Oh, For Goodness Sake

Weiner

New York, New York, it’s a wonderful town.

36% Of Seniors Believe Death Panel Myth

It is very sad, that last part. It means radical Republicans have succeeded in scaring the shit out of a lot of old people. Nice work.

The poll also took a closer look at the views of seniors since they are often assumed to have a uniform view about issues. Below are some of the poll’s key findings about seniors’ views:?

While seniors’ views of the new law are more negative than those of their younger counterparts, they remain roughly split about the law with 46 percent of seniors holding an unfavorable view of the law and 38 percent holding a favorable one. While 35 percent of seniors think they will be worse off under reform, a greater share (57%) say they will be better off (20%) or it will make no difference (37%).

Seniors’ awareness about the specific provisions of the health reform law that affect Medicare is mixed. For example, about half are aware that the new law will result in premium increases for some higher income Medicare beneficiaries (52%) and gradually close Medicare’s “doughnut hole” (50%). However, just a third (33% ) know the law will eliminate Medicare’s co-pays and deductibles for some preventive services.?

On the other hand, large shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.” Half of seniors (50%) say the law will cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare, and more than a third (36%) incorrectly believe the law will “allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”

Despite the fact that Medicare’s actuaries predict the health reform law will extend the life of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by 12 years (from 2017 to 2029), only 14 percent of seniors know this and nearly half (45%) of seniors think the health reform law will weaken the financial condition of the fund.?

Public Option Worth $68B Off Projected Deficit

A choice for people without job-related health plans saves money, too. Let’s do it.

As both political parties worry about the growing federal deficit, an unlikely proposal is returning from last year’s divisive healthcare debate: the “public option.” …

“There is all this concern about the deficit,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leading champion of the proposal. “Well, guess what: This would reduce the deficit because it saves so much money.”

Los Angeles Times

Creating a public option that all Americans could choose would save $68 billion through 2020, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. The analysis was included in a letter to Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who along with Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is introducing a bill this week creating a public option in the state exchanges that start in 2014.

The new CBO report scores lower savings than the public options discussed during the healthcare reform debate because they were tied to legislation that differs from the law that was enacted in March. The bill has more than 100 Democratic co-sponsors but faces strong opposition from the insurance industry, and physicians and hospitals worried that it would bring down payment rates.

The Hill

HealthCare.gov–Check It Out

The government has launched a terrific site to help Americans sort through health care choices under the new law, the Affordable Care Act. Nice work, gov.

Public Trusts Dems On Health Care Reform, 51% to 38%

One of the keys to the Republican midterm strategy is hammering away at an unpopular health care reform package signed into law in March. Of course, the plan — which includes GOP demands for a repeal of the entire law — only works if the Affordable Care Act is, in fact, unpopular.

There’s at least some evidence, however, that public attitudes are changing.

The patient is alive and kicking. A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds public support for President Barack Obama’s new health care law has risen to its highest point.

The nation remains divided, with 45 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed to the president’s signature domestic accomplishment.

Still, the shift in public sentiment was significant. Opposition to the overhaul increased after Congress passed it in March. And last month, supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent. But the latest survey found the strongest backing for the health care plan since the AP-GfK poll began asking in September.

The AP found some of the largest gains among men (support jumped 10 points, to 46%) and 30-49 year-olds (support jumped 14 points to 49%). Even among self-indentified Republicans, support for the new law doubled — from 8% to 17% — though clearly GOP voters are a long way from liking the ACA.

Washington Monthly

VA Health Care Suit Motion To Dismiss Scheduled For Hearing July 1

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, which concerns itself with the mandate, claiming it invalidates the entire Act–is moving along pretty quickly. Its initial pre-trial conference was held this week.

