States was ratified, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was John Jay, who along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the authors of the Federalist Papers.

true or false:

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States was ratified, and one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers along with the author of the Constitution James Madison, stated the following:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

true or false:

At the time the Constitution of the United States was ratified, which was authored by James Madison, who also authored the Federalist Papers along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and who was the Chief Justice when the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was ratified, 6 of the 13 original states had a state Christian church.

true or false:

At the time the Constitution of the United States was ratified, which was authored by James Madison who also authored the Federalist Papers with John Jay who was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice when the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was ratified, and who stated "it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians", 7 of the 13 original states did not have a state Christian church.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.18.12 @ 8:58AM

What? Are you out of your mind?
Jesus prayed before His Cruxifiction that the Apostles would remain united and continue to spread His Word. Do you think that they liked going to towns to warn them of the wrath of G-d?

You should read the Bible more closely. He warns of people like you and Obama using His Word to lead the people astray.
And your understanding of freedom is infintile. Nothing is "free." In economics, there are no "Free" lunches. And in life, your liberty is not free, but needs to be defended. So with that, take a hike, loser.

fckewe| 2.20.12 @ 5:31AM

God does NOt give you free speech. GOd doesn't exist.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.20.12 @ 5:25PM

Even sheep know intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers who have integrity do not exist.

Even sheep know intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers who have no shred of integrity spew intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizer dogma and tenets but avoid the quiz for stupidistanis like it will physically burn their pathetic and despicable intellectually elite liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizing selves as if the quiz was the Bible.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

David W| 2.17.12 @ 9:43AM

Let's just say it all together - "Kavanaugh is a socialist jackwagon."

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 10:38AM

Reagan passed COBRA.

Cat departs bag......

Moe Blotz| 2.17.12 @ 12:46PM

1987:Ronald Reagan signed COBRA into law after the Senate and House of Representatives passed the bill. Since then it has been tweaked every couple of years to be what it is today. Take off......

canuckistani| 2.17.12 @ 2:10PM

The free ride provision was signed by RR. You take off....

He started the spiral.

W| 2.17.12 @ 8:25PM

COBRA is not a free ride. It requires an insurance company to offer you continuation of a policy for up to 18 months when your group policy is terminated, usually after discharege or divorce,
BUT you have to pay the premium. It would be a free ride if you did not have to pay the premium.

qrstuv| 2.20.12 @ 7:49PM

You might look a little further back in history. FDR signed into law the most massive Ponzi scheme known to man (can you think of any other Ponzi scheme that has entrapped millions?)

Edward Cropper| 2.17.12 @ 10:37AM

To modify Shakespeare's famous line," the first thing we do , let's kill (most) of the lawyers".

bill glass| 2.17.12 @ 10:39AM

Redistribution of wealth - the bane of real conservatives, and the goodies from rinos and libs.... it knows no end. Eventually, the so-called "poor" will do better than the rest of us. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to figure out how to look reeeal poor, sose I can participate. Cutting loose some more employees will be step number one.

Oldefarte| 2.17.12 @ 10:51AM

The problem with all judges is that they are also lawyers by trade. As such , the graduated from various law schools, which historically spit out some of the most extreme and radical philosophical graduates possible. The very word lawyer equates to extremely radical liberal. Want an example of same? Okay then consider Barack Obama, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School [there are many others, but that gives you enough to chew upon for the moment]!!!!!!!

Bob Miller| 2.17.12 @ 11:18AM

To someone who believes everything should be mandated by government, why would benefits be exceptions?

WJW| 2.17.12 @ 11:23AM

Until such judges are impeached, the US will continue to slide toward liberal fascism.

JJ| 2.17.12 @ 11:29AM

I will soon have to deal with Medicare. Rather than be indure mandates on my own treatment I have already started going to alternative doctors such as a naturopath. I have no intention of signing up for medicare and going through any of their required procedures from physicals to colonoscopies. Its my body and I will make my choices.

Quartermaster| 2.17.12 @ 11:46AM

COBRA does not force anyone to do anything. I've rejected COBRA many times.

Bush may have tried to reform SS, but after he got shot down he gave up and went over to the dark side completely. Watch the Marxists. They get shot down, they then immediately try another route. They also punish those they regard as theirs that commit any apostasy. We do that, we get numb skulls telling us how we are supporting the other side if we don't support our apostates. It's idiocy.

John - TMF| 2.17.12 @ 12:31PM

QM...

Not quite. After Bush lost on the Social Security issue, he ended up losing the House and Senate in 2006... After that point, he was virtually powerless to do much of anything.

Again.. Conservatives are forgetting and getting on the "Hate-Bush-because-it-sounds-cool" bandwagon.

The several failures of the Bush administration should be instructive of what pitfalls and difficulties are going to be encountered in doing anything to stop the current Leviathan from devouring everything in its sight.

George W. Bush is a good man. He was an excellent President, not the best, but certainly not the worst. His biggest fault is that he didn't do enough to oppose the bad press that fatally eroded his Presidency.

He lost the Senate and the House in 2006, and therefore lost any control over spending, and GOP Congressional spending looks tiny and inconsequential in retrospect. Bush conducted a major war, two major overt battle campaigns, and before the Democrat sponsored financial meltdown of 2008-2009 had the war generated deficit down to a level in which his booming economy would have had it paid off with even a modicum of Congressional restraint.

But alas... Congress appropriates and spends the money, and the Dems controlled that after January 2007. It has been down hill ever since.

This nation would do infinitely better to have George W. Bush back in office.

4% unemployment... 3-4% GDP growth... prestige and power in international relations... relative peace and stability at home. That's what Presidents are supposed to preside over, not what we have now.

I say the same thing to Conservatives that I say to the Obamanites... Quit blaming Bush, he's not president, and hasn't been for 3 full years.

The current occupant of the White House, his political party, and his handlers are at fault for what is happening now. Nothing else is relevant.

r/TMF

trundle| 2.17.12 @ 2:48PM

John TMF, George Bush the son had his highwater mark as our president in the weeks and months after 9/11 -- so very early into his 8-year presidency.

He squandered all of that already in the spring and early summer of 2002.

He showed himself a weak and feckless individual allowing John Ashcroft to be thrown speedily under the bus. (Matters not whether one likes Ashcroft or not, BUSH chose Ashcroft -- so you stick with him. Allowing yourself to be pushed around is NOT leadership.)

He further squandered any real leadership he had by a very dodgy lead-up to entering Iraq. (For the record -- entering Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein are perfectly fine, no problems with that) It was the how -- with the ongoing fall-out with a, yes-than-desirable Colin Powell -- he continued to erode.

(A US President does not need a "Coalition of the Willing" to knock out a paper puppet like Saddam Hussein. One looks weak "begging" for others to join one's cause. A US President does not need to beg.)

And on and on it went. While meanwhile talking stupidity about a Compassionate Conservatism , talking as if this is a government role. Any real Christian can tell you that this is an individual role, something we do weeknights and on the week end BUT NOT during our government day job.

Meanwhile, you see, you forget Bush's spending, spending, spending, spending.

Any dolt could tell you that the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs pulled a "Who me? No, no, not me?" game that 4 year olds in the sand box do. Everything that DHS (Homeland Security) is doing is a function of what our already MAMMOTH and out of control military bureaucracy should have taken on -- the parts that need doing.

Stop trying to tell us that Bush didn't suck. He did.

His landing on that carrier (although that Navy lieutenant pilot never let him near the controls) was childish in the extreme. Only to be topped by his "Bring it on!" (How many parents of dead kids can than him for that vainglorious remark?)

Bush sucked.

I could go on and on. All I've touched on so far is a few items from his first 4 years.

It is not "en vogue" to now trash G.W. Bush. It is proper because he deserves it.

