Replies

"I just read the case. The court will not even touch the question. If the leaders of the Senate and the House say it passed, it passed. It’s a political question, not a constitutional question."

I love Mark Levin, but I knew he was wrong, I suspect he did as well. While this does, IMHO, violate the spirit of the Constitution and the Founder's intent, as you say, it's not a justiciable problem for the Courts.

That is going to be a rather unpopular realization here, but Public Citizen is what it is.

but I knew he was wrong,

So did I.

I suspect he did as well.

So did I. He has to tell his listeners what they want to hear if he wants to stay in business. I've been going against the flow on this one. Most people insist that what they want to be true is true. Better to keep what "I" want to be true out of it and just figure out what IS true.

It appears to me that the court won't even hear it. They'll dismiss it. This is not a constitutional question--it's a POLITICAL question.

Notice how self-executing rules were not an issue around here when the GOP was using them. People don't really care about this stuff. If it helps pass something they are for, they will accept it. If it helps pass something they oppose, they will oppose it. That's why you now have the GOP trading sides of the same argument, just as they have changed sides in the filibuster argument (see my tagline).

I'll tell you what. If I ever (heaven forbid) need a good criminal attorney, I'll make sure he's a bleeding socialist liberal. They play the game with gusto, and chutzpah up the ying yang.

Andy McCarthy is absolutely, and obviously, right. If Mark Levin has been peddling the idea that the Slaughter Rule would make Obamacare even more vulnerable to a challenge in court he should be ashamed of himself. That's not a position any competent lawyer should be taking. To quote myself from last Sunday:

“Of course the Slaughter rule is unconstitutional. The Constitution tells Congress to vote so it has to vote. But it is very unlikely that any court would find a case challenging the Slaughter rule to be justiciable.

Without the racial issues present in Powell v. McCormack, the courts are virtually certain to duck any dispute about the internal mechanics of Congress citing the Political Question Doctrine. This is particularly so where the constitutional violation at issue is trivial. The average intelligence of the electorate is only slightly above average (voters are probably a bit smarter than adults generally), but very few voters are going to be fooled by the Slaughter rule. It is the scantiest of fig leaves. Whether the House deems the Senate bill passed or passes it directly the voters will hold them responsible for their actions. The constitutional violation of following the Slaughter rule has no practical consequences sufficient to justify any judicial involvement.

The Slaughter rule clearly shows that the current leadership of Congress has contempt for its constitutional responsibilities. That's an excellent stick to beat the Dems with as we head into the next election which is just as it should be. Politics rather than litigation provide the remedy for the Dems lawlessness here. The courts aren't going to touch it. “