06/03/2010 24 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry E. Hudson (Court Reporter Liscio, OCR): Initial Pretrial Conference held on 6/3/2010. Hearing on deft’s Motion to Dismiss scheduled for 7/1/2010 at 10:00 a.m. Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment scheduled for 10/18/2010 at 9:00 a.m.; all briefs due 14 days prior to hearing date. (rpiz) (Entered: 06/03/2010)

06/03/2010 23 ORDER regarding hearing dates for oral argument: 1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss – July 1, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.; 2) Motions for Summary Judgment – October 18, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.; parties to set briefing schedule for Motions for Summary Judgment, with briefs due fourteen days before the October 18, 2010 hearing date; all amicus filings are due fourteen days before the hearing date which the specific brief addresses. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 6/3/2010. Copies to counsel.(cmcc, ) (Entered: 06/03/2010)

05/24/2010 22 Memorandum in Support re 21 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Kathleen Sebelius. (Hambrick, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

05/24/2010 21 MOTION to Dismiss by Kathleen Sebelius. (Hambrick, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

03/23/2010 1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Kathleen Sebelius; filing fee paid $ 350, receipt number 34683007662; filed by Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt)(cmcc, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

Oklahoma Anti-Abortion Bill Vetoed As Barrier To Legal Medical Treatment

OKLAHOMA CITY — Gov. Brad Henry vetoed a controversial abortion bill that would have required women seeking the procedure to report extensive personal information about themselves, his office announced Saturday.

Henry said House Bill 3284 had numerous flaws and would result in another expensive, and possibly futile, legal battle for the state. …

Information that a woman would have had to give included marital status, age, race, education, number of live births, number of miscarriages, number of induced abortions, type of abortion and reasons for the abortion.

Henry said he supported reasonable abortion restrictions but that House Bill 3284 had several flaws, including the lack of an exemption for rape and incest victims.

“By forcing rape and incest victims to submit to a personally invasive questionnaire and posting the answers on a state website, this legislation will only increase the trauma of an already traumatic event,” Henry said. “Victims of such horrific acts should be treated with dignity and respect in such situations, as should all people.” …

“Requiring patients to publicly reveal highly intimate and personal details of their lives to obtain a medical procedure protected by this nation’s highest court constitutes an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and barrier to legal medical treatment,” Henry said.

This is the third abortion bill that Henry has vetoed this legislative session. The GOP-controlled Legislature has overridden two of the vetoes.

Tulsa World

Government Recovers $2.5B Due To Health Care Anti-Fraud Enforcement

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government says it recovered $2.5 billion in overpayments for the Medicare trust fund last year as the Obama administration focused attention on fraud enforcement efforts in the health care industry.

Investigators have new tools this year to help crack down on health care fraud, with the Justice Department and the Health and Human Services Department working cooperatively to police companies. The newly enacted Affordable Care Act is designed to lengthen prison sentences in criminal cases and the new law provides an additional $300 million over the next 10 years for stronger enforcement. It also gives the government new authority to step up oversight of companies participating in Medicare and Medicaid.

Under the Affordable Care Act, providers could be subject to fingerprinting, site visits and criminal background checks before they begin billing Medicare and Medicaid.

To combat fraud, the act allows Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to bar providers from joining the programs and allows her to withhold payment to Medicare or Medicaid providers if an investigation is pending.

In a report being released Thursday, the Justice Department and HHS say they are putting investigative resources in areas where health care fraud is especially widespread, including south Florida; Los Angeles; Houston; Detroit; New York City’s Brooklyn borough; Baton Rouge, La.; and Tampa, Fla.

The result is a rising number of criminal prosecutions and the return of more stolen money to the government. At the same time, federal investigators are blocking unscrupulous companies from getting into government health care programs in the first place.

Associated Press

Interesting Laura Bush

Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage.

It’s a shame that political wives have to clam themselves up so much, but that’s the way it is. Good for Laura Bush for saying saying her beliefs out loud, now that she is uncaged.

Signed: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010

1. Expanding mental health counseling and services for veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq, including National Guardsmen and Reservists.

2. Authorizing the VA to utilize hospitals and clinics outside the VA system to serve more wounded warriors with traumatic brain injury.

3. Increasing support to veterans in rural areas, with the transportation and housing they need to reach VA hospitals and clinics.

4. Expanding and improving health care for women veterans, including maternity care for newborn children.

5. Launching a pilot program to provide child care for veterans receiving intensive medical care.

6. Eliminating co-pays for veterans who are catastrophically disabled.

7. Expanding support to homeless veterans.

8. Caregivers for a severely injured veteran from Afghanistan or Iraq, will now receive a stipend and other assistance, including lodging when they travel for their loved one’s treatment. They’ll get training to provide specialized services, counseling, and if they don’t have health insurance, it will be provided. If they need a break, they’ll get up to 30 days of respite care each year.

dKos

S.1963

Taitz Intervention In Health Care Case—DENIED (AGAIN)

Heh. Judge Vinson does not sound happy.

