Conservative Wanderer

“A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill.” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

Clyburn: Obama Can Campaign Against Supreme Court If They Vote Against ObamaCare

Now there’s a recipe for electoral success:

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said President Obama should campaign against the Supreme Court, painting it as a conservative, activist institution if it rules that the administration’s healthcare law is unconstitutional.

Continue reading

The Final Three Super-Commissioners

Nancy Pelosi has named the final 3 super-commissioners:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi announced on Twitter that she has selected James Clyburn of South Carolina, Xavier Becerra of California, and Chris van Hollen of Maryland to serve on the joint select committee on deficit reduction (aka the supercommittee).

Continue reading

More On The Hard Road Ahead For ObamaCare

A couple of stories have been pointed out by NRO’s Doctor! Doctor! blog, but no one there has posted on the connection between the two, so permit me to do so.

First off, as I said yesterday, one of the big problems is going to be getting the House to either accept the Senate’s language or getting the Senate to accept a conference bill.

Now, according to Senate Budget Commitee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), if the final bill isn’t close to the Senate version, they won’t be able to break a filibuster. One of the big hurdles will be the public option, since the House bill has one and the Senate doesn’t.

However, an even bigger hurdle could be the Stupak Amendment (technically, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) that’s in the House version. They tried using that language in the Senate, as an amendment, and it failed.

Now, add to that the admission from House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) that the Stupak amendment got them 10 votes in the House, and that without it they would have gotten 212 to 214 votes for their bill, and the problem becomes clear: the bill won’t clear the House with only 214 “aye” votes, you need 218.

In short, if the conference bill doesn’t contain the Stupak language, it probably doesn’t get past the House. If it does, it might not make it out of the Senate.

Update: Welcome, Doctor! Doctor! readers, and thanks to Mr. Costa for the link.