Coming soon to an America near you: Supreme Court Justice Hairdo McWedgeshot!

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is the most powerful person in the Senate (except for Joe Lieberman). Nevada Sen. John Ensign, by contrast, is the least significant person in the Senate, except for ... well ... er ... nobody. 

So is that irony? I never know. Maybe it's a paradox. Or antipodal (I had to look that one up). Whatever, the Ensign part's funny.

Anyway, the Media Message Development Centers in Harry Reid's Senate and reelection offices flooded the internet machine prior to and after the Senate's Christmas Eve health care vote with statement after statement touting how "historic" the legislation is. Even assuming the bill's key provisions are still law by the time they are scheduled to take effect mid-way through the first term of the Palin-Gibbons administration, the legislation is nowhere near as transformative or historic as Reid, Obama and their apologists contend. But after several months of nearly uninterrupted dithering, backpedaling and capitulation, they've got to say it is, because of politics. They must crow. ("Caw!" Reid told reporters shortly after the vote. "And also, caw!" Reid added.) Maybe a few voters will buy it.

Ensign, meantime, somewhat belatedly became the latest conservative to suggest that right-wing activist judges, legislating from the bench, of course, should declare the health care bill unconstitutional, basically on the grounds that the constitution doesn't specifically say the words "health care." (Nor does it specifically say "Medicare" or "Social Security" and Constitutional scholars such as  Ensign presumably would like those things declared unconstitutional, too.)

Ensign's embrace of this sort of wingnut exotica is predictable -- which is why several weeks ago, before Ensign even played on the media's holiday spirit of forgiveness and made them write stories about him that didn't say anything about his parents knowingly and willingly paying for him to schtup his Aunt Judy, your Gleaner examined Ensign's credibility or lack thereof on this very issue. Ha!:

John Ensign, America's least significant senator, has always fallen for ultra-conservative pseudo-scholarship as if it was as natural as getting your parents to pay for your sex. "Most of what the United States government does is unconstitutional," Ensign sort of famously said nearly a decade ago.

Writing about Ensign's comment at the time, then-R-J columnist Steve Sebelius (though hard to believe now, the paper's opinion pages used to be much more willing to publish non-wingnut views) wondered if Ensign's assertion meant that "he'll vote against each and every appropriations bill that contains any extra-constitutional fat."

Alas, Ensign would later demonstrate how rules that apply to mere mortals don't apply to him because Goddy McGod made him better than everyone else and daddy has a yummy checkbook. So Ensign probably has his own version of the Constitution, a special occult edition he sneaked out with him when his fellow fanatical religious extremists kicked him out of their shadowy C Street compound. In that version, no doubt the founders specifically signed off on each and every one of the quarter-billion dollars in earmarks that Ensign has requested in just the last two years, to say nothing of $415 million to restore Lake Tahoe.

Unlike Ensign, your Gleaner is not a learned Constitutional scholar. However I still think an argument can be made that Ensign's right to bone his best friend's wife is covered under the Ninth Amendment -- or it would be if she hadn't been his employee at the time, though that's probably of no concern to Ensign. Emboldened by the fact that the Constitution doesn't specifically say the words, Ensign assuredly feels secure in his interpretation that any laws prohibiting "sexual harassment" are a violation of what the Framers intended.

Comments

[ColinFromLasVegas]

Although the word "constitutional" mixed with and uttered by the esteemed Senator Ensign is much the same as putting whipped cream on a hot dog, I heard this idea was actually brought up by Senator Demint.

This makes the whole thing even funnier. Demint didn't want to take the forefront on this knuckleheadedness. Because he may take a run at the Presidency in the future. And I guess he wanted to retain what little credibility he has. So, he looked around for a patsy.

WAIT! HARK! There's one! ENSIGN! Get your ass over here! You're soon to be a nothing... I want you to give a speech fer me. NO! Not the "I pray for a Democrat to expire before the vote" one. This one. Now lemme here ya. WAIT! That's wrong! Not conferooshunal! You say it constitutional. Like that. Jeeez... Do I have to teach you everything on how to be a wingnut?!??!

[happygirl]

My Christmas wish: That this do-nothing POS resigns.
Go to hell, John Ensign. YOU are SCUM.

[Reality Please]

Ensign is a real-American cheese ball.

[Nevada Ned]

Physician for National Health Plan have studied the Senate bill, and offer a convincing case that the negatives outweigh the positives. The Senate bill is a capitulation to the insurance companies, the big pharmaceutical companies, etc. It achieves "budget neutrality" by an accounting trick: front-loading the increased costs, and slowing phasing in the coverage. When complete, 23 million Americans will still lack coverage.

The Physicians for a National Health Plan call on the Senate to defeat the current bill, and immediate consider a single-payer plan instead.

For the grim details, see

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/22-8

[Nevada Ned]

There is a ray of good news for all Gleaner readers: Gibbons' divorce trial promises to be a "spectacle", according to the RJ.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/gibbons-divorce-to-become-a-spectacle-80104412.html

These glad tidings of great joy lifted my spirits and the new year hasn't even begun yet!!

[Michael Green]

Nevada Ned, my wife and I have pre-existing conditions. Since, if this bill fails, we won't be getting insurance--but we will if it passes--would you pass along your address so we can send you our bills if and when we change jobs and can't get insurance? Thanks.

[Nevada Ned]

Prof. Green:

Yes, there are a few decent provisions in the bill. If the bill passes, and if it still contains the provision that pre-existing conditions cannot be an absolute bar to purchasing health insurance, then you'd be able to purchase health insurance if you change jobs. The insurance company can scrutinize your application for the slightest infraction and reject your application on the grounds of fraud. Some health insurance companies reject a lot of applications on one pretext or other. Because it's in their interest to "demarket" to the sick and market to the healthy. That's what's happening right now, Prof. Green. The power of the insurance companies will actually increase if this bill passes, because the bill will give the insurance companies billions of taxpayer dollars, increasing their economic (and hence political) power.

The bill in the Senate is similar to legislation that passed in Massachusetts and other states in the last couple of decades. Big promises, but health care ended up unaffordable for many people. And in no state did it end up making a big dent in the ranks of the uninsured, because the health insurance was too expensive.

The bottom line: the PNHP thinks that the bad parts of the bill outweigh the good and I agree. For one thing, supporting this bill means giving up on single-payer.

[Goldy]

In re: Marberry v. Madison, I recall Ensign's analysis: "Marberry is aggressive because he has not been neutered. Put a splint on Madison's ear and keep them separated for two weeks."

After Madison switched to Science Diet, I can assure you, his constitution was amended.

[dave404]

"That's exactly what we should do," said Ensign, in support of a spending freeze in 2009. Yet he defended his earmarks requests by saying that earmarks are "often a way of buying votes, and it often makes the spending packages too big. They're just not going to buy my vote with anything."

"Among Sen. Ensign's 26 earmarks in the omnibus bill totaling $52.6 million are $807,500 for wind hazard detection equipment and $1.425 million for Nevada statewide bus facilities."

Ensign inserts multi-millions in earmarks and then votes against the over riding appropriation package (just like dick head Dean Heller)! If he'll lie about his earmarks and fucking his best friend's wife, why would the Republicans of Nevada, family value people all, keep re-electing this douche bag of an elected official?!
(TPM website:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/photofeatures/2009/03/just-say-no-yes-to-earmarks.php?img=16)

MG: Rhetorical question...are you telling us that you and your wife are not covered under PEBP and won't continue under PEBP when you retire?