Taitz has not raised any arguments that justify reconsideration of her initial motion to intervene. Her renewed claim that President Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “occupying [his] position by fraud” is simply not relevant or at issue in this litigation. Her motion for reconsideration or for certification of an interlocutory appeal must be denied.

04/23/2010 37 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO INTERVENE – 1) Orly Taitz’s 27 Motion for Reconsideration or Certification of Interlocutory Appeal is Denied. 2) The Motions to Intervene filed by Gary P. Salamone (doc. 20[RECAP] ), Robert P. Smith, Jr. (doc. 23[RECAP] ), Steve Schonberg (docs. 21[RECAP] , 36[RECAP] ), and Stephan P. Wallace (doc. 34 ) are also Denied. The court has now considered six separate Motions to Intervene in this case. In order to save time and conserve judicial resources, any and all future Motions to Intervene that do not satisfy the legal standard set forth above and in my previous Order (doc. 18[RECAP] ) will be summarily denied. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 4/23/2010. (laj) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

Orly, for sure, is not happy:

Decision from judge Vinson in FL was posted today.

He is saying that Obama’s legitimacy for presidency is not at issue in the original pleadings and he simply doesn’t want to go into other areas. I feel it is wrong. Based on this logic anybody can buy US presidency with enough money from Saudi Arabia, without any constitutional eligibility, he can sign any bill and nobody would question the legitimacy. It’s like allowing a forger to sign documents and nobody will care about the authenticity. I wonder if tomorrow someone becomes a president and orders removal of all Federal judges. Will they be so indiferent in that hypothetical?

Time for you to take a little rest, Orly, at a nice FEMA camp. Leave it for the Constitution to worry about federal judges. But I know you are too busy campaigning against Damon Dunn on his Facebook to get away:

Lord, have mercy.

–

Currently not linking to her web site.

Oklahoma Outrageous

State legislatures are out of control. This is simple lunacy.

CHICAGO: The governor of Oklahoma is considering tough new abortion bills that would allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects and require women to answer intrusive questions.

The results of the questionnaires would be posted online.

Women would also be required to have a vaginal ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the embryo or foetus in a third bill passed by the legislature on Monday.

The requirements would be among the most ”extreme” in the US and were similar to those struck down by a state court as unconstitutional earlier this year, the Centre for Reproductive Rights said on Tuesday.

”Despite the prospect and cost of additional legal challenges, the legislature is determined to severely limit women’s ability to get an abortion in the state, approving laws with clear constitutional flaws and with absolute disregard for women’s rights and health,” the centre said in a statement urging a veto of the bills.

A spokesman for the Governor, Brad Henry, declined to comment on his intention for the bills.

Sydney Morning Herald

PZ Myers:

So let me get this straight. If a woman in Oklahoma thinks she is pregnant, she can go in for “testing”…but she won’t get to know all the results. And she has to fill out a form so her sexual history can be posted on the web. And she’s going to get a pointless ultrasound and a lecture scripted by the likes of Prolife across America.

Why would anyone do that?

Science Blogs

Satisfaction Rises Among Democrats

The substantial uptick in satisfaction among Democrats follows the House’s passage of the new healthcare bill on March 21 and President Obama’s signing the bill into law on March 23 (Obama signed the revised healthcare bill on March 30). Democrats’ satisfaction had dropped from readings in the mid-40% range last fall to 29% in early March. By the time of Gallup’s March 26-28 survey this year, Democrats’ satisfaction had begun to move back up; it has recovered to the current 49% in Gallup’s April 8-11 survey.

Gallup

So Orly Did Show Up In Florida On Wednesday; No. She Does NOT Have Standing

The Pensacola News Journal reports she was there in her time-honored tradition of judge-harassing:

‘Birther’ denied standing in health-care case
…

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson last week denied Taitz’s motion to intervene in the case. Nevertheless, she showed up in court Wednesday and attempted to speak to Vinson as she handed out copies of a motion for him to reconsider his decision of last week.

