the Good, Bad and Ugly


President Obama had a good week, the nation did not.

The president got his fast track approved for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, then ObamaCare was upheld for a second time by the Supreme Court, and gay marriage was declared to be constitutional throughout the land. Three wins for the White House.

Since the TPP isn’t called a treaty, it doesn’t require Senate approval, so the up-or-down vote by Congress is for show only – Team Obama is cleared to make any agreement they wish – and judged solely on past performance, that will probably turn out to be bad for the nation. For the second time, SCOTUS re-wrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to say something that Congress didn’t (and something that the president didn’t sign). In Obergefell v Hodges, the Court held that a gay couple married in Maryland could list one partner as “spouse” on insurance documents in Ohio, where gay marriage was banned.

So we have three wins for Mr Obama in the week – one of which clears the way for the weakest negotiators in American history to bind us to a deal with eleven other nations, the details of which are being kept secret from us; the second of which clearly oversteps the authority of the Supreme Court; and the third of which is a clean decision on equal protection grounds. So, in order: the bad, the ugly and the good.

The problem I have with fast track isn’t with fast track, but with the agreement that follows, which will likely supersede US law (which is unconstitutional) on things like right-to-work, carbon emissions, and immigration, among other things. I look for TPP to start another train of court cases headed for SCOTUS.

The whole ObamaCare morass had been a disaster for democracy from Day-1, and King has blossomed that into an embarrassment for the Court. The majority stated that they ruled so as not to throw the insurance industry into chaos – that’s not their job. A rightful ruling wouldn’t throw the industry into chaos, that would be the Democrats, who wrote, passed and signed bad law. As Chief Justice Roberts has previously claimed, it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to save us from our elected officials – which is exactly what the majority did in King v Burwell. In Obergefell, the Court came down on solid Fourteenth Amendment footing in granting equal protection to gay couples. Having said that, I don’t believe the government belongs in marriage – a creation of religion – in the first place. Civil unions, yes; marriage, no. But in the context of today’s muddled legal atmosphere, the Court made the right decision here.

As I say, a good week for the president, a bad one, net, for the country.

6 thoughts on “the Good, Bad and Ugly

  1. From my perspective I too think Pres. Obama had a very good week. And I would rate this week not as “the good, the bad, and the ugly”, but rather “good, better, best.”

    I thank the Republican legislators who “rammed” the TPP through Congress. And I thank the “Supremes” and John Roberts in particular for cementing the AHA as “the Law” period. And I thank them also for their ruling on gay marriages.

    I’d say we “Progressives” finally saw a ray of light at the end of the long dark tunnel…

    • I knew you, as a faithful ends-justify-the-means (as does la cosa nostra) follower would have no problem with bad process, as long as what you wanted got done. That was made clear during the debate on ObamaCare, where you had no problem with the despicable behavior of Democrats – up to and including lying to the American people – all the way through.

      The Republicans didn’t “ram through” fast track, they voted on cloture, a dignity the Democrats didn’t afford the GOP on ObamaCare. I don’t agree with what they did, but at least they did it in the right way. As I said, I don’t have a problem with fast track, per se, but I will with what this group comes up with as a “Partnership.” And as I also said, I think SCOTUS acted properly in Obergefell. So, I guess we’re only potentially in disagreement on one, in utter disagreement on one, and in agreement on one. Overall, not all that bad.

  2. Yes. You know me and my political views very well. I suppose I am supposed to feel properly chastised when you accuse me–and anyone sharing my political stance–of acting like la cosa nostra. That wouldn’t be name-calling, would it? No…Couldn’t be. You eschew that political tactic. It’s just an example of hurling flame-throwing word bombs at a political adversary…And that is a perfectly acceptable means of delivering a meaningful (if provocative) accusation. I get it.

    • No, you’re right, I was stooping to liberal tactics and attacking the messenger, rather than the message. It’s just when I try to discuss message, I hear about some other child-eating Republican rather than a response to my points. Even here, no comment about the process used to write and pass ObamaCare, just gloating about dragging me down to liberal levels of “discourse”.

  3. Of the three final rulings handed down by this Court yesterday, I count one of them as a victory for my side. That would be the one addressing Arizona’s way of redistricting their congressional seats. I see that as a killer to the gerrymandering process and I’m all for that.

    The one that addressed the lethal injection drug I really didn’t care much about one way or the other.

    In the ruling that went against the EPA, I think the majority presented a valid argument as to the reasoning behind their decision although I had hoped it would go otherwise. My final comments.

Comments are closed.