…are now suing to stop ObamaCare.
Good. We have to fight this legislative atrocity on every front.
[Afternoon update]
Kansas (home state of the current HHS Secretary) has joined the suit. That’s over half, now.
[Bumped]
…are now suing to stop ObamaCare.
Good. We have to fight this legislative atrocity on every front.
[Afternoon update]
Kansas (home state of the current HHS Secretary) has joined the suit. That’s over half, now.
[Bumped]
…see any limits to government power? Nope. Like Elena Kagan, they’re totalitarians. But with smiley faces. Because, you know, it’s for our own good.
Will the Senate do it?
I think there’s a good chance. There are a lot of Democrats up for reelection next year who aren’t going to be willing to fight it. The question is whether or not the president will be willing to risk a veto. Especially if it may get overridden.
I had been meaning to link to this entertaining and enlightening article on our fearless leaders, by Kevin Williamson, but had gotten busy, and one of my commenters beat me to it. Anyway, here it is, temporarily at the top of the page.
…and start over. I agree.
Mitch Daniels says that living next door to Illinois is like living next door to the Simpsons.
A bi-partisan bill to cap state employee pensions? Let’s hope.
That’s what ObamaCare is.
[Update a few minutes later]
The House has voted to repeal, with four Democrat votes. Now Harry Reid will be on the hot seat.
[Update a while later]
In 2010, the Democrats passed ObamaCare by a 7 vote margin. In 2011, the Republicans passed the bill to repeal ObamaCare with a 55 vote margin.
In each case, one side of the vote was bi-partisan. In both cases, the bi-partisan vote was against ObamaCare.
That’s because we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. Though technically, I think that there was one Republican vote for ObamaCare (Cao).
Ex-Queen Nancy says that it’s Bush’s fault that she lost her job. May her delusions reign over the Dems forever.
Yes, this is the logical conclusion from their beliefs:
Joe Citizen has an inviolable claim to other people’s money but not to his own.
How weird is that?
Only an “intellectual” could believe it.