If someone were to ask me to sum up the G.W. Bush presidency in a few sentences it would be:

"The man had it right to oust Saddam Hussein and to, of course, permit many assets into the 'fight' to find Bin Laden and wreck the Al Quaida infrastructure, but he became obsessed with this as his only focus, his only reason for being, and he spent all his time defending his 'War on Terror.' Meanwhile Rome kept burning all around him. Burning through taxpayer's monies, deepening the morass that we know as insatiable government in every crevasse of our lives. He didn't reform entitlements (sorry, that takes RESOLVE if you're gonna do it -- he didn't show RESOLVE) and meanwhile every government bureaucracy has grown -- these are bureaucracies OVERSEEN by the Chief Executive, aka the U.S. President. He's obsessed with Bin Laden who we now know was more obsessed about porn VHS tapes. And....let's face it the "Bring it on!" President went REAL, REAL weak at the knees as the first Guantanamo battlefield POWs! were released and went right back to fight our U.S. Troops in the Middle East during G.W. Bush's presidency.

So he gave us....grave inconsistencies. (He allowed a media, liberal academia, and poll number to push him around ---- THAT IS NOT LEADERSHIP.)

He was a failure; his presidency was an utter failure. He was given 8 years to do the right thing. And yes we've turned it into a gargantuan task. He only gave us in return about 20%.

That's failure.

One cannot defend failed, weak leadership.

John - TMF| 2.17.12 @ 11:57PM

Well, I let that stand for a while.... you proved my point.

Just to note, back then, Bush was accused by his haters of being a cowboy and moving to hastily... so which is it?

John Ashcroft left due to serious almost fatal health reasons. Bush was knocked constantly for being too loyal to his people... again which is it?

As far as having a set, yeah... Dubya had a pair... and given the circumstances and the constant real threats against his life some stand up bravado was called for. I knew folks who were killed on 9/11. I had other family members and friends barely get out of the WTC towers and the Pentagon alive... Getting AQ's back up and getting them to engage on open ground on a more or less conventional battlefield was brilliant. It is and always will be better to fight them in their back yard than ours.

Homeland Security was not a new bureaucracy, it was a piecing together of already existing agencies into one with internal national focus. The only new agency was TSA, and Bush fought that one, and lost.

So... you got your facts mixed up with your hatred. Can't fix that.

-TMF
PS: President Bush's arrival via an S-3 Viking was the highlight of a difficult cruise for that carrier and its crew. The Mission Accomplished banner was done by them, for them, not the Iraqi Campaign. They had been deployed for a long time, and performed dangerous work in one of the most brilliantly successful military campaigns in the history of warfare. A US Navy Commander who was a part of that crew, told me that to my face.

AND - George W. Bush was a very good pilot. He did indeed take the controls, and flew in formation to the ship. The pilot is quoted as having said that he was a "good stick" and flew quite well... so you are wrong there too.

Sometimes you do things for your men. The men and women of the US military loved and respected President George W. Bush, and he returned the favor.

He was infinitely better than what we have now.

John - TMF| 2.18.12 @ 12:06AM

Just so we are understanding each other. The pilot of the S-3 was a full Commander, not a Lieutenant. The Lincoln has the honor of being the first aircraft carrier to receive a sitting President via an active "trap".

It was a wonderful thing to do for that pilot and that crew. They have pride in their work and to be trusted to receive the president while they performed their duty was special for them.

http://www.tinfeathers.com/Mil.....PreBus.htm

So, hate all you want, but get your facts straight.

trundle | 2.18.12 @ 4:41AM

John, I may not have been on the deck of that carrier and privy to what the top officers were talking about, so I stand corrected if what you state is true. I am sure that only a rather tight circle of 50 - 100 people really know how that exactly went down.

However, for the record, I have my sincere doubts....

Even if he could do it and even if it went off flawlessly with him at the controls and his "copilot" napping, it comes across as a completely unnecessary PR stunt. U.S. Presidents don't have to do these things. When Putin does these things, how does it look? When Saddam held that rifle over his head on the balcony, how did that look?

You keep using "hate." Hate?

This is not about any emotions.

It is about cold, hard facts.

We'd just had the beginning of the full dismantling of what it means to be an American by eight horrific years of Bill Clinton and the Clintonistas.

George W. Bush was walking into the best scenario that any U.S. President could possibly have in modern day America. He could do his own version of the "It's Morning in America" Reaganesque stuff while doing what his RedState constiuents elected him to do: Dismantle government, end tidal wave spending, get regulaions gone so America could win its jobs and manufacturing back from overseas.

None of that happened.

The day Bush died as anything to respect for me was the day he partnered with Ted Kennedy for "No Child Left Behind." What thinking man could possibly put his smile and pen signature -- with vigor and pumping fists and repeated thumbs up -- his signature to that?

Leadership is being able to see the consequences that will occur 10, 20, and 30 years hence.

This is not about "hate." This is about objectively calling the George W. Bush presidency terribly, terribly ineffectual in saving the nation. And accurately assessing him as a very poor leader.

Is the job easy? Of course not. But he obviously wanted it. It might be why he did the stepping stone governorship in Texas. Not many presidents have ever had the chance to see up close and personal their own father as the Chief Executive. George W. Bush did.

So he knew full well what he would encounter. And -- the rarest of rare moments in the history of the world -- he could even call upon his father for his thoughts, advice, or just some words of encouragement -- and his brother Jeb, the sitting Florida Governor, a terribly large and significant impact state in its own right.

I'm not too sure we've ever had a Chief Executive that has had that kind of supporting cast.

He was weak. In press conferences or other events he might say the words, but he didn't follow through. He should have been a man of character and openly dissed that annual liberal laughingstock dinner. Yet I remember well his comments there that night and those of his wife Laura. Her comments -- not good.

These things tear at the fabric of the nation. It is what weakens us.

Government grew which means the tyranny in your life grew. And it has. It has magnified and spread.

What major U.S. problem was solved during eight years of President Bush? And how many GOP presidents have had two houses of Congress for even 2 years of their presidency in the last 100 years?

This is not about "hate." You don't read very well.

You really don't. Nobody (until you) mentioned the "Mission Accomplished." I talked about George W. Bush's words -- his own words -- into the microphone.

Obviously you do not have a dead son or maimed brother from the 6 week period that followed that vainglorious statement from a man (who should have been - due to his daily briefings) totally unaware of how his comments and statements "played" in certain parts of our world.

The hallmark of the Bush eight years is supposed to be a successful waging of the "War on Terror." It has not ceased but somehow we are not going from yellows to oranges to reds anymore or are we?

Bush cavorted well with the House of Saud which directly funds and resources the killing of our own countrymen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. How does that make sense? He also did nothing to secure the border with Mexico which has allowed sleeper cell after sleeper cell access in. Surely a real governor of Texas would have wanted to solve that problem once and for all, yes?

Is Bush II preferable to Obama? Of course he is. But that is not saying too much; it is all rapid decline.

The man was not a good leader. At times, yes. Overall: No.

The topic here is leadership -- as in the nominations that a Chief Executive can make.

edward cropper| 2.18.12 @ 4:56PM

"He was infinitely better than what we have now"
So was Warren G Harding but that is hardly an endorsement for greatness.

fckewe| 2.20.12 @ 5:43AM

NO president EVER had to overcome such a HUGE recession from day one, close out 2 wars, reregulate the economy. deal with reamapnt and repetitive racsim, religious persecution, a corrupt Supreme Court and a vile and obscenely derelict congress.

FDR took on the Great Depresssion in peacetime, had the backing of Congress for NEW DEALs that SOLVED problems, and healed a nation halfway, only because the RED menace pulled the plug on the economy in 1937.

