Obama asks Judge to say Obamacare isn’t an option for states

This is good news. This could stop the process in its track. It will give the States cover to stop implementing the law I would think. However, don’t count on Justice Ginsberg to support any legal process other than a slow drone to her crib. Her quotes  follow. In case you thought she has any interest in keeping the old folks alive, I am including an earlier vid.

The Obama administration is asking a federal judge who struck down the healthcare reform law to clarify that states must still implement the overhaul as the appeals process plays out.

Some states are saying the Jan. 31 ruling relieves them from implementing the sweeping reform law because the federal judge in Florida found it to be unconstitutional.

The Obama administration, in a Thursday evening filing in a Northern Florida federal court, is asking the court to clarify that the 26 states who successfully challenged the law are still required to comply with it. The Hill

Supreme Court Ginsberg says no fast track:

 Ginsberg said: Americans should not expect a case examining the constitutionality of the health care law to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Lisner Auditorium Thursday night. (Previously posted)

Eugenics supporter Ginsberg, speaking with NPR’s legal correspondent Nina Totenberg, said any legal challenges to the law will have to work themselves up to the nation’s highest court through “the ordinary route.”

The issue has received national attention in the past week since a district court in Florida ruled the law unconstitutional Monday, leaving many speculating that a Supreme Court ruling might be expedited.

“The court itself is a reactive institution,” Ginsburg said. “We don’t decide ‘we better get this or that case sooner rather than later.’” More at GW Hatchet

Check out an earlier post: Supreme Court Ginsberg says healthcare law will not be fast tracked

Vote Tally Count :’czars’ overthow’ House Vote

The House voted Thursday to dethrone nine White House “czars.”

Republicans successfully added an amendment to the continuing resolution that would leave President Barack Obama’s senior advisers on policy issues including health care, energy and others out of a job.

The vote was 249-179. Click on Blue Sort below for individual votes

Number: House Vote #87 in 2011 [primary source: house.gov]
Date: Feb 17, 2011 7:01PM
Result: Agreed to
Amendment: H.Amdt. 89: An amendment numbered 204 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to be used to pay the salaries and expenses for specified federal agency positions and their offices.

  Totals Democrats Republicans Independents All Votes
     
Needed To Win
Aye: 249 (58%)
   
13 236 0
No: 179 (41%)   178 1 0
Present: 1 (0%)   0 1 0
Not Voting: 4 (1%)   2 2 0
Required: Simple Majority of 429 votes (=215 votes)

(Vacancies in Congress will affect vote totals.)

Vote Details

Vote

[Sort]

District

[Sort]

Representative

[Sort by Name] [Sort by Party]

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) offered the amendment that blocks funding for various policy advisers to combat what he called “a very disturbing proliferation of czars” under Obama.

“These unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are or what they’re doing,” Scalise said Thursday. “But we do know that they’re wielding vast amounts of power.”

The jobs on the chopping block: White House-appointed advisers on health care, energy and climate, green jobs, urban affairs, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, oversight of TARP executive compensation, diversity at the Federal Communications Commission and the auto industry manufacturing policy

Read more: More at Politico

Vote Tally Count FCC Net Neutrality Funding Blocked 244-181

House Passes Amendment to Block Funds for Net Neutrality Order

See our earlier post: Real story behind Net Neutrality

Behind the innocent-sounding name and expressed aims of the FCC’s Net Neutrality initiative, voted in by the Commission yesterday by a 3-2 partisan vote, is a very sinister leftist agenda. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has done excellent work researching the origins of the policy, and what he has found is shocking.


From: Gov Track:      Click on blue “Sort” below for individual Votes

Number: House Vote #83 in 2011 [primary source: house.gov]
Date: Feb 17, 2011 6:45PM
Result: Agreed to
Amendment: Amendment (details not available) to H.R. 1: Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
Totals Democrats Republicans Independents All Votes
Needed To Win
Aye: 244 (56%)
10 234 0
No: 181 (42%) 177 4 0
Present: 0 (0%) 0 0 0
Not Voting: 8 (2%) 6 2 0
Required: Simple Majority of 425 votes (=213 votes) 

(Vacancies in Congress will affect vote totals.)

Vote Details

Vote

[Sort]

District

[Sort]

Representative

[Sort by Name] [Sort by Party]

The House passed an amendment Thursday that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from using any funding to implement the network-neutrality order it approved in December. Good news indeed with this vote.

The amendment, approved on a 244-181 vote, was offered by Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., to legislation that would fund government agencies for the rest of fiscal year 2011. National Journal

The measure is now part of the continuing resolution the House will continue debating this week. It further sets the stage for a political showdown over the FCC’s open Internet order – especially if Republicans find a way to add it to their version of the spending plan, though doing so could prove politically impractical.

Read more: Politico

%d bloggers like this: