From Floyd Reports:
Obama Stands By Rationer and Judicial Extremist Nominees Berwick and Liu
Posted on March 10, 2011 by Ben Johnson
by Ben Johnson
Despite longstanding attempts to redefine Barack Obama as a down-the-middle centrist, Obama’s radical colors keep showing. Just today, the media announced he is standing by his nominations of the most conspicuous advocate of health care rationing, Dr. Donald Berwick, and a revolutionary in black robes named Goodwin Liu.
Most Congressional Democrats have given up on confirming Rationer-in-Chief Donald Berwick — but Barack Obama is keeping the faith. The White House put out the word that Berwick will not be thrown under the bus despite the mathematical impossibility of his being confirmed by the Senate.
“The president stands firmly behind the nomination of Don Berwick because he’s far and away the best person for the job, and he’s already doing stellar work,” according to Jay Carney, White House spokesman and trendy-word-user. Carney said Americans should support the “stellar” Berwick, because he is “implementing delivery system reforms that will save billions in excess costs and save millions of lives.” This tranquil-sounding phrase means Berwick is pressing forward with ObamaCare. A full 42 Republicans wrote a letter asking Berwick be withdrawn because of his lack of experience and professed extremism. They promise his nomination will never see a vote.
Obama renominated Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) after placing him in the position through a recess appointment. When he finally went before Congress, he sidestepped questions about his views of socialized medicine and compulsory rationing.
However, his public record leaves little doubt. He has praised the British National Health Service. In 1993, he insisted: “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Of course, in medical terms, it is life-saving. More recently, Berwick has declared, “Excellent health care is by definition [wealth] redistribution.”
Berwick still refuses to say who paid for his $900,000 compensation package at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
If Obama were trying to create the impression that national health care is a collectivist scheme to ration care and deny coverage presided over by an impersonal, shadowy elite, he could scarcely do better than to keep Berwick at his post.
Likewise, if Obama were trying to convince voters he believes in revolution through the legal system, Goodwin Liu’s nomination would be Exhibit A.
Liu is former associate dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, and his political-advocacy-masquerading-as-jurisprudence matches his post.
Liu believes certain people have an inalienable right to other people’s money. Liu wrote article in the Stanford Law Review bashing “the prevailing view…that issues of poverty and distributive justice should be resolved through legislative policymaking rather than constitutional adjudication.” That means the courts should enforce “distributive justice” — legalese for social welfare — should be carried out from the bench. While Obama has groused that the Constitution “at least as it’s been interpreted” is “a charter of negative liberties,” Liu simply believes in ignoring the original intent.
Republicans should have no guilt in opposing Liu’s nomination, as he has been an outspoken opponent of conservative court appointments. In 2005, Liu opposed the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, citing a litany of alleged offenses, including Roberts’ opposition to flag burning, Affirmative Action (quotas), and taxpayer-funding of abortion. (In the article, Liu makes reference to “Roe v. Wade‘s guarantee of a woman’s right to choose abortion.”)
A year later, Liu offered histrionic testimony against Samuel Alito, claiming the minority rights champion “envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse…where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent a multiple regression analysis showing discrimination.” In hearings last week, Liu told Sen. Tom Coburn his heated rhetoric about Alito were “a case of poor judgment.”
A judicial nominee who admits poor judgment does not inspire confidence.
Liu is not hostile to all Supreme Court justices. He clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who ruled to legalize prostitution, bigamy, and lowering the age of consent to 12. Ginsburg is known as a pro-abortion stalwart, a legal “progressive,” and an advocate for using foreign law in place of the U.S. Constitution.
Liu, too, believes in replacing “the chains of the Constitution” by citing foreign law in its place. He wrote:
The use of foreign authority in American constitutional law is a judicial practice that has been very controversial in recent years…The resistance to this practice is difficult for me to grasp, since the United States can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world.
An internationalist, pro-abortion judicial activist who believes in “distributive justice”: that’s Obama’s idea of a great justice.