Obama has done a lot for this country's voters. But he could have SOLVED most of our issues if he had NOT been betrayed by Fraudulent Democrats voting Republican agenda's and stagnated by a stonewalling RED menace of the Republican party machine.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.20.12 @ 7:41PM

Even sheep know that Ronaldus Maximus Reaganus, following Jimmuh Obamuh Cartuh, had to overcome a 21.5% interest rate, a 13.6% inflation rate, and a 7.6% employment rate, and Barruh Jimmuh Obamuh has had to overcome the intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble lying stupidity of their own lying stupid snot bubble scab Markist democrat liberal making.

Of course, even sheep know intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers have no credibility.

And, of course, even sheep know intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers have no integrity.

Not to mention, of course, even sheep know intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers are stupid liars.

After all, intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers are sodomizers because of their intellectually 'elite' snot bubble scab Markist democrat liberalism.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

runningdeer| 2.19.12 @ 1:30AM

Thank you for that post. I agree. When President George W. Bush began changes to health care he did help my elderly Mother. I had to manage all of her affairs at the time so I can say for certain that he helped. But thanks to the Democrats who took so many seats in the Senate, house and Congress, every good thing that he did became for nothing and nothing else good could be done. Now we see the results of what that brought us. This president and his allies. I am tired of hearing people blame Bush for what the Democrats caused and blame Bush for the disaster that is this current president.

RCV| 2.17.12 @ 1:17PM

"Conservatives" often seem suprised when real conservatives like Kavanaugh, who understand the role of judges in our constitutional system, issue rulings they don't like. Kavanaugh is smart and principled and reads and applies the law as a judge should. He doesn't make political public policy votes. Isn't that what you guys say you want from judges?

Al Adab| 2.17.12 @ 1:42PM

RCV:
Conservative judges respect the law and precedent. It is a mistake for us to look for "activist Conservatives". Conservative judges will not make law as the Leftists/Statists do, they will respect the law even when they disagree that it should be the law.

Legislative function is where law is created. It is there we must seek to turn back this Draconian system some have created.

RCV| 2.17.12 @ 3:11PM

That was my point, Al Adab, and I'm glad (tho not surprised) that you agree.

Quin| 2.20.12 @ 1:42PM

Kavanaugh did NOT apply the law as written. He pointed to no law. He recognized no difference between law and a bureaucratic operator's manual. Read Judge Henderson's dissent. Now THAT is conservative, textualist jurisprudence!

cicero| 2.17.12 @ 1:30PM

If I may be allowed to defend my once proud profession, you should not paint everyone with the same brush. The good private lawyer is the only professional standing between the citizen and his government. The problem with the current generation of attorneys is the same as infects the rest of society. The liberal capture of higher education occurred not only in the liberal arts colleges. The same thing happened in medical schools and law schools. They all went from conservative to liberal beginning in the 60s. You no longer had veteran attorneys and doctors teaching in the professional schools, but graduates who never practiced becoming the professors. Granted, this was more prevalent in the law schools than in the med schools, but it was only a matter of degree. It did not take too long for the progressives to hire one another - does Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn come to mind - and turn the schools into nests. So now, we have progressives running our teaching colleges, law schools, and, believe it or not, med schools. The judges that this article conplains about do not come from the ranks of the practitioners. They are accademics, government beaurocrats, or legal theorists. None have ever worked in the every day world of the private attorney - the problem solver. They spend their careers trying to figure how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, and how to get the working class to pay for the music.

rnd| 2.17.12 @ 3:14PM

I have to ask the elephant in the room questions:

cicero wrote:

"The good private lawyer is the only professional standing between the citizen and his government."

You wrote this.

Okay:

1. Why is this necessary? Any 'good citizen' ought to be able to stand up for himself or herself. Any 'good citizen' ought to be able to speak for himself and self-defend. If not in all cases, certainly 90-92% of them.
2. Or have you so worked to stack the deck of byzantine courtroom rules, protocols, procedures, endless pre-trial motions/actions, etc. that we boorish mere knuckle-draggers cannot even think to try to wade through it without your Adult Hand holding us the whole way?
3. Isn't this the system that you have helped create and perpetuate? (out here in the real world we call that "job security."
4. How many lawyers are out there making it their professional focus and life calling to aid the citizenry against government? (local, state, national) I'm not talking about the deadbeat lawyers who take on the public defender crowd -- because, truth be told, they cannot get real paying jobs due to your tremendously overcrowded profession.
5. In today's tremendously overpriced law schools has the SPECIALIZATION OF LAW exponentially EXPLODED! in the last 25 years? (Say 'yes.') Please tell us why -- if your profession is so "noble."

Merry Crystal| 2.17.12 @ 1:58PM

“Turn on, tune in, drop out.” THAT’S one thing Timothy Leary got right, when it comes to healthcare and the government.

Turn on---get “stoned”, get “high”, and extend your awareness to infinity, by escaping the conventional wisdom that is suffocating “normal” Americans in the “system. Yes, it’s the SYSTEM, stupid!

Tune in---thereby allow your unique expression of consciousness to find the frequency---thanks, Dan Rather!---that meets your needs.

Drop out---the only logical actions stemming from such enlightening steps entail throwing it all away, to infinity, whole bodily, by always and forever PERSONALLY taking responsibility: after all, and AS all, what the heaven do you think is the Absolute truth?

Either YOU are responsible for your reality, or you are not. Now, there’s a Manichean split I can get behind!

I bet NOBODY who’s sane would liken themselves to a dead leaf blowing in the wind, the epitome of a “victim”, having NO CHOICE in their next inhabitation of and as space-time. And yet, especially with respect to healthcare, in the USA circa 2012, the whole concern about the GOVERNMENT taking care of ME---why, there it is! IRRESPONSIBILITY, or blowing in the wind!

When it comes to bodily, and even mental, health, each instant of living lawfully follows from previous choices. That is, we are born with unique bodily qualities, having certain weaknesses and strengths. Jon has teeth prone to cavities, Jim does not. From the beginning, all the rest of health depends on INTAKE, or else the results of actions that put the body in harm’s way, so that an “accident” happens.

The overwhelming CAUSE of bad health is bad diet!

It’s really quite simple to understand.

For each person, given their born tendencies and bodily condition, there exists a best diet, which if followed would result in a most healthy and long life. IF everyone were conscious enough to nurture their body by only eating SUPER foods, why, golly, there would hardly even be a “healthcare system”, full of doctors and dentists, and all the bureaucrats!

No man is an island, though, eh?

REAL doctors and dentists, who TRULY had the best interests of their customer in mind, would mimic Jesus’ parable about fishing. Instead, of course, they FRY the fish---their “patients”—instead of teaching them how to “fish”. (terrible analogy!)

Therefore, even in these SICK and OBESE times, wisdom calls for returning to the SUPER FOOD basics. So, given that life always offers teaching moments, 24/7, what is one to do?

Buy the book, “The Brilliant Function of Pain”, by Milton Ward. Short of doing that, use his essential point, to wit that pain is a telling message. Listen to it, and change your act, accordingly.

I’ll end today’s polemic on a personal note. In 1970, at 28, eating the standard American diet (SAD) led to a case of bleeding from my butt. First, I tried eating lots of oranges, because I knew I ingesting hardly any fruit or vegetables. When that didn’t work, completely, “fate” or “luck” entered.

I found a Prevention Magazine, as well as met a lady who was into Adele Davis, a famous health food author. Well-that all did it!

In short, I GOT IT! The system sucked! It was up to ME to take care of myself---and, there was a way! Certainly, I did NOT immediately start eating my own super food diet. But, I was smart enough to regularly make improvements, especially when reaching the age of 50, after which it was vegan, all the way.

I really pity the fools who suffer their choices, though. It’s not fun to be surrounded by a nation of sickos! Which grows, like topsy, in number and girth.

aware| 2.17.12 @ 4:24PM

"Either YOU are responsible for your reality, or you are not."
And this pretty much sums up the
divide in the American citizenry today. There are "dead leaves" among us and they like it that way.

Responsibility is the part of liberty that frightens the wits out of those only fit for servitude. Unfortunately, there are now so many "dead leaves" piling up on one side of the boat that capsizing is imminent. In fact it is already underway, it's always a slow subtle shift at first. It will pick up speed soon and then it's just a matter of inertia.

BullPasture| 2.17.12 @ 2:37PM

So many judges have abandoned fidelity to the constitution. Even Scalia dropped the ball in Gonzalez v Raich.

http://bullpasturechronicles.b.....rland.html

cicero| 2.17.12 @ 4:52PM

rnd - You and I don't necessarily disagree on some of your points, but you are shooting at the wrong shadow. The Court Rules and statutes are foisted on the citizenry by the superior courts and the legislatures. The legislatures are not made up of practicing attorneys. While many in the beaurocracy have law degrees, most of them have never represented real, live people. Most of our judges have never represented real, live people. By and large, the private attorney makes his living trying to solve the legal problems of the citizens that they cannot solve for themselves in the most expeditious way possible. Our governing class has spent its time and energy making life in America a minefield. Have you tried to esrablish or run a business lately? Do you have any idea how easy it is for a government beaurocrat to find an ordinance, statute, or regulation that you may have violated? Are you confident you can go into a courtroom and represent yourself before a judicdial officer who looks upon you as a mere source of revenue, or something he/she found on the bottom of their shoe? The private lawyer that I speak of, and I hope that I have been, is the kind who can, and will, back a judge down off his/her high horse; challenge the government that is attacking my client; or can help a citizen avoid pain, expense, humiliation, deprivation of liberty, or other nightmares concocted by the governing class to strip him/her of the fruit of their labor, or the enjoyment of life. The difference between America and a third world country, it has been said, is freedon. Without a principled attorney able to represent you in a fight against the state, the only difference will be "goats in the street".

rnd| 2.18.12 @ 5:23AM

It is okay when you do this, cicero. Helping a neighbor or person in your town or county. I hope you understand what I mean by that.

Of course I am aware of the minefield American life is now. In all respects. (There is no doubt; the 1950's are looking better all the time.) The minefields you speak of are everywhere we look and step. And they increase by the day.

Helping one person who need your legal aid is doing good. Helping two and three others is also good, yes, more good.

But there are problems for this:

You've only added to the woes of the individual citizen by charging them money for a very uncertain and dicey outcome. (I am sure that you tell them there are no guarantees.)

What I ask: Where then are the good citizen lawyers who are not just taking money to win the onesies and twosies cases (What? 6 or 8 or 10 case wins max in a year?) but rather banding together as a national legal common sense force to be reckoned with? Just winning one case at a time does not improve our America.

It does not do one dent to improve your very city, its inhabitants.

Where is this band of resolute legal professionals plotting now to explode the tyrannical legal system as to make it unnecessary for your services in the first place?

No man -- except in the rarest of cases -- should need to call on professional legal aid to aid himself.

One, most of us cannot afford it. Modern day America is terribly expensive for a family of four even when the combined family income is over $100,000. There is no room for anything extraneous.

Two, and more importantly, it is truly very very difficult to get a lawyer (priest/pastor, best friend, uncle, neighbor, nosy colleague -- for that matter) spun up on the facts & intricacies of an issue. It is always odd to see an advocate in a courtroom advocating for something for which he is NOT a first person party.

I rarely find anyone that listens really well, takes note and remembers with good recall what he has committed to writing, that dives in with gusto for details of their own volition, who truly ADVOCATES as if he is advocating for himself.

To comment on thisAs a real person to comment on this. One spends countless hours preparing detailed information for one's counsel, provides it to him (and staff), and then waits for the interviews/talks/whatever to hear the wise, learned questions (to fill the gaps) that the lawyer/counsel has uncovered, having meticulously examined all the presented -- well organized! -- information received from the client.

