Jennifer Rubin thinks we won't believe this, but we will:
The Hill reports:Read the rest.Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Sunday morning that he is close to striking a deal with the Obama administration on abortion provisions. “We are close to getting something done,” Stupak said in an interview with MSNBC. Stupak said he engaged in talks late into the night on Saturday night. The possible deal would focus on an executive order that would specify there would be no public funding for abortions in the healthcare bill.
In the list of deceptions and worm-like maneuvers, this one ranks up there. No, you haven’t forgotten your basic civics. An executive order cannot countermand a statute passed by Congress and signed by the president. If ObamaCare says, “We will subsidize abortion,” no executive order can effectively say, “but not really.” And if it were so, then every pro-choice member of Congress who is voting for this is deceiving the public by voting to “preserve reproductive choice.”
Afterthought: Stupak's problem:
His fundamental conflict is that he wants the bill to pass, even with the taxpayer funding for abortions, but he hopes to find a way to take a stand against that funding. It’s impossible. No wonder he’s trembling like a leaf in the wind.
Shame on him times 1000 if he goes for the flimsy cover of a sham executive order. Maybe Obama thinks he can issue edicts contrary to US law but I imagine Stupak and the American people know better. What a farce.
Most recent posts here.
4 comments:
This is stomach-churning. Earlier this morning, Boehner was still maintaining that Pelosi doesn't have enough firm votes. The six to eight votes in Stupak's corner could be essential. Even if an executive order could be sent down the rabbit hole and transformed into reality, on what basis would one trust this President to issue such an order? Honor?
It's time to start working on taking the congress and impeaching Obama in Nov,along with prosecuting the rest who's names are on that bill. This is the worst betrayal of the American people in our history Pundette :(
It's awful. But it's not over yet.
jill,
Actually, it is. At least for the sausage making aspect of it. This whole period of time, this play you have just witnessed was all fantasy. From the "undecided" switching back and forth, from Stupak's attempt to gain credibility by holding out, even the Republican's public resistance and final capitulation, it was all a play. It was all pro-wrestling at it's finest.
No bill of this size, with all the terrible implications, splits down the middle like this. Not in the real world. Think about all the bad plans, really bad ideas, you and your friends or colleagues talked about over the years. Did any split down the middle? No, you may have one guy, the one who thought of it, and one other guy hang on, but everybody else is going What the....??"
This is what happens when one party rules. We are witnessing as close to a totalitarian regime as I care to come. In the Senate, the final say will fall to Biden, so listening to the Republicans say that, as one did, that Biden was from the Senate so he'll do the right thing is like letting Lucy hold the ball again.
Sorry, not biting. I didn't know Stupak, had I known what I know now, that he is a loyal democrat, that like most pro-life politicians he can separate his faith from his politics, I would have not fallen for him either.
You are correct, it was all for show. His submitting to an EO is just plain silly. However, I do stand by my belief he wanted to hold out for actual language in the bill but was blocked. That is why you saw his downward glances, somber tone, and slumped shoulders when he made his public announcement. He was lying when he said the EO was good enough. He knows better. He knows WE know better. He was the belle of the ball until Nancy spanked him back into line. A line he would have gotten into willingly in the first place.
But, here's my problem with all of this. It shows how seriously infected the democrat party is with far left radicals. Now the question is how much of the courts are the same.
The Supreme Court has said that they really don't like getting involved in refereeing how the sausage is made in Congress, letting the next set of elections vet the politicians doing the deed. So, they'll act on the law. But will they? The Roberts court is a fairly solid 5-4 court on obvious matters. Is the mandates on states and individuals solid? Are there constitutional violations? Does that mean the law is thrown out, to start over, or just "fixes" put in like they did with Gitmo and military tribunals? Are the Dems right in saying that now that it law, the Republicans, always trying to sound moderate, will accept this and start the whole bull-- of saying "we can fix it."? Think about Graham and Snowe and Collins, all prime candidates for making such a speech.
Our founding fathers designed a system of three branches which were intended to act as friction brakes on each other. Two of those three have been compromised. To have only one left is a little unsettling for me. On the up side, I think people are going to see that elections do matter. Maybe they won't be all hyped up to vote in the next cool guy. Assuming that the votes count in the future. (Study Zelaya's plan in Honduras for the referendum. It was quite brilliant and something we will see here soon.)
Sorry, no football, no Lucy, not interested. The Senate Republicans will do their best, but it is law now. Jefferson, Madison and Washington just rolled over in disgust, but not before muttering one word. "Fools."
Post a Comment