Even though I’ve endorsed Ted Cruz, I think it only fair to point out that Dewhurst has, in fact, constantly stated that he’s in favor of repealing ObamaCare pretty much since he joined the Senate race. (I even used the Wayback machine to verify it.) However, Cruz has been more fervent and articulate in campaigning against ObamaCare, making the phrase “repeal every syllable of every word of Obamacare” one of his stock talking points from the very beginning of his campaign. He’s also discussed the 10th Amendment reasons why ObamaCare is unconstitutional, something that I don’t recall Dewhurst doing. (Dewhurst has mentioned the 10th Amendment in support of the Texas Voter ID law.)
Cruz’s worry (which I think is legitimate) is that Dewhurst might be willing to compromise on ObamaCare. And I could easily see Dewhurst signing on with some “Group of 14” (or whatever) to needlessly save ObamaCare despite a Republican House, Senate, and White House, rather than push for full repeal.
Which is why this rings a little hollow to me:
But unlike some of Dewhurst’s other ads, at least that one probably won’t cost him votes…
Here’s the video of last week’s Cruz-Dewhurst debate:
The Dewhurst campaign is pointing to this Cruz appearance on the Dan Patrick show as evidence Cruz is a hothead:
34 minutes? No time to listen tonight…
And here’s still another journalist opining that the mid-Summer runoff date will mean. Memo to the MSM: IT’S TEXAS! IT’S HOT! WE’RE FREAKING USE TO IT!
Grady Yarbrough and Paul Sadler also debated last week. Yarbrough said he supported a border wall, saying that the Berlin Wall was effective. Hmmm, I don’t think I would have made that analogy…
Speaking of things I’m not watching tonight, here’s KERA’s embeddable video of the Democratic debate:
More on the Democratic debate. Another summary. My summary of those two summaries: Yarbrough wants a border wall and legal pot, and Sadler is against both of those. Sadler does actually say the national debt is too high.
Just got off a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference call with Chuck DeVore and Arlene Wohlgemuth on the effects of the Supreme Court ObamaCare decision. Just in case you hadn’t read anything on the Internet today, that ruling was 5-4 affirming ObamaCare as constitutional, majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, not on Commerce Clause grounds, but on congress’ ability to tax:
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
Here some no-doubt random bits of information I gleaned from the conference call:
Of all the possible scenarios experts looked at in a possible ObamaCare ruling, this wasn’t one of them.
All the cost drivers and massive increase in bureaucracy is still there.
Texas was already looking at a $5 billion Medicaid shortfall for the next biennium; ObamaCare will likely make that a $15 shortfall.
No one knows if Texas will undertake Medicaid expansion or not.
ObamaCare was a consequence of Republican losses in 2006 and 2008, and a cause of Republican victories in 2010.
As a tax, ObamaCare can be repealed with 51 Senate votes (no filibuster).
Roberts’ decision “built a fence” around the Commerce Clause, possibly preventing further expansion of federal powers under that guise. (This has lead to some observers to suggest that Roberts is playing the “long game” of constraining the growth of the federal government.)
The court did invalidate (7-2) Medicare/Medicaid penalties for non-compliance, in that states cannot be “dragooned” into post-facto changes with the threat of withdrawn funding for established programs. DeVore: “This is a victory for the 10th Amendment and Federalism.”
That change might offer challenges to a whole lot of legislation.
The politicized way in which the Obama Administration has granted waivers to the politically connected might also offer avenues for equal protection challenges.
This TPPF policycast also covers some of the same topics discussed on the conference call.
So: That’s my brief recap of the conference call. I’m still digesting the ruling itself, and reactions to the ruling. I might be doing that for some time…
Remember Jason Altmire? The Blue Dog Democratic representing Pennsylvania’s 4th District who didn’t roll over when Nancy Pelosi snapped her fingers, and voted against ObamaCare? Thanks to that, while scores of his fellow Democrats were booted out of office in the Great Red Wave of 2010, Altmire hung on to his seat.
It appears his luck has run out. During redistricting, Pennsylvania lost a seat, so Altmire’s district was merged with the 12th District, and early returns show him losing to 12th incumbent Mark Critz (who won the seat in a special election after the death of pork king Rep. John Murtha).
Either way, he 12th should be a pickup opportunity for Republican candidate Keith Rothfus, who had no primary challenge and finished Q1 with $385,000 on hand.
Big Jolly ranked the debate Leppert, Dewhurst, Cruz, James. He notices the pauses before Dewhurst’s answers, but doesn’t seem to notice the ones in the middle of them, the rambling nature of his answers, or the times he looked absolutely lost in mid-argument. I’m sure Tea Party activists across the state will also take exception to his defense of Dewhurst for not attending “every podunk forum.”
There’s some chatter on Twitter that Cruz’s comment that the Dallas Morning News had “retracted” the story about Cruz hiding the date his father fled from Cuba was wrong. Well, here’s what Robnert T. Garrett said in the DMN: “CLARIFICATION: On some occasions since 2005, Ted Cruz has publicly mentioned the date of his father’s departure from Cuba and even the fact he fought on the same side as Fidel Castro. However, in the past two months, the newspaper found no instances in which he offered audiences any clues that his father was a pre-Castro exile.” That sounds pretty darn close to a retraction to me, even if they didn’t use the word “retraction.”
How the story of today’s media transformation is being written by the losers: “We should not expect anything like impartial analysis from people whose very livelihoods—and those of their close friends—are directly threatened by their subject matter.”
Want a glimpse of where health care is headed if ObamaCare isn’t repealed or overturned? In the UK, doctors told a woman to find another provider because her carbon footprint to visit them was too large. All two miles of driving worth. (Hat tip: Say Uncle.)
First, the ubiquitous Richard Epstein, on why Justice Kennedy’s million dollar question might restore our understanding of the Commerce Clause to the pre-NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin and Wickard v. Filburn reading that held sway from the founding of the United States to the imposition of the New Deal.
Second, Ramesh Ponnuru examines Dmeocrats’ magical thinking that the overturning of ObamaCare would lead inevitably to a groundswell of support for a single payer system (presumably including a mass march on Washington by Americans of all walks of life coming together, firsts clinched high and singing “The Internationale”):
Reality-check time: When Obamacare became law, Democrats had more power in Washington than at any time since the Carter administration in the 1970s. They had the presidency and lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress. Because conservative Democrats have declined in numbers, it was probably the most liberal Congress since 1965-66. They were still barely able to pass the law. And that was with important medical industries either neutralized or in favor of the legislation, which they would not be in the case of single payer.
I don’t usually link to long audio snippets like this one. But this 19 minutes interview of Richard Epstein is so chock-full of concise and articulate reasons why ObamaCare is unconstitutional that I recommend anyone interested in the subject listen to it in its entirety.
Why ObamaCare can’t work: “It is a perverse but very real fact of life that the more complex and rich the system to be regulated, the less the ‘experts’ and the goo-goos have the political power to impose their vision on the regulatory process. The more carefully crafted a law needs to be, the more it is going to be full of lobby lollipops and sweat heart deals. A legislative body trying to write a health care law for a country like ours is like a neurosurgeon operating, drunk, with one hand holding a chainsaw and the other in a boxing glove.”
Paul Ryan endorses Mitt Romney. That’s a great pickup for him, and it eases, ever so slightly, my concerns that Romney will be a “big spending Republican” in the mode of Bush43 should he get elected.
Dwight notes a Hezbollah connection to the story of a chain of Austin bars that weren’t paying their employees what they were owed.
So a Hispanic Democrat shoots someone who might or might not have been assaulting him, and suddenly Texas Democrats are ready to drag gun control back on the agenda. Thanks Rep. Garnet Coleman (Democrat, Houston)! I was a little worried that gun owners might be not be motivated to go to the polls in Texas in 2012 (what with the House, Senate, and Governor’s mansion all under Republican control), but your proposal to end the castle doctrine is just the tonic we need to get them to the voting booth!
The King Street Patriots in Houston have a Democratic Judge rule against their tax-exempt status in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party. I wanted to point out the frivolous nature of this lawsuit, but Big Jolly already beat me to it.
Buzzfeed has edited together all of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s worst moments:
Reason‘s analyst also said the Obama Administration had a bad day:
They also try to break down the issues of ObamaCare into terms so simple even Dahlia Lithwick can understand it.
Rand Simberg smells cocooning on the part of liberals. Also, one commenter offers an interesting theory: “I’m betting that at least the conservative Justices (including Kennedy, for argument’s sake) were unhappy with Kagan for not recusing herself. I mean, it was a slam-dunk that she should have and they know it.”
And just to twist the knife a little more, here’s Rush Limbaugh: “The idea that liberal elites are smarter and run rings around other people intellectually was exposed as an abject fraud this week.”
The second day of ObamaCare testimony, and things are looking up for fans of limited, constitutional government. here’s a passel of links culled from Instapundit, TPPF, NRO and elsewhere:
Reading excerpts from today’s arguments, the justices sound extremely skeptical that the Commerce Claus power extends to enforcing an individual mandate.
Solicitor General Donald Verrelli’s performance seems to have been particularly poor. (Bonus tidbit: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, one of the initiators of the lawsuit to overturn ObamaCare, was in the courtroom audience.)
The Volokh’s Conspiracy’s Ilya Somin chimes in: “Scalia makes the key points that 1) a state must be both “necessary” and “proper” to be authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, and (2) a statute cannot be proper if the legal rationale for it would justify nearly unlimited federal power.”