One waits in vain. These pointed, wise, insightful questions never come. from one's legal counsel. And then one loses time as one says, "No, you are not the lawyer for me" as one then spins more wheels trying to locate a lawyer/counselor (ADVOCATE!) that can pay attention and appreciate the set-up work a client has already done.

This is a big problem if not THE big problem: Ones who have acquiesced to what we have today ASSUME fantastic (or even just "pretty good") professionalism on the part of the legal counsel that one pays/hires/teams with.

You wrote of the "principled attorney." Well, alas, most of us who try to be upright citizens haven't the slightest clue as to how to find one that has "principles." Are there some out there? Sure, probably. How would one know? And how would one find that guy? (One does not usually have months and months to get ready.)

Let's cut to the chase: If the professional legal protectors of the citizenry that you speak of are so noble, well then, they would be working every day on overdrive to destroy a system that does not allow a man to -- in 90-92% of all cases -- defend himself.

That is what the best workers always do in many, many professions. They make themselves unnecessary.

The very least you could do is dismantle one by one "the Court Rules and statutes ... foisted on the citizenry" that you mention. If those making these rules know not the world for which they make them, this should be easy pickings.

Even if it is not easy, it is what a good man would do, where he would commit his life work.

Steve| 2.17.12 @ 8:06PM

Too many judges "grow"with time. As for Bush appointees,except for Scalia,Reagan's 2 scotus picks stunk. You never know.

geodoctor| 2.17.12 @ 10:10PM

Is it possible to remove Judge Kavanaugh from his seat similar to the way progressives are trying to remove Gov. Walker in Wisconsin? Does anyone know the answer? While conservatives were sleeping the last 10 years, the liberal left and progressives placed liberal judges all over the country that are interpreting laws anyway they want. Blocked Cal's gay marriage ban, blocked Az's immigration bill, and the list goes on... Would only DC residents be eligible for a recall election or who runs the US Circuit Court? If Republicans win the election, we need to oust all these seedy characters fast and furiously!!

Dick Nome| 2.19.12 @ 3:41PM

Judges can be impeached, ask Alcee Hastings. You can't do it because you don't like their decisions though.

Richard Baker| 2.17.12 @ 11:33PM

This guy further proves the thought that once these "jurists" sit on the bench then some of them (by alchemy, I guess) mutate into something unrecognizable by their patrons and sponsors. Don't blame Bush. He and the Senate could only take him at his word during confirmation.

Richard Baker| 2.17.12 @ 11:34PM

By the way, maybe lifetime appointments aren't the way to go. Give them 10-15 years and out.

rnd| 2.18.12 @ 5:27AM

Yes, Mr. Baker. Only 10 years maximum. With no pensions whatsoever. (I bet they are already entitled to pensions at the 2 or 4 year mark when on the bench?) They need to step down and work like the rest of us slobs until we drop at about age 70 or 72.

giopa2| 2.18.12 @ 1:24PM

Remember that Earl Warren was a Republican Governor of California and was appointed to the Supreme Court by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. George W. Bush has done the same thing. The ethos of the Republican Establishment is Lyndon Johnson's Great Society Liberalism. They only espouse "Conservative" principles to get votes and have absolutely no convictions on those principles.

John Kettlewell| 2.18.12 @ 7:46PM

I'm pleased to see this mentioned somewhere as I have stated it as often as I can, wherever I can. Congress makes Law, Rules, and Regulation. My only point of contention is that you accept the delegation of 'some' authority to interpret, in order to "carry into execution" that which passed Congress. I do not accept that it is binding, but I would concede that Departments and those they 'oversee' can coexist and expedite the interactions by complying with reasonable decrees.

Remember, if it doesn't pass thru Congress, then it is not Law. If it is not Law, then to ignore it is not UnLawful, hence not illegal.

fckewe| 2.19.12 @ 10:26PM

If the penalty were a TAX, then speeding tickets need to be tax deductible. Obay in the LAW is how you avoid the penalty, which means you have a 100% tax loophole, just by your compliance to the law. Just like speeding fines are penalties, not State taxes.

The judge is RIGHT.