tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post7857472378298686941..comments2024-03-22T17:35:52.045-04:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: Trumpites and others should hold some feet to the fireLydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-66932001175644787392017-05-06T10:19:25.857-04:002017-05-06T10:19:25.857-04:00It actually makes little sense even if you assume ...It actually makes little sense even if you assume someone with power up his sleeve at HHS or Justice wants to keep the idiotic rule. The Supreme Court in its per curiam ruling that told the parties to go back to the table and hammer out a regulation that the charities could live with. Sure, they <i>couched</i> it as "we are not deciding the issue", but when you read the language it is clear that they are saying "we won't take an answer that the Little Sisters can't live with." When they vacated the lower court decisions, they only vacated the ones AGAINST the charities, they did not vacate the decision FOR the charities. Whether they proceed in the court cases or not, they are going to LOSE unless they back down on the mandate. <br /><br />Still and all, it is very puzzling why neither the White House, Justice, or HHS doesn't want to reap the political kudos they will get from the right by striking this regulation down. They sure aren't getting any kudos from the left for NOT striking it down. Especially for Price and Sessions, it is hard to imagine <i>any</i> scenario (including incompetence) that actually explains their not acting on this, other than an explicit order from Trump, and <i>that</i> would be rather unexplainable too.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-43296009741298578752017-05-02T14:29:20.283-04:002017-05-02T14:29:20.283-04:00TBF, it's been standard practice for decades f...TBF, it's been standard practice for decades for nominated federal justices to say (and for the administration to say) that the subject of Roe v. Wade was never discussed in their meetings with the President. The idea is that it gives the Democrats an excuse to say that some sort of nebulous "independence of the judiciary" has been violated and even, if the justice is confirmed, to pressure him to recuse himself in abortion cases.<br /><br />All of that is Marquis of Queensberry rules; it's not written down anywhere. The Senate had to use the nuclear option anyway, so some of us rampagers think the time has come to throw those rules out the window. It's frustrating to me, as a furious anti-alt-righter, to see how nowadays my own iconoclasm is likely to be confused with theirs. When *I* say, "Let's stop hobbling ourselves with these exaggerated Marquis of Queensberry rules," what *I* mean is something like, "Go ahead and have a litmus test for judges, which is clearly related to constitutional originalism, let the judge tell the Senate that you discussed it, and then ram him through using the nuclear option. And no, he should *not* recuse himself." I don't mean, "Threaten people's lives and children, use vile language on Twitter, or sit around sniggering and getting vicarious thrillz out of those who do."<br /><br />Anyway, that's a digression.<br /><br />I wouldn't really have minded so much if Gorsuch, Leo, Trump, etc., had confined themselves to the *standard* close-to-the-vest stuff. This includes swearing a blue streak that Roe and Obergefell were not discussed with the President, refusing to say in the hearing how one would rule on a specific case, and doing all of this in the name of uber-professionalism.<br /><br />I minded far more what Gorsuch *did* say, that sounded to my ears like signaling that he would not overturn Obergefell. And then they filibustered him anyway. Sigh.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-19790588576479622642017-05-02T13:02:03.002-04:002017-05-02T13:02:03.002-04:00Lydia,
I was unsure what to think when I read the...Lydia,<br /><br />I was unsure what to think when I read the response from Erickson, but your pushback here is helpful to me in thinking this through. <br /><br />I suppose I ought to be more cynical about these things.<br /><br />As an aside, Leonard Leo I believe was fairly instrumental in getting Neil Gorsuch nominated. I first read his name in a CNN story about Gorsuch's background and religious faith. Leo was quoted describing Gorsuch's early meetings with President Trump at which, Leo informed CNN, the subject of legal abortion and Roe vs. Wade_never_ came up. Comforting isn't it?Ben Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689868508463357958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-47508691919664480982017-05-02T11:59:49.359-04:002017-05-02T11:59:49.359-04:00I like Erickson, and I fully admit he's no Tru...I like Erickson, and I fully admit he's no Trumpite, but I'm not happy with that. Here's why:<br /><br />1) Tom Price could perfectly legally promulgate an "interim rule" overturning the purely-administrative HHS contraceptive mandate. Liberals, live by the HHS mandate, die by the HHS mandate. That is the exact procedure Sebelius went through to pass the mandate. After the interim rule there follows a period of comment, etc., but it would give the DOJ an excellent excuse not to defend the suit.<br /><br />2) Lawless judges gonna lawless. There would be nothing remotely subject to rational legal censure if Price started the ball moving. But if some lawless judge is going to try to make paid-for contraception a constitutional right, it won't matter one whit what process you go through.<br /><br />3) If you really, really want to make Price slow waaaay down (even more than Sebelius did), he could promulgate a *proposed* rule removing the mandate and start the ball rolling that way. That's even *less* "hasty" in appearance than an "interim rule." But he's not doing diddly.<br /><br />4) This sentence had exactly the opposite of its intended effect on me: "In fact, what I am being told is the administration is keeping the lawsuit alive to see if they can structure a settlement that would be beneficial to the groups being sued and prevent other adminstrations from trodding on their religious liberty in the future."<br /><br />What? What? First, the suit is actually *coming from* the groups *against* the administration, so there's a slip right there. But waive that. Notice what this would mean: That the only groups who would get to opt out of the contraceptive mandate would be *those specific groups who went to the expense to sue*. <br /><br />No no no no no. The mandate itself should be *revoked*. It shouldn't just be selectively waived by way of court settlement with those very few, highly specific, named organizations that went to the trouble to sue.<br /><br />If what Erickson is "being told" here is correct, this signals a kind of wimping out on the part of the administration: Okay, you squeaky wheels, you'll get let off the hook, but we're going to leave the mandate itself in place for everyone who doesn't have the time, money, and energy to challenge it in court.<br /><br />Notice that Leonard Leo (an administration op in whose interests it is to paint what the administration is doing in a positive light for conservatives) says *nothing* about what Tom Price as head of the HHS itself could do. Nothing. He just talks about the danger of Trump's issuing an executive order.<br /><br />This kind of evasion of the obvious question (what about Price? what about Price? what about Price?) is pretty telltale, in my opinion.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-8648538331707792672017-05-02T11:48:22.038-04:002017-05-02T11:48:22.038-04:00I shared this on FB, and a friend quickly posted t...I shared this on FB, and a friend quickly posted this post from Eric Erickson at Resurgent, no friend of Trump.<br /><br />http://theresurgent.com/religious-conservatives-can-relax-a-bit/Ben Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689868508463357958noreply@blogger.com