“I have already dealt with your motion to intervene and as of now you are not a party,” Vinson said.

Taitz, who has a similar motion filed in the federal court in the District of Columbia, said she wants to intervene in the case filed in Pensacola because the new law directly affects her as a dental surgeon.

Orly’s Motion for Reconsideration, which she made a spectacle of herself passing around, was docketed yesterday:

04/14/2010 27 Notice and MOTION for Reconsideration or MOTION (titled Request) for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal – Re: 18[RECAP] Order. (laj) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

See: DENIED. DONE And ORDERED

I agree, that she has satisfied steps (1) and (2). Her motion to intervene was timely and, as a Doctor of Dental Surgery who will be affected by the Act, she clearly has an interest in the subject of this action. …

Furthermore, with respect to Taitz’s motion in particular, I believe the parties to this case and the court should remain focused solely on the legal issues raised by the named plaintiffs, and not concern themselves with collateral issues (such as, for example, whether President Obama has provided sufficient proof of a valid birth certificate).
For these reasons, Dr. Taitz’s motion to intervene (doc. 17) must be, and is,
DENIED. DONE and ORDERED

I had interpreted Judge Vinson’s statement to mean Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. could have had standing in a health care case, if she hadn’t included all the Birfer stuff, which is how she interpreted it, too. Where I disagreed with her was whether Florida Judge Vinson’s statement gave her any standing in Taitz v. Obama in Washington DC, which she is also claiming. But my friend TerribleTom, an attorney at Politijab, makes the convincing case that Judge Vinson did no such thing, anyhow, and I see now it didn’t really happen the way I thought it did.

First a Cliff’s Notes Summary

A gaggle of state attorneys general file a suit in a U.S. District Court in Florida seeking to strike down the health care reform act on Constitutional grounds. Never one to be left out of the action, Orly files a motion to intervene. That is, she moves to be recognized and added as a plaintiff-party to that suit.

The Florida judge then summarily dismisses Orly’s motion to intervene, concluding that Orly’s “related” suit (i.e., her Quo Warranto action in D.C., as expanded to include everything including the kitchen sink) is primarily concerned with Obama’s eligibility to be President whereas the Florida action before the court is a Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Standard for Permitting or Denying Intervention as a Matter of Right

The judge was required by 11th Circuit precedent (see e.g., Chiles v.Thornburgh, 865 F.2nd 1197, 1213) to apply a four-part test to determine if Orly had a right to intervene (paraphrased below for clarity in context):

(1) Was Orly’s application timely?

(2) Does the proposed intervener (Orly) have an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the litigation?

(3) Would the disposition of this action (the Florida case), as a practical matter, impede or impair Orly’s ability to protect her interest?

(4) Is her interest represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit?

My Interpretation of the Judge’s Basis for Denial (FWIW)

The judge begins by noting that the application was timely and then continues to concede, for the purposes of assessing this motion, that a practicing dentist will be affected by the Act and, thus, “she clearly has an interest in the subject of this action.”

Rather than delving deeper into a full analysis of “standing”, he concentrates on lower-hanging fruit and concludes that Orly’s motion fails to demonstrate that criteria #3 and #4 are met. That is, nothing about this suit would impair Orly’s ability to pursue her easily distinguished claims elsewhere and, in any case, she has made no showing that representation of her interest by the Attorneys General is inadequate. (“However, the fact that she might be affected by the Act on a more personal level than the current named plaintiffs does not constitute evidence that representation by the Attorneys General is inadequate.”)

Interpretation in the Blogosphere

Some of the language in Judge Vinson’s Order has been widely misinterpreted in the blogosphere (including a number of posts at PJ as well as by Orly herself) as meaning that Orly was found to have standing to bring her action or to maintain a parallel claim in another jurisdiction. I strongly disagree.

Judge Vinson’s Order Did NOT Determine Standing in This or Any Other Matter

In the first place, the second prong of the Chiles test (interest in the property or transaction) falls far short of a complete treatment of Article III standing. By now, most of the members of PJ are at least somewhat familiar with the Lujan standards for determining standing. A very brief summary: (1) an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized, (b) actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, (2) causally connected to conduct complained of, (3) likely and (4) conducive to redress by the instant action.

So these factors are addressed in this Order exactly where?

They’re not. It is noteworthy that nowhere in Judge Vinson’s order did he use the word “standing”, and for good reason. He did not nor did he purport to take up the much broader issue of standing. Instead, he applied only a few threshold criteria for intervention — a kind of “screening test”, if you will.

The difference is not merely academic. For the purposes of argument, let’s assume that Orly’s “standing” is in all respects equal to the standing of the AGs who bought this suit. OK, fine. The problem with that premise is that no one – including the attorneys general – has, as yet, been determined to have standing. Indeed, standing will almost certainly be hotly contested in one or more motion(s) to dismiss and/or, quite likely, by motion(s) for summary judgment as this suit progresses.

And that raises another barrier to anyone who contends that Orly was found to have standing: To date, nothing about this suit has been contested. AFAIK, Defendants have submitted no briefs and, except for an initial scheduling conference, there have been no adversary proceedings. No oppositions have been filed or hearings held. That being the case, to rule that Orly has standing would be to deny the Government its due process rights.

[As a hypothetical exercise, assume that Orly were to file and successfully pursue an interlocutory appeal of this denial to intervene (yeah, that’s likely!) and the appellate court were to reverse Hizzoner on his application of criteria #3 & 4. Would his so-called “ruling” that Orly has an interest (#2) be dispositive of the standing issue or become law of the case? Absent an opportunity on the part of the Defendants to argue in opposition, absolutely not!

To my way of thinking, the “finding” that Dr. Orly “clearly has an interest” is akin to a judge ruling that a party met his or her burden to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits in a petition for injunctive relief, only to deny the petition on the basis of other factors (e.g., balance of equities, or availability of a suitable remedy at law). That part of the analysis is a far cry from ruling that the petitioner HAS prevailed on the merits.]

Bottom line: Judge Vinson did not rule that Orly had standing. Period.

Effects of the Order

Ok, so let’s say I’m all wet and that, in fact, Judge Vinson did rule that Orly’s interest is sufficient to establish standing. What, then, is the effect on her ‘Quo Warranto case’?

That’s easy: None, nada, nichts, cero, aucun. Because the issue was not fully contested and adjudicated, there can be no collateral estoppel. And because the “ruling” was made by a District Court in another case, it has no precedential value whatsoever. Perhaps it’ll give Orly a nice quote to use, but beyond that it means nothing.

Well, I am glad to see I got that last little part right, so the free legal education I enjoy with my membership at Politijab is getting through to my brain, at least a little bit.

Orly Is Happy

As she usually is, when she is getting it all wrong:

Posted on | April 14, 2010 | No Comments

… Judge Lamberth has also denied Obama’s motion to dismiss as moot.

The Defense filed two Motions to Dismiss, the first on February 26. Judge Lamberth’s Order refers to that Motion:

04/14/2010 MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss due to filing of the first amended complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/2010. (lcrcl4, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

The first Motion to Dismiss the original complaint, as you can see, has been rendered moot, because Orly then filed a First Amended Complaint on March 20.

The Defense subsequently filed a second Motion to Dismiss, this one against the First Amended Complaint, on March 31. This has not been ruled on by Judge Lamberth and is not moot.

That Judge Lamberth, who has been silent since the original complaint filed January 27, is beginning to issue orders, indicates this could wrap up soon.

He also granted judicial notice to the order by Judge Vinson in the Florida Attorneys General health care case, where the judge rejected Taitz’s Motion to Intervene.

04/14/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 19 motion to take judicial notice of the order entered in Civil Action No. 3:10-91 (N.D. Fla). Judicial notice is taken. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/14/2010. (lcrcl4, ) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

Orly takes this wonderfully well:

Posted on | April 14, 2010 | No Comments

Judge Lamberth has granted my request for judicial notice of the opinion in Fl, where judge Vinson has stated that as a Doctor of Dental surgery I have a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the Health Bill- this is a good sign.

What Taitz is asking Judge Lamberth to do is to send her as a plaintiff into somebody else’s case, by consolidation, where another federal judge has already denied her entry, and against which the Defense has filed an Opposition. Judge Lamberth, of course, has to take judicial notice, since he has to make a ruling, but until he does, it’s a sign of nothing.

