home

GOP Attacks Appeals Court Nominee Liu As Universal Health Coverage Advocate

Strange approach imo:

Senate Judiciary Republicans are looking to defeat the lifetime judicial appointment of Goodwin Liu to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by painting him as President Barack Obama’s most extreme pick and a likely advocate of universal health care from the bench. [. . .] The argument against Liu, a law professor at the University of California-Berkley, is the first time that Republicans have injected the partisan health care debate into the confirmation of a judicial pick.

I've longed argued that the courts are indeed political. But it is interesting ground the GOP has chosen - making Liu a referendum on universal health care coverage seems a strange argument to make. I imagine it will manifest itself as a debate about the mandates. In any event, we will found out today at 2:30 at the Senate Judiciary committee hearing on Liu's nomination. It will be webcast and you can see it here.

Speaking for me only

< Unfair Criticism Of Sen. Bennet | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Liu is a threat because he's young (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:59:16 AM EST
    I await R filibusters on judicial nominations.  . .

    Way too sophisticated. (none / 0) (#2)
    by robotalk on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:13:27 AM EST
    Stick to basics, pugs.  Call him a nazi-muslim-socialist antichrist.

    Well, the Republicans do have to (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    find a new subterfuge. That Berkeley stuff may be inoperable these days, what with Professor John Yoo also on the law faculty.

    "Wise Latina." At least Sotomayor (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    sd. that.  Has Liu expressed any opinion on health care reform?  [Note, unable to access link.]

    This schedule assumes, without support (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:28:34 AM EST
    that the Rethugs will grant unanimous consent for a hearing to take place after 2:00 PM, unlike McSame denying it yesterday to bring everything to a grinding halt.

    Then they'll argue that, because there were no hearings, they cannot exercise their advise and consent function and must therefore deny him an up or down vote.

    How does this help the image of Republicans? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 05:17:21 PM EST
    They seem to be really painting themselves into a corner with these shenanigans. How long can they continue these childish games without being the focus of ridicule? And once they have started using these tactics, how do they stop without admitting that their games were pointless all along?

    Or do they just want to shut down congress altogether? Will that help them get a majority in the next election? It's baffling.

    I can just imagine Jon Stewart's coverage - lol!

    Parent

    Told you so (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:21:41 PM EST
    This hit the wires an hour after I posted my original comment.

    Parent
    I hope they start scheduling hearings at (none / 0) (#7)
    by observed on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    6 am .. or 1 am for that matter.

    Parent
    I could think of a point of order (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    to make from the floor that would stop the shenanigans. Probably too close to the nuclear option, though. . .

    Parent
    mandates are controversial (none / 0) (#10)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    Didn't Helvering versus Davis in 1937 argue in favor of forcing everyone to enroll in a pension scheme because it was funded by an EXCISE TAX?  The analogy is that everyone can be forced to enroll in a public option funded by taxes.  Requiring everyone to buy a certain type of health insurance is not so self-evident.
    If mandates were such a good political idea then why didn't Obama enact them NOW so people could vote about them in the 2010 and 2012 elections?

    You know, I'm thinking the same thing. (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    Indeed, if the court were to decide against the mandate for private insurance, wouldn't taxing for a public insurance plan be the only way Congress could pass a universal health care plan?  Further, I have heard people here argue, well, if you don't buy the insurance you pay a tax therefore this somehow makes the health care bill like any other social program the feds require us to pay for with taxes.  But that's not true.  In this case the tax would be a penalty, no?  And, penalty taxes are explicitly not revenue for programs, they are to encourage the paying of taxes.

    Parent