Question of the Day: Can the Feds force you to eat food? Update

This is perhaps the moment of the day at yesterday’s hearings. Not surprisingly, not one of the lefty media outlets I follow for you covered this. Amazing.

Tom Coburn, an outspoken opponent of Obamacare, has led the charge against Americans being forced to buy insurance. As the Sound Off Sister noted months ago, it’s akin to the Feds forcing people in Georgia to buy Florida oranges.

What’s truly amazing is that Elena Kagen refuses to rule out the possibility. Hope and change.

Puts a whole new light on Mom telling us to eat our vegetables … or else.

Update:

Whatever else you may think about her, Elena Kagan saw where that line of questioning was going.  If she answered that the government didn’t have the power to compel citizens to eat certain foods, then, that answer would have been thrown in her face during any argument about the government’s power to compel the purchase of health insurance.  She was painted into a corner, knew it, and thus, absolutely refused to answer the question.

Her refusal should give us a good clue as to how she would vote on the constitutionality of Obamacare…assuming that we even need such a clue.

SoundOffSister

12 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Can a shoe drop and a knee jerk at the same time?  Apparently so.  If I were Coburn, I would have said, "Okay, fine.  Is it Constitutional?"  A dumb law may be Constitutional, but it should never reach the level of its Constitutionality being in question if it is plainly dumb.  Common sense and love of country should cull those.  A good law should, in fact, be scrutinized as to its Constitutionality.  And good law should be written by those that see the Constitution as a guide rather than an obstacle, which would effectively render its Constitutionality moot in most cases.

     

    Of course, our "representatives" just carry little copies of the Constitution in their pockets like they wear their lapel flags: as a concession to the fact that they can't publicly and blatantly ignore either (although recently, I question even that bone they throw us).

  2. David R
    David R says:

    I am hoping for a judge who puts ideology aside when hearing cases. Whether she can be that judge, I don't know. But I do know I don't like the theatrics that go on from both parties during confirmation hearings. It is by and large relevant to nothing other than pleasing voters in the home state. I also know that I'd rather have a judge who can avoid an obvious "gothca" trap when being questioned. Anyone who can't is not ready for the position.

  3. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    The republicans have made lots of great and scary points, but they sound like Ben Stein in his boring professor shtick!!!  Where in the hell is the passion?  The republicans sound like the eunuchs on Air America!!!  We saw all of the damage Teddy Kennedy could do as a windbag- and his flatulent outbursts weren't even based in reality.  I wish the republicans would put their balls on and tear this socialist wacko apart- if only figuratively!   And another thing, I think Sotomayor is laying low right now- like a sleeper cell.  Barry is trying to stack the deck in the supreme court as quietly as possible- and once that's done, who knows where things might go…  Maybe a civilian police force which is just as powerful and just as well funded as the US military?  Barry has laughed about how perturbed people are when they see that he actually does what he said he was going to do!  On a similar note, was chatting with a Chinese woman about parallels between Barry and Mao; she's a huge fan of both! I'd mentioned that Mao had killed 70,000,000 people; so she told me with an air of touche, that Mao had not actually murdered a single person- which I'm sure Barry would agree, is exculpatory evidence.  Hmm, it must have been the civilian police force who implemented all of that change!?

  4. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Gee, Dims. I wonder if all the laws "legalizing" slavery ( sanctioned by our Founders) were dumb, or they were part of the "common sense" of the country at the time or passed as "love of country" statements. How come it took a Civil War to cull them out, instead of simply be called "dumb"?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      "Dumb" was her choice, and she dug a hole with it.  Yes, the laws permitting slavery, either directly or tacitly, were dumb, and many of the founders said so.  They were in direct conflict with equal protection etc, i.e. they were not Constitutional.  According to the description in my previous entry, such "dumb" legislation would have been culled.  I doubt that you or I are the first to have commented on this.  Perhaps a perusal of the Federalist Papers will clear up some of this.  I would like to think that we would have learned by their mistakes and not repeat them.

       

      I am sure that few if any of my wishes for a Constitutional SCOTUS are as likely to come true as my future lottery winnings.

  5. winnie888
    winnie888 says:

    Her deer in the headlights look after question was asked…says it all.  You can almost hear the hamster wheels squeaking while she's trying desperately to decide what the answer should be….and knowing she's screwed no matter what…

    Brilliant question by Sen. Coburn, hands down.  On the flip side, "Sounds like a dumb law", not so much a brilliant response…if she's supposed to be soooooooooo smart couldn't she think of a better adjective than "dumb"?  She was totally trying to buy time…improv at the hearings.

    Wasn't impressed before, still not impressed.  But will she get confirmed?  Probably…

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    A law "should be tested" for constitutionality before it's passed (see Dims argument above)? I thought we have one branch of the government to do just that: the Supreme Court. As for the Founders, even if they were against slavery, they allowed it (and denied other "rights" as well).

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Thus demonstrating that candidates should be vetted, scrutinized, and, if necessary, subjected to a figurative full body cavity search (politically speaking of course).

Comments are closed.