Obama Stands By Rationer and Judicial Extremist Nominees Berwick and Liu
Posted on March 10, 2011 by Ben Johnson
by Ben Johnson
Despite longstanding attempts to redefine Barack Obama as a down-the-middle centrist, Obama’s radical colors keep showing. Just today, the media announced he is standing by his nominations of the most conspicuous advocate of health care rationing, Dr. Donald Berwick, and a revolutionary in black robes named Goodwin Liu.
Most Congressional Democrats have given up on confirming Rationer-in-Chief Donald Berwick — but Barack Obama is keeping the faith. The White House put out the word that Berwick will not be thrown under the bus despite the mathematical impossibility of his being confirmed by the Senate.
“The president stands firmly behind the nomination of Don Berwick because he’s far and away the best person for the job, and he’s already doing stellar work,” according to Jay Carney, White House spokesman and trendy-word-user. Carney said Americans should support the “stellar” Berwick, because he is “implementing delivery system reforms that will save billions in excess costs and save millions of lives.” This tranquil-sounding phrase means Berwick is pressing forward with ObamaCare. A full 42 Republicans wrote a letter asking Berwick be withdrawn because of his lack of experience and professed extremism. They promise his nomination will never see a vote.
Obama renominated Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) after placing him in the position through a recess appointment. When he finally went before Congress, he sidestepped questions about his views of socialized medicine and compulsory rationing.
However, his public record leaves little doubt. He has praised the British National Health Service. In 1993, he insisted: “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Of course, in medical terms, it is life-saving. More recently, Berwick has declared, “Excellent health care is by definition [wealth] redistribution.”
Berwick still refuses to say who paid for his $900,000 compensation package at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
If Obama were trying to create the impression that national health care is a collectivist scheme to ration care and deny coverage presided over by an impersonal, shadowy elite, he could scarcely do better than to keep Berwick at his post.
Likewise, if Obama were trying to convince voters he believes in revolution through the legal system, Goodwin Liu’s nomination would be Exhibit A.
Liu is former associate dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, and his political-advocacy-masquerading-as-jurisprudence matches his post.
Liu believes certain people have an inalienable right to other people’s money. Liu wrote article in the Stanford Law Review bashing “the prevailing view…that issues of poverty and distributive justice should be resolved through legislative policymaking rather than constitutional adjudication.” That means the courts should enforce “distributive justice” — legalese for social welfare — should be carried out from the bench. While Obama has groused that the Constitution “at least as it’s been interpreted” is “a charter of negative liberties,” Liu simply believes in ignoring the original intent.
Republicans should have no guilt in opposing Liu’s nomination, as he has been an outspoken opponent of conservative court appointments. In 2005, Liu opposed the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, citing a litany of alleged offenses, including Roberts’ opposition to flag burning, Affirmative Action (quotas), and taxpayer-funding of abortion. (In the article, Liu makes reference to “Roe v. Wade‘s guarantee of a woman’s right to choose abortion.”)
A year later, Liu offered histrionic testimony against Samuel Alito, claiming the minority rights champion “envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse…where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man, absent a multiple regression analysis showing discrimination.” In hearings last week, Liu told Sen. Tom Coburn his heated rhetoric about Alito were “a case of poor judgment.”
A judicial nominee who admits poor judgment does not inspire confidence.
Liu is not hostile to all Supreme Court justices. He clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who ruled to legalize prostitution, bigamy, and lowering the age of consent to 12. Ginsburg is known as a pro-abortion stalwart, a legal “progressive,” and an advocate for using foreign law in place of the U.S. Constitution.
Liu, too, believes in replacing “the chains of the Constitution” by citing foreign law in its place. He wrote:
The use of foreign authority in American constitutional law is a judicial practice that has been very controversial in recent years…The resistance to this practice is difficult for me to grasp, since the United States can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world.
An internationalist, pro-abortion judicial activist who believes in “distributive justice”: that’s Obama’s idea of a great justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment