It must be terribly frustrating to be an anti-Obamacare congressman these days. 
Why, just take the Republicans who held a hearing this week about how terrible Obamacare is and how much it is failing. They subpoenaed insurance company executives who would testify about how less than half of those who had signed up had actually paid, how the bureaucracy was restricting care, how rates were going up, and how the entire program was terrible (because that was what Fox News kept reporting, and they’re never wrong).
Sadly, none of that came to be. The executives, evil as they are, realized they were under oath and reported that in actuality, things were going quite well. More people had signed up than predicted. The vast majority (80% – 90%) were up to date on their payments. Insurance company stock had increased and business was doing great, and because of all that, rates would not be going up.
Republicans at the hearing just couldn’t accept this, and complained that the executives weren’t being forthcoming. Clearly, Obama’s goons had gotten to them! Why, the goons were even able to somehow change all the statistical data in every single one of the insurance companies to make it seem that Obamacare was working. The fiends!
Republicans here in Pennsylvania have started an impeachment drive against our Attorney General Kathleen Kane.
Impeachment, as you know, is available to remove politicians accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” So what did Kane do? Take bribes? Rob a bank? 
She is refusing to defend Pennsylvania’s anti-gay marriage law in court.
I don’t need to mention that she’s a Democrat, do I?
You see, Republicans are claiming that she is obligated under the law to defend lawsuits against the state. This ignores the fact that Attorneys General have discretion, like all prosecutors, as to which cases to litigate.
Kane points out that there is no defense. The law is clearly unconstitutional. Every single state with a similar law that has been challenged in federal court has watched the law fall, domino-like, one after another. To waste taxpayer money defending something that has no defense is ridiculous. It’s unethical for her to make an argument before the court she knows is invalid. “If there is a law that I feel that does not conform with the Pennsylvania state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, then I ethically cannot do that as a lawyer,” she said.
The Republican legislators claim that she is mandated to do what the legislators want because they represent the “will of the people.” At the same time, the majority of people in Pennsylvania support gay marriage (57%). Further, if not for gerrymandering, a majority of our legislature would be Democratic. (Seriously: more people voted for Democrats in Pennsylvania in the last election but more Republicans won because of the way the districts were drawn.) Kane rightly points out that she is following the will of the people of Pennsylvania, not the legislature.
Pennsylvania Democrats walked out of the committee meeting where the Republicans tried to set up an impeachment proceeding, and rightly so.
Just like our anti-gay marriage law, the impeachment also has no legal merit.
The Roberts Supreme Court has once again shown that it cares little for the Constitution, legal history, or precedent. It recently decided that it is perfectly fine for our government to favor one religion.
Yeah, I know, right? You’d think the explicit words of the 1st Amendment make it amazingly clear. You’d think anyone who could read would agree that wouldn’t be allowed. And, in fact, that’s the way it’s always been.
But just like how they decided that (a) the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals and not the military; (b) money is “speech” and the government doesn’t have the power to regulate campaign contributions; (c) schools cannot make their own decisions concerning admission policies; (d) the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the power to protect the environment … anyway, I could go on. In case after case, a slim majority of the Court overturned years of precedent to promote its conservative agenda, and damn the Constitution.
And the public knows that this is political. It’s so blatantly clear that public support for the Court has dropped from 90% confidence to 44%. (Still higher than Congress, though.)
Anyway, the Court held that there is nothing wrong with a government leading everyone in a Christian prayer every day. The basis for this argument was “What Establishment Clause?” They also completely rewrote American history by arguing that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians and therefore would agree. (Well, yeah, but they specifically made sure that their religion stayed completely separate from the government by writing things like, oh, I don’t know, The Establishment Clause.)
Christians who rail against Sharia Law thought this was the greatest decision ever. They only object when it’s someone else’s religion being used. (And yes, I am aware that there are indeed many Christians who support the Constitution and disagree with this decision.)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that despite decades of precedent, a warrant is no longer needed for an officer to search your car.
There was a front page article about this in the Pocono Record last week in which I am quoted. Here’s the article: 
Police in Pennsylvania can search your vehicle without a warrant, according to a ruling handed down by the state’s Supreme Court. All they need is probable cause.
Law enforcement considers it just another tool in its arsenal to fight crime. Others believe it erodes privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens’ property against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It’s referred to as the “motor vehicle exemption.”
The state Supreme Court justices agreed to adopt the federal standard of allowing a warrantless search of a motor vehicle, whether or not there are exigent or urgent circumstances. The only thing police require is probable cause.
In the past, police could only conduct a warrantless search if there were exigent circumstances, such as a motorist not in custody during a stop who has an opportunity to flee with evidence or destroy it.
Otherwise, police had to secure time-consuming search warrants from judges, a process that increased the chance the subject might flee.
“It seems the changes for us as law enforcement are the timing aspect during a traffic stop, when there is a potential for evidence to be destroyed,” Pennsylvania state police spokesman Maria Finn said.
It’s not an earth-shattering change, Stroud Area Regional Police Capt. Brian Kimmins said.
“You still need probable cause, the same probable cause you need to apply for a search warrant, which you have to apply for in court.” he said.
Kimmins still sees his department operating with search warrants and continuing to seize vehicles to search under more controlled conditions. State police are reviewing the decision and working on guidance for its troopers, Finn said.
“However, probable cause is still probable cause. Our troopers will still need to have probable cause before conducting a search-and-seizure of a vehicle, say on a traffic stop. The trooper must articulate the probable cause in an affidavit or attribute it in a report,” she said.
The Supreme Court’s new guidelines shift the burden in some cases of determining probable cause from a judge to a police officer or trooper. A mistake can be costly.
“There are certainly ramifications if it’s a bad search,” Finn said. “The defendant could seek to suppress the search and seizure, if applicable, or even sue the department.”
The Supreme Court justices are not living in reality, according to one Stroudsburg defense attorney.
“The problem with a lot of these justices is they don’t deal with real life and never worked in the trenches,” lawyer Michael Ventrella of Fisher & Fisher said. “They have this idealized notion that the police are never wrong and never abuse their discretion.”
When Ventrella moved to Pennsylvania 15 years ago, he was astounded at the number of individual privacy rights Pennsylvania had compared to his liberal-leaning former home state of Massachusetts. But, he said, that’s eroded over time.
“Over the past 15 years, the courts have whittled it away,” he said.
The annual White House Correspondent’s Dinner (held last night) allows the President to throw some barbs at himself and the press and is a good time to observe a President’s sense of humor first hand. Known jokingly as the “nerd prom” it gets bigger and bigger every year. Last year I posted some of my favorite jokes from the President’s speech. Here’s this year’s version.
I admit it — last year was rough. In 2008 my slogan was, “Yes We Can.” In 2013 my slogan was, “Control-Alt-Delete.”
I want to than
k the White House Correspondents Association for hosting us here tonight. I am happy to be here, even though I am a little jet-lagged from my trip to Malaysia. The lengths we have to go to get CNN coverage these days.
MSNBC is here. They’re a little overwhelmed. They’ve never seen an audience this big before.
We have some other athletes here tonight, including Olympic snowboarding gold medalist Jamie Anderson is here. Michelle and I watched the Olympics — we cannot believe what these folks do — death-defying feats — haven’t seen somebody pull a “180” that fast since Rand Paul disinvited that Nevada rancher from this dinner. As a general rule, things don’t end well if the sentence starts, “Let me tell you something I know about the negro.” You don’t really need to hear the rest of it.
Colorado legalized marijuana this year, an interesting social experiment. I do hope it doesn’t lead to a whole lot of paranoid people who think that the federal government is out to get them and listening to their phone calls.
And speaking of conservative heroes, the Koch brothers bought a table here tonight. But as usual, they used a shadowy right-wing organization as a front. Hello, Fox News.
Let’s face it, Fox, you’ll miss me when I’m gone. It will be harder to convince the American people that Hillary was born in Kenya.
Anyway, while you guys focus on the horserace, I’m going to do what I do — I’m going to be focused on everyday Americans. Just yesterday, I read a heartbreaking letter. A Virginia man who’s been stuck in the same part-time job for years; no respect from his boss; no chance to get ahead. I really wish Eric Cantor would stop writing me.
And I’m feeling sorry — believe it or not — for the Speaker of the House, as well. These days, the House Republicans actually give John Boehner a harder time than they give me, which means orange really is the new black.
Look, I know, Washington seems more dysfunctional than ever. Gridlock has gotten so bad in this town you have to wonder: What did we do to piss off Chris Christie so bad?
One issue, for example, we haven’t been able to agree on is unemployment insurance. Republicans continue to refuse to extend it. And you know what, I am beginning to think they’ve got a point. If you want to get paid while not working, you should have to run for Congress just like everybody else.
Last year, Pat Buchanan said Putin is “headed straight for the Nobel Peace Prize.” He said this. Now I know it sounds crazy but to be fair, they give those to just about anybody these days.
ventrellaquest.com 