Daily Archives: May 21, 2010

Scott Brown Shuts The G.O.P. Down … Again

Remember back in January when Republicans and Tea-Baggers were giddy over the election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat? Well something funny happened on the way to the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Scott Brown has demonstrated that he is not the dependable conservative rubber stamp that the G.O.P. and Tea Party thought they had elected. First, he never had the opportunity to cast his promised 41st vote against Health Care Reform legislation. In fact, his first Senate vote was in favor of a Democratic Party jobs bill that was bitterly opposed by Republicans. On Thursday, the clothing challenged Scott Brown broke from the Republicans once again and voted in favor of cloture on the Democratic Party’s Financial Reform bill which stymied the G.O.P.’s filibuster efforts and virtually assured the bill’s passage into law. Brown’s was the decisive 60th vote. A huge victory for the Democrats and another betrayal of the Republicans. As George W. Bush would say, “Brownie…you’re doing a heck of a job!”

Scott Brown is now certain to be summoned to Mitch McConnell’s office for some corporal punishment. But who will deliver the blows? Larry “Men’s Room” Craig? David “Diapers” Vitter? Michele “Birther” Bachmann? Don’t worry, we will know soon enough. Photos are sure to leak!

What will Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann “The Man” Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Bill O’Reilly and all those moonbat crazy Tea-Baggers have to say about their once and future favorite nudist now? Is there anything more beautiful than watching conservatives eat their own? Stay tuned. The fireworks will begin long before Independence day this year.

Please remember to click on the song link below to familiarize yourselves with the tune and to have more fun singing along with today’s song parody.

Charlie Brown song link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UnPzp2lmNk

SCOTTIE BROWN

(sung to the Coasters song “Charlie Brown”)

Fe-fe, fi-fi, fo-fo, fum
He’s the senator that will bare his bum

Scottie Brown, Scottie Brown
He’s a clown, that nude Scott Brown
He likes to bare his bod
In those magazines
(That’s why everybody’s always pickin’ on me)

That’s him on his knees
I know that’s him
Yeah, from 7 come 11
Down in the Senate gym

Scottie Brown, Scottie Brown
He’s a clown, that nude Scott Brown
Craig thinks that he’s hot
He hopes to steal a peek
(Why’s Lynnrockets always pickin’ on me)

Who’s always nude at the roll call?
Who’s lurking in the men’s room stalls?
Who’s sporting his bat and balls?
Guess who? (who me?) yeah, you!

Who walks through the Senate dumb and slow?
Who calls Mitch McConnell, Daddy-O?

Scottie Brown, Scottie Brown
He’s going down, next time around
His votes can be bought
Just you wait and see
(Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me)

(musical interlude)

He is in the Party that says “No”
With his private parts swinging to and fro

Scottie Brown, Scottie Brown
He’s a clown, that nude Scott Brown
He’s showing a lot
His bum, his wee-wee
(Why’s Lynnrockets always pickin’ on me)

Advertisements

Constitutional Dead End For Health Law Opponents

Sunrise in Boston

This morning’s Boston Globe has a wonderful editorial authored by noted Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried. He utilizes the dictum and holdings of the recent 7 – 2 Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutional power of Congress to allow the indefinite detention of sexually dangerous child pornographers after the end of their federal sentences to illustrate just how far-fetched are the constitutional objections to the new health care legislation. Please enjoy.

Health care law’s enemies have no ally in Constitution

By Charles Fried

A RECENT 7-2 Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutional power of Congress to allow the indefinite detention of sexually dangerous child pornographers after the end of their federal sentences has the surprising effect of showing just how far-fetched are the constitutional objections to the new health care legislation.

One objection holds that the Constitution’s clauses giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce do not give Congress the power to impose a modest penalty (up to about $700) on people who could — but do not — buy health insurance.

To see why this is a bad argument, consider the steps by which the Court held that Congress has the power to keep sexually dangerous child pornographers in confinement: The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. And it has long been the law that Congress can forbid commerce in things that might be harmful. Those who traffic (or possess, in the case of child pornography) such things can be prosecuted and imprisoned.

The recent Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Comstock, added that the power to imprison implies an obligation to protect the public from dangerous people even after they had served their sentences. There can be no doubt that insurance, and particularly health insurance, is commerce with interstate effects that Congress may regulate.

For the health regulation to work, though, it is “necessary and proper’’ — the clause explicitly in play in Comstock — to nudge (with the $700 penalty) the young and healthy to enter the insurance pool, and not to wait until they are old and infirm. Insurance just won’t work if you could wait until your house is on fire to buy it. But, say the objectors, this is not penalizing someone for doing something harmful; it’s penalizing him for not doing something, and that’s somehow different.

It is not. Congress has the power to enact the regulatory scheme and to design it in a way that is “necessary and proper’’ to its good functioning, and that means sweeping in the unwilling. But even granting Congress’s power under the commerce and “necessary and proper’’ clauses, is it not an offense to constitutional liberty to impose the $700 penalty? Is the mandate not independently constitutionally “improper’’?

That objection would complain that such a mandate violates some constitutional liberty even if enacted by a state (as Massachusetts has done). Here again, Comstock is instructive. The convicted child pornographer claimed that he was deprived of his constitutional liberty by continued detention after he had served his sentence, but the Supreme Court had decided many years ago that Kansas could, with proper procedural safeguards, do just that. And if it violated no liberty for Kansas to do it, then neither did it violate any liberty for Congress to do it. (To read the rest of this terrific piece, please visit The Boston Globe here.)