
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)--the highest ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee--is unclear about the Constitutionality of current health care legislation, and he's turning for clarity to the Federalist Society.
"I think that's a good question," Sessions said on a panel at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers' Convention. "Matter of fact I met with my staff...we were talking about, and you know what I said Leonard? I said we ought to ask Federalist society folks what they think too. I said let's begin to think about that question and what's the constitutional thing...can the government require to do what we think is in your best interest if you don't think it's in your best interest?"
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, once said there was a bipartisan consensus in favor of individual mandates. But he too seems to have joined the tenther fringe.
You can see the video here. The exchange occurs about 27 minutes in.
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 13, 2009 9:23 AM
As an added bonus, if they managed to convince the Supremes to contract their long-standing interpretation of the reach of the Commerce Clause so that it doesn't allow for health care reform, they can get all those pesky civil rights acts declared unconstitutional, too.
From there, hey, the sky's the limit! Get the kids out of school and back into the coal mines where they belong! Get those burdensome and unnecessary environmental laws stricken! Get the Feds' greedy hands off all that valuble land wasted on National Parks.
Yes, we can reverse all this perverse insanity of the last eighty years and roll the nation back to the veritable paradise that was the 19th Century if we can overturn all this activist Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
November 13, 2009 9:46 AM
The caption should read Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)...
Senator Jeff is Alabama's nut. Representative Pete is Texas' nut.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
November 13, 2009 10:04 AM
When it finally sinks in for people without health insurance, that they have to pony up thousands whether they like it or not... they might just become tenthers too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 13, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to shooter242
You guys really need get your messaging straight. You're against giving people healthcare and, apparently, you're against making them pay for it too.
So what's that leave, the sacred right to be uninsured? To take the risk of going without insurance, knowing that, if you get hit by a car or need chemo, ultimately, either the government will have to pick up the tab or else the insurers will pass the cost on to those who are paying for insurance. That's the sacred right that you guys are fighting for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
November 13, 2009 12:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
So what's that leave, the sacred right to be uninsured?
Yes. In your scenarios the uninsured are going to be covered by Government either way. The actual question is how much it's going to cost taxpayers. Here's an interesting anecdote from a guy who is in a no win situation because of similar rules already in place for New York.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527493169603118.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 13, 2009 3:51 PM in reply to shooter242
How many of your fellow teabaggers are among the ranks of the uninsured?
I'm guessing approximately ZERO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
November 13, 2009 10:44 AM
If I recall correctly, the last time the Tenther movement reared its ugly head was when states in the South didn't want no fancy pants elites in Washington telling them that they had to let colored folks into their schools or let them eat at their "Whites Only" lunch counters. Or let them vote. A proud tradition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
November 13, 2009 11:45 AM
Can Alabama just secede already?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
November 13, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to Matt Jones
The entire Old South, please. Then the rest of us can have sane country and they can retreat to their feudal fantasy. (Of course there would be a grace period when sane people could leave and the guano loco from other states could move in.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
November 13, 2009 2:06 PM in reply to Powkat
Okay, but can we retain rights to visit Disneyworld? I need some sun & fun in the winter....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
November 13, 2009 12:13 PM
Trouble is morons it is Republican business groups that thrive on challenging blue state laws claiming that Federal law preempts
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 13, 2009 12:47 PM
Right. Let's check with the Federalist Society. I wonder what they'll say about the subject? Maybe we can also get an opinion from Faux News.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?