–

*Currently not linking to her web site.

Attorneys General v US DHHS et al: Schedule

This looks like it will take a while.

04/14/2010 26 FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER re 24[RECAP] Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff’s date for filing an amended complaint: 5/14/10. Defendants’ date for filing a motion to dismiss: 6/16/10. Plaintiffs’ date for filing a brief in opposition to motion to dismiss: 8/6/10. Defendants’ date for filing a reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition brief: 8/27/10. Oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss: 9/14/10 at 9:00 AM. Discovery deadline: 9/14/10. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 4/14/10. (tdg) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

There’s been an interesting Motion to Intervene submitted in this case. Interesting because, unlike others I’ve seen, which are mainly your whackos trying to be plaintiffs, this one is a lawyer with fifty years litigation experience and a retired Florida appeals judge, who is looking to join as a defendant:

04/14/2010 23 Pro Se Rule 24 MOTION to Intervene As Party Defendant by Robert P. Smith, Jr. (with Supporting Memorandum, ND Fla. R7.1(a). (laj) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

As is to be expected, I guess, Smith does a good job of outlining a defense.

FL-19: Democrat Dashes ‘Bagger Hopes In “Health Care Referendum”

Nice news to wake up to. The Tea Party was looking to the election of Ed Lynch as its first success following on the passage of health care reform.

The TEA Party’s clout may be felt this week in the race for the open Congressional seat in Florida’s 19th District on April 13th. This may be the first shot across the bow of Republicans running for national, state wide, and local offices.

Tow the conservative line or else may be the message sent if TEA Party favorite Edward Lynch wins this special election.

I just received an e-mail from a friend saying that TEA Party members have made over 10,000 phone calls in support of conservative Edward Lynch for Congress. Edward is running against Florida Senator Ted Deutch a Democrat who embraced President Obama’s healthcare bill, anti-Israel posturing, and stimulus package. Edward won a special Republican primary election in February and now will use that momentum to turn a Democrat seat into a Republican seat – the first in Florida.

The self-described “big supporter” of Michele Bachmann, who pledged to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, hoped so, too.

In the three ongoing special elections where Republicans hope to take seats once held by Democrats, “repeal” has become a rallying cry for local activists and national fundraisers. The next election on the calender will come April 13 in the 19th District of Florida, some of the safest Democratic terrain in the state. The Obama-Biden ticket won 65 percent of the vote there, while Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) won re-election with 66 percent. But Ed Lynch, the businessman running as a Republican to replace Wexler, has taken to the pages of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government to call his race “the first referendum on nationalized health care.”

“By contributing, 5, 10, or 20 dollars to our campaign,” wrote Lynch, “your donation will count towards a full and unequivocal REPEAL of the most dangerous legislation passed since this nation’s founding.”

In an interview with TWI, Lynch made it clear that he backed full repeal, and wouldn’t quibble about parts of the legislation that Republicans have occasionally endorsed, such as preventing coverage from being denied for pre-existing conditions. “This bill is going to kill our seniors,” said Lynch. “Making something less bad doesn’t mean making it good.” He would sign the “Repeal It” pledge, he said, and he’d also co-sponsor legislation Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has introduced to repeal the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act. “I’m a big supporter of Michele,” he said.

So much for that idea, but it’s heartening to see, after all the Tea Party hype by CNN and FOX News, that seniors, of which I am one, know how to protect our best interests.

Deutch had 62 percent of the vote compared to Lynch’s 36 percent with 97 percent of the precincts counted, CNN affiliate WFOR reported. The election was to fill the seat of Democrat Robert Wexler, who resigned at the beginning of the year to head up the Center for Middle East Peace. …

“We’ve heard for months that tonight … is a referendum on health care, it’s a referendum on the (Obama) administration, it’s a referendum on what direction this country is going,” Deutch said. “Let me tell you something, what we learned today is that in Broward County and Palm Beach County, Florida, the Democratic Party is alive and well.”

The controversial health care reforms may have played a large role in the election results.

Lynch said he wanted to repeal the new law. The 44-year-old contractor made opposition to President Barack Obama’s health care legislation a major part of his campaign. Lynch was also critical of the federal stimulus program, and of the president’s handling the war in Iraq. Deutch, also 44, supported the new health care law.

Oh, yes, we can.

DENIED. DONE And ORDERED

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. announced last week* that she would be in Pensacola this Wednesday for a hearing (it’s actually a Rule 16 scheduling conference by the Northern District of Florida, having nothing to do with her Birther Queenn-ness) in the lawsuit brought by some state attorneys general against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

April 14th Pensacola FL, Federal district court, Judge Roger Vincent [sic] presiding, is the first hearing on the Health Care lawsuit brought by 13 Attorney Generals. As many patriots as possible need to be there. I will be there.

Taitz has been trying to join her Birther case, Taitz v. Obama, with this health care lawsuit to no effect. While the attorneys-general claim the health care law is unconstitutional in itself, Taitz declares it illegal, also, since it was signed by the usurpin’ mofo, who has no business signing laws until she sees his birth certificate. And, besides, she is a dentist and who better to argue for the vast American public, who don’t need health care reform. They can just die, as long as Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. can keep taking in the bucks from that socialistic California dental plan.

She assured us:

I just heard from the clerk of the Interdistrict Panel. I will be making a couple of small changes in my motion for consolidation with the Florida case. It should be filed by the clerk withn the next few days, the hearing will be in May. I will provide you with the exact date, as it will be given to me.

The first date of the Florida hearing is April 14th. All the information is below. (Followed by hearing notice posted to docket of State of Florida, et al v. US Dept of HHS.)

(By “Interdistrict Panel,” she means the the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.)

She spent several days riling up the few troops she has left to write, don’t call (but here is the court’s phone number), attend! (After all, that worked so well for her in California.)

If nobody gets to the judge, if nobody intimidates the judge the way Judge Carter was intimidated (after an attorney for Perkins Coie, White House counsel Robert Bauer’s firm was placed as Carter’s law clerk), my motion will be heard next Wednesday, April the 14th, 9am at the US District Court in Pensacola FL, by senior judge Roger R.Vinson. It will be heard in conjunction with the motion of the 13 Attorney Generals. (from what I understand, 6 more states are planning to join).

In a nut shell, I am stating in my motion and in 154 pages of attachments to the motion, which were not scanned and docketted yet, that I have filed a legal action to deem the Healthcare bill unconstitutional for several reasons (read my pleadings in front of judge Lamberth ). These reasons include violation of the Commerce clause, Quo Waranto- meaning Obama was not eligible for presidency, due to the fact that he did not provide any proof of his Natural Born citizen status and is using social security numbers of deceased individuals and a number of other causes of action.

The court number is 850-435-8440

address 1 North Palafox st. Pensacola FL 32502

see you there

Orly

Oh, well, the best-laid plans of Orly Taitz and all that: Senior Judge Clyde Roger Vinson (the traitor! the beast! the drunkard! Reagan Soros appointee), of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, just did not welcome her nonsense in his courtroom:

Furthermore, with respect to Taitz’s motion in particular, I believe the parties to this case and the court should remain focused solely on the legal issues raised by the named plaintiffs, and not concern themselves with collateral issues (such as, for example, whether President Obama has provided sufficient proof of a valid birth certificate).

For these reasons, Dr. Taitz’s motion to intervene (doc. 17) must be, and is,
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED

I object. I was so looking forward to Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. screwing up this case for the attorneys general.

But Judge Vinson was tending to his Rule 16 pretrial duties:

(2) Matters for Consideration.

At any pretrial conference, the court may consider and take appropriate action on the following matters:

(A) formulating and simplifying the issues, and eliminating frivolous claims or defenses

So I guess I can’t complain that he has shred my hopes for entertainment.

From the Florida docket:

03/23/2010 1 COMPLAINT against TIMOTHY F GEITHNER, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HILDA L SOLIS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY filed by STATE OF FLORIDA – Filing Fee $350, Receipt Number: 1129-1533627) (WINSHIP, BLAINE) **Modified on 3/23/2010 to correct “docket text” (laj). (Entered: 03/23/2010)

03/29/2010 4[RECAP] NOTICE OF HEARING. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 4/14/2010 09:00 AM in U.S. Courthouse Pensacola before SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON. (lcu) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

04/06/2010 17 Notice and MOTION to Intervene by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (in Pro Se) – Attachments not scanned. (laj) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

04/08/2010 18 ORDER – Denying Dr. Orly Taitz’s (in pro se) 17[RECAP] Motion to Intervene. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 2/8/2010. (laj) (Entered: 04/08/2010)

Taitz still has her motion to consolidate her case with the AsG case in Florida, through Taitz v. Obama in Washington DC, but now that the target court in Florida has rejected her, I don’t believe it’s even remotely possible another federal district would interfere, nor the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, for that matter.

