Zeke Emanuel on MSNBC: Lack of 'Severability' In ObamaCare Just An 'Oversight'; Historical Record Shows Otherwise
On today's edition of MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner, ObamaCare apologist and Rahm Emanuel sibling Zeke Emanuel insisted that the lack of a "severability clause" in the health care overhaul legislation was simply an "oversight, not an intention." Neither host Alex Wagner nor any panelist interjected to correct the record.
In fact, severability was not inserted into the ObamaCare legislation as part of a legislative strategy by the Democrats who shepherded it through Congress. Boston Globe's Noah Bierman explained as much in the March 29 paper (emphases mine):
The Senate narrowly approved its first version of the health bill, which did not include the clause, in December 2009, before Brown was elected. There is disagreement over why. One official who was close to the 2009 process said it was an oversight. Another said it was a deliberate political strategy, intended to defang Republican claims that there was concern about the law’s constitutionality.
The House version, which passed separately, included the clause. The sides initially intended to bring a new bill before the Senate, with a severability clause included, according to two former Senate aides involved in the process and a House official with knowledge of the process.
But after Brown’s election, Democratic leaders switched strategies, deciding to employ a process known as “reconciliation’’ that required them to use the Senate’s initial bill, with only limited changes. That process avoided a filibuster, which would have killed the bill.
“After Jan. 19, it became clear there was only one strategy to move forward on health reform,’’ John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who worked on the Senate health committee from 2008 through 2010. “The Democrats, because of Scott Brown, lost 60 votes.’’
The House official with knowledge of process, who requested anonymity to discuss strategy, agreed Brown’s election was decisive in persuading Democratic leaders to shift strategies.
Jim Manley, a former senior communications adviser for majority leader Harry Reid and now a Democratic strategist, agreed that Brown’s election was a factor in that decision, but not the sole factor.
There was also concern before Brown’s election that other senators who had initially supported the bill would defect, leaving the Senate short of the 60 votes necessary to introduce a new bill, he said.
“We had overwhelming opposition,’’ Manley said. “He was just the icing on the cake.’’
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oops!
Submitted by JeffC... on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:52pm.
Too bad! So sad!
Maybe next time, you'll read it so you can see what's in it.
He's fighting a rear guard action against impending Doom . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:01pm.
. . . from the Supreme Court this June. Justice Kagan provided cover fire -- and sounded like she was still Solicitor General -- when she said that the Congress would be satisfied with half a loaf rather than a none, and Ginsburg advised her peers that what was needed in ruling on the Act was a 'salvage job' vice a 'wrecking job.' Both were ignoring the inseverability of the law.
With over 2,000 pages of who-knows-what buried in that bill, how is it possible that the entire Congress, its staff, and the Obama White House --- literally thousands of pairs of eyes -- inadvertently left out? Nonsense.
"Jeffrey Toobin, call your office!"
Pathetic cover by the liberal Supremes
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:01pm.
Kagan shouldn't even be sitting on this panel. I'd like to see her impeached for failing to recuse herself.
They're either going to toss the whole thing, or find it constitutional. Salvage is not an option, IMO. At this point, I'm thinking Sotomayor may value her own reputation more than Barry's (that is my hope) and it goes down 6-3.
I read a comment by another blogger....to paraphrase: The Congress passed the bill without reading it, the President signed it without reading it, and the Supremes don't want to read it to determine whether or not it's constitutional.....but they want US to live with it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I need to borrow that line.
Submitted by JeffC... on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:13pm.
I need to borrow that line.
IOW, they passed it by hook or by crook
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:58pm.
With "crook" being the most blatant tactic (can you say Louisiana Purchase? I knew you could).
And their sneaky and highly irregular method of ramrodding this loathesome bill through has jumped up and bit them in the ass!
Karma, baby. Karma.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Obamacare law was "legislative performance art"
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:09pm.
The crafting and Constitutionality of the bill were paid lipservice whiile Pelosi, Reid, and chaotic company of staffers, lobbyists, and special interest groups used it perform some sort of progressive melodrama before cameras and proclaim that they were saving the world.
But when it was over, the audience (us) was not impressed, and in fact was rather angry that the Act wasn't what had been promised, cost too much, and contained a lot of crap the would guarantee the jobs of thousands of attorneys over the years as citizens constantly sued the Federal government.
In short, it was not traditional legislation -- it was legislation improv performed by legislators inexperienced and unskilled in the improv art.
The product was so bad that some of its creators began walking away from it even before it was finished.
That's a good way to put it
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:31pm.
Legislative Performance Art.
And these pundits who are trying to talk up a "win" for Obama if the law is struck down.....who are they trying to fool, really? It's absurd on the face. If O'Care goes down, it will be a total repudiation of everything he's working so hard to do. I think he may lose, BIG, in November. Let me rephrase, HUGE.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
A Loss is a Win - more twisted logic
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:43pm.
Typical Washington mentality -- they sound like Redskins fans after their irrational pre-season expectations for the 'Skins are dashed by mid-season losses to mediocre teams. "Hey, we're going to get a high draft pick!"
If the Court shoots down the enitre bill, it will be devastating for every Congressional Democrat running for re-election. Their opponents merely point to this and the stimulus as the Dems inherent inability to craft Constitutional legislation. Pelosi will be painted as the head clown and chief culprit -- the clip of her "We have to pass this legislation so you can see what's inside it" moment together with Obama's signing it into law will get lots of air time, and the Dems will wince in agony.
When Carville says that it's a "Win," he means it's a win for Hillary Clinton, who didn't have her fingerprints on it this time.
I guess you gotta sue the law
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:12pm.
to find out what's not in it.
So maybe Brown's election did stop Obamacare
Submitted by povertypimpin on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:51pm.
We just didn't know it yet. If Brown was not elected then another version with a severability clause would have been passed then the SC would only be able to strike down the mandate. We will have to see what the Supreme Court does, but the lack of a severability clause open up the possibility of the whole law being voided now.
Hold on a second!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 5:13pm.
Oh look! Senator Al Franken found the missing pages containing the Severability Clause in his car's trunk.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
LMAO
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 12:31am.
Perfect SNL skit for this Saturday night's show.
Funny and could be true!
Manley said what?
Submitted by KC Beach on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 5:19pm.
"We had overwhelming opposition"???? How can that be? If the opposition was overwhelming the POS, I mean bill, would not have passed. I can only hope that 2010 was a small taste of what overwhelming opposition really means for those in Congress who voted this into law.
Follow the money ...
Submitted by Fredy on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:45pm.
While there are many claims of how the severability clause was 'lost', I think a simpler one is likely.
Healthcare insurance companies were involved in this process in a major way. I suspect the provision to allow the mandate of more customers for them to be severed from the rest of the bill, that would leave them holding the 'bag'.
In other words, the insurance lobby was paying off senators for a vote for a mandate that could not be seperated from the rest of the bill they did not like.
Which takes us back to Scalia talking about 'who voted for what and why'. The what and why can include items left out as well as included.
You raise an interesting point, but . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:20pm.
. . . I believe the mandate was offered by the Democrats to get the buy in of the health insurance companies, an dnot the other way around.
But either way, the mandate was essential to get the insurance companies to support it.
Get Your Story Straight Or Shut Up
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:15pm.
FCOL! The left can't even get their lies coordinated. They want us to let them run the country?
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
"an oversight"
Submitted by g55rumpy on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 3:08am.
that`s what Deany O` Banion said when Bugsy Moran forgot to wipe off the finger prints
Left out intentionally
Submitted by taznar on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 12:47pm.
The bottom line is congress knowingly passed the bill without the severability clause. They could have taken the time to change it, but then it wouldn't have passed. That doesn't mean it was an oversight, that simply means the law without it was the only one they could pass.
Or another way to look at it is, if the SCOTUS can assume congress meant to have a severability clause, what other clauses could they assume congress meant to have? If the majority can't pass a law written the way they want it to be, it is not the court's job to do an end-round and "fix" it for them so the majority gets what it wanted without having to pass it themselves.