Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Sorry Wannabe Fascists

More "We Won" theorists:

Yes, the health-care reform bill is now law. Read it and weep, Republicans

Ever heard of laws being repealed? You know, such as all the laws Democrats passed to make blacks sit on the backs of buses and drink from segregated water fountains?

Dipshit.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

State segregation laws were not repealed. They were overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed largely by liberal Democrats with some assistance by liberal Republicans and signed into law by a Democratic president. Many leading conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including Jerry Fallwell, Strom Thurmond, George H. W. Bush, William Rehnquist, Jesse Helms, etc. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as the active recruitment of Southern white conservatives by Goldwater and Nixon led many of the racists to leave the Democratic party and join the Republican party where they remain.

As far as repealing the health care law, how is that going to work? Are Republicans going to win veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress in 2010? Are Republicans going to win the White House, a simple majority in the House, and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2012?

Good luck with that.

I think it is far more likely that Obamacare will grow and expand like Social Security did, to include all American workers (it originally excluded agricultural workers, teachers, and other groups) and to aid the disabled as well as the elderly.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

"Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed largely by liberal Democrats with some assistance by liberal Republicans"

This is factually incorrect. Republican supported the Civil Rights Act much more solidly than Democrats. Over 80% of Republicans supported the measure, while Demcorats support was 20 points less. Democrats accounted for 74% of the "no" votes in the House and and 78% of the "no" votes in the Senate. In fact, without Republican votes the Act would not have gained cloture in the Senate. No cloture, no act.

As for repealing acts...if the general election gets run on the issue, and it most certainly will be, AND the Demcorats get absolutely spanked, as seems likely, you really think enough of the remianing Democrats will dig their heels in on it to stop real reform efforts?

As you say, good luck with that. Last time I checked, Congressmen were more interested in retaining their seats than anything else. You don't piss all over the electorate, get spanked for it in an election, and then respond with a middle finger salute.

As for your point about repealing segregation laws, you are simply wrong. Yes, Congressional Acts and Supreme Court decisions had lessoned their impact, but it is also true that the laws themselves have been, and are still being, repealed. (You can read about an effort to keep up the process here [pdf warning]. In the years 2004-2005, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri and West Virginia, all repealed Jim Crow era segregation laws.

"Obamacare will grow and expand like Social Security did..."

If you mean in the sense of "rapidly become insolvent" then you are probably right.

Anonymous said...

Repealing those state segregation laws is a symbolic act -- they were in fact overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which conservatives from the National Review to Strom Thurmond to William Rehnquist to George H. W. Bush to Robert Bork opposed. Liberals, not conservatives, passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act seems unlikely.
In reference to repealing ACA, Senator Bob Corker said on March 30, 2010: "The fact is that’s not going to happen, OK?” http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2010/03/29/daily23.html?ed=2010-03-31&ana=e_du_pub

At the same time, Republican Senate candidate for Illinois Mark Kirk seems poised to renege on his pledge to seek repeal of ACA should he be elected.
http://www.kwqc.com/global/story.asp?s=12227619&ClientType=Printable

So as I said, good luck getting a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and a Republican president in 2012 to repeal it -- and that is the easy way to do it -- overriding Obama's veto would be even more difficult, indeed it would mathematically impossible in the short term because even if the Republicans won all of the Senate races this year they would still fall short of 67 votes.

I leave debunking the Social Security canard for another time, but will note that conservatives have been predicting its demise since 1935 and they haven't been right yet.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

Actually, acts cannot be overturned en masse. Each one would require a seperate court ruling (although, it is true, that lower courts could do this once the SC has set the precedent.) This simply was not done for many acts. Is the effort to repeal largely symbolic? Maybe. There are those, such as the law profs whose work I linked to, who agrue it isn't symbolic at all.

As for Corker, he's a weak ass punk, who is going to find himself on the wrong side of history very quickly. (Whatever the future is of the Republican party it is not a waste of space like Corker.) As for Illinois...shit...we are gonna take THAT as typical Republican territory nowadays??? Sorry, but I don't smoke that stuff.

One way or another...outright repeal, or death by a thousand cuts, this brain-dead piece of legislation is gonna have its plug pulled.

Democracy is a bitch that way.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

Oh, and let's see...in 1964 Bork is a Yale law prof... Bush was Chairman of the Republican Party for Harris County, Texas in 1964... Rehnquist was in private practice in Arizona (though he helped the Goldwater campaign)...and when the act was passed Thurmond was still a Democrat.

Yeah.