Nevertheless, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. incorrectly construes Judge Vinson’s order as giving her STANDING in her attempts to challenge the President’s eligibility in Taitz v. Obama in the Washington DC district court of Judge Royce Lamberth, who, incidentally, has probably more experience tossing Birfoons around than any other judge in the country. So far, Judge Lamberth has had Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. on ignore, except for his clerks docketing her usual voluminous filings.

On Friday, Taitz filed a Motion for Judicial Notice in Taitz v. Obama:

4/09/2010 19 First MOTION Judicial Notice by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order by Judge Vinson 10-cv-91)(TAITZ, ORLY) (Entered: 04/09/2010)

Judge Vinson does not find the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility due to lack of Natural Born status to be frivolous. He simply states that in the interest of expediency he decided to limit the case to the issues raised by the original plaintiffs. Yet again is seems to negate the notion by the defense that the eligibility issue is frivolous. Clearly, the plaintiff, as A Doctor of Dental Surgery, having tangible interest and standing to bring forward the issue of legitimacy of H.R. 3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” can do so on both the basis of violation of the Commerce clause, as well as on basis of Common law Fraud and Quo Warranto, asserting that the bill was signed by one who got into the position of Presidency by virtue of fraud and concealment of all of the original vital records, …

Judge Vinson found that Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., as a dentist, had STANDING to challenge the health care law. But since the plaintiff AsG were already adequately doing that for her, and the rest of the dentist public who might share her objections, her special contribution would be mere Birferism, which he rejected out of hand. He never said a word about her having STANDING in challenging the President of the United States in terms of his circumstances of birth, which is what the main case of Taitz v. Obama is all about.

Using one federal judge’s words to mislead another federal judge, I would think, is not the smartest thing for a lawyer trying to have a case heard by that judge to do. But it’s Orly. She gets away with doing things real lawyers would shrink from, because she is something like the village idiot who wanders in off the courthouse square.

Aside from the insanity creeping into the attorneys-general case from the direction of Orly Taitz, there are many other interested maniacs, as Judge Vinson noticed. For example, an anti-tax whackadoodle and 9/11 Truther named Paul Mitchell, who fancies himself a “Private Attorney General,” has filed as an intervener.

04/05/2010 10 NOTICE of Intent to Apply for Leave to Intervene by pro se litigant Paul Andrew Mitchell – filed pursuant to 8 Order. (laj) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

Like bees to honey; flies to horse shit; kryptonite to stupid.

–

*No longer linking to her web site.

Made In The USA

Buy here

Democrats say t-shirts that riff on Vice President Joe Biden’s well-known take on the healthcare law are selling like hotcakes.

Organizing for America, the grassroots arm of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), are selling the shirts for $25 a piece in an effort to fundraise off Biden’s slip that healthcare’s passage was a “Big F****** Deal.”

So far, so good, writes spokesperson Brandi Hoffine. The Democrats have sold out a significantly sized first shipment of the shirts.

“We started selling them yesterday and sold out of our initial order overnight,” Hoffine wrote in an e-mail. “They are selling faster than ipads will this weekend.”

The Hill

Doc To Democratic Patients: Go Elsewhere

This takes the cake:

MOUNT DORA — A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care “elsewhere.”

“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

The sign reads: “If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.”

Estella Chatman, 67, of Eustis, whose daughter snapped a photo of the typewritten sign, sent the picture to U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the Orlando Democrat who riled Republicans last year when he characterized the GOP’s idea of health care as, “If you get sick America … Die quickly.” …

The outspoken Grayson described Cassell’s sign as “ridiculous.”

“I’m disgusted,” he said. “Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ‘Do no good.’ If this is the face of the right-wing in America, it’s the face of cruelty…Why don’t they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party.”

Orlando Sentinel