This Judge Korman cat is pretty hip for a Reagan appointee. He keeps slapping Sebelius around and laughing at U.S. Attorneys. I kind of suspect that the Obama administration wants to lose the fight over Plan B contraception, but they don’t want any ownership of the over-the-counter policy. I can’t prove that but the fact that their attorneys keep getting laughed out of court could indicate more than just that their side of the argument is a loser.
Judge Korman already ruled against them on the merits, and now he has rejected their request for a stay pending appeal. The Justice Department has until Monday to convince an 2nd Circuit Appeals Court to grant their stay. The 2nd Circuit has 8 active Clinton/Obama judges and 5 active Poppy/Shrub judges.
The Obama administration wants to lose this fight? That’s one of the more creative defenses of the Obama administration’s right-wing policies that I’ve heard.
Why would they not want to “own” a pro-woman, science-based policy? Who would they alienate by following the FDA’s findings but people who hate them no matter what they do?
One of the most repugnant aspects of their appeal is that accepting some of their arguments requires one to engage in doublethink. To quote the judge’s Memorandum and Order:
The standard Obama conundrum: is Obama rejecting science and pursuing an anti-woman policy because he really wants to, or is it because conservatives are forcing him to do it?
I don’t think it’s really creative at all.
I am sure that it polls terribly. Sebelius made a political calculation that what the FDA was recommending would hand Romney a gigantic anvil with which to hammer Obama with precisely the people who would and ultimately did vote for him. Obama backed her up and possibly put her up to it in the first place.
The least politically painful thing to do is to take some heat from the left by doing what the right wants, but doing it poorly enough that the correct outcome is assured.
It’s what I would advise them to do if I was being paid to advise them, even though the policy stinks.
Assuming for the sake of the argument that Sibelius originally overruled the FDA because of a concern that pursuing a science-based policy might damage Obama in the election, that still doesn’t explain why the Obama administration appealed Korman’s ruling of last month. If the objective is to lose, why keep on fighting? The Obama administration lost last month; why bother appealing? Obama isn’t up for any more elections.
That’s obvious.
If Obama could get a court to ban the Keystone XL pipeline, don’t you think he would do it?
No
I can’t believe that you are defending Obama for doing what the Bush II and Reagan administrations did, base policy on personal prejudices (Obama said he wouldn’t want his girls to get Plan B without his knowing it) instead of science, at the expense of the underprivileged.
Obama’s position here is to the right of a Reagan-appointed judge. Those are Obama’s true colors. But evidently, that doesn’t bother you.
As for this being “immensely unpopular”:
Most women back over-the-counter birth control pill
Do you have any evidence that a majority is against making these pills available to women under a certain age?
I don’t think I’m really defending him.
On it’s face, what he is doing is exactly what you say. I believe I have already criticized him for it at least twice in recent posts.
I do think, however, that he’s been doing it for political reasons, and I think you simply don’t understand the politics of this if you think it’s all over because he won’t face election again.
And if he’s doing it for political reasons, then the chances are that he agrees with most Democrats on the issue. It’s basically like gay marriage. At first, he defended DOMA. Then, when opinion moved a bit, he stopped defending DOMA. Then when opinion moved some more and his vice president came out in support of gay marriage, Obama came out, too. And it was pretty obvious that he hadn’t really evolved at all. He had waited until it was safe to move.
In this case, it seems very unlikely that he really agrees with overruling the FDA or that he really thinks the legal arguments being made by Justice are worth a damn.
On Keystone, his base of power in the Democratic Party was always in energy producing states. Look where the endorsements came in 2008 for Obama vs. Clinton. He has to deal with Tester and Baucus and Heitkamp and Johnson and Manchin and Pryor and Landrieu. He’d face a mutiny if he disapproved Keystone. He’d gladly have the issue taken out of his hands. He’d gladly wage a losing battle against the courts on the issue. Because I’m sure Obama would vote against it he were still a senator.
I don’t think that it’s like gay marriage at all. This is about access to birth control, something that is completely noncontroversial to anyone but the Catholic church hierarchy. Both birth control and the fact that teenagers have sex have been totally mainstream ideas since at least the 1970s. And even though they’re mainstream, Obama is denying them, with his and Sebelius’s overruling of the FDA.
Gay marriage is rapidly gaining acceptance, but it is definitely not mainstream yet. Sebelius’s overruling the FDA, something which spits in the face of the rule of law, is nothing but pandering to the Christian right’s chastity for teens ideology—something that is politically completely unnecessary for a Democratic politician.
And note that this policy is completely irrational, in keeping with American right-wing “thought”. The ultimate goal is obviously to keep teenagers from having sex. How is making it more difficult for women, including teenagers, to avoid unintentional pregnancy—the effect of Sebelius’s policy—going to make it less likely that teenagers are going to have sex?
That’s interesting. You are arguing with me using the premise that over the counter emergency contraception for 11 year olds is completely uncontroversial, unlike gay marriage.
Yet, a majority of the people now support gay marriage while I am very certain that only a small minority of parents support the policy of making emergency contraception available to their middle school daughters without any consultation with them.
This issue transcends the traditional left/right divide on abortion and contraception because it involves a parent’s right to know. That’s why I am quite certain that it polls about as well as gonorrhea.
First, the entire premise here is, or ought to be, that the Obama administration was so concerned about the damage it would do if they allowed the FDA’s ruling to go through that they took extreme political action in violation of several core Democratic and progressive values in order to protect themselves.
If you were willing to admit that, we could argue about the merits. But you aren’t willing to admit it.
Once you admit it, you know that they did it to protect the country from the consequences of President Romney, not to protect parents’ right to know. And once you know that, then all it takes is to understand how the president needs to keep at a good remove from the decision-making of the Justice Department. No fingerprints. That’s why the appeal continues, because a naked show of politicization of the Justice Department is never a good thing.
I swear, 11th Dimensional Chess gets such a bad name because so many people are so literal-minded that they can’t play three-dimensional chess.
What is this “parent’s right to know”? I am unaware of any such right. Sounds totally patriarchal to me. If a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to take measures to avoid getting pregnant, without interference from the government or her parents.
No matter how young a girl/woman is, the right of a woman to have control over her body holds. A minor may not have the right to refuse necessary medical treatment, so the state can force her to have such treatment if she doesn’t want to, but since avoiding a pregnancy is much safer than a young child giving birth, the state has absolutely no right to create any impediments to a young girl’s taking measures to avoid getting pregnant.
I wasn’t inviting a health lesson.
I was rebutting your ridiculous claim that Plan B for 11 years old with no parental notification is a non-controversial idea.
And you can’t even imagine why, which is why your imagination fails on so much else, too. You have none.
As the judge wrote, 11 year olds are a red herring: such young girls make up a miniscule proportion of women who are sexually active. Requiring photo IDs for all women just so that 11 year olds can’t get the morning after pill without their parents knowing about it is just a crazy trade-off.
You applauded the judge’s action, yet you don’t seem to have tried to understand his arguments. You just can’t help defending Obama’s stupid positions, even when you’re against them.
As the judge wrote, 11 year olds are a red herring
Sure it is, but it’s a red herring that a good chunk of the public finds plausible.
BooMan is talking about the political reception of the policy, not its merits.
What is this “parent’s right to know”? I am unaware of any such right. Sounds totally patriarchal to me.
So, therefore, it must be extremely unpopular, and what possible political reason could there be for the administration to see the policy as a political hot potato?
Have you considered the possibility that your own impressions are not an accurate reflection of public opinion overall?
Progressives need to have it out over 11-dimensional chess, not as it relates to one policy issue or another, but as a topic in its own right.
Let’s start off with the observation that here we are, over four years after Obama took office, debating whether he wants x or not-x. We have two examples in this discussion — Plan B and Keystone XL. So let’s agree that whatever Obama’s position is, it’s unknown to a sizable proportion of his base — either those of us who interpret his actions literally or those of us who presume a political ploy. Let’s also agree that when his base can’t agree on a basic fact — what the President supports — that the discussion that follows will be nonconstructive, because we have no access to the information that will clarify the truth. In fact, even if the President himself stated “My position is x (or not-x)”, we couldn’t know whether that statement is a part of the 11-dimensional chess strategy.
Not knowing Obama’s position makes activism all but ineffective. It also makes us feel foolish. Are we pawns in a game we’re not sure is being played? If we oppose Obama on issue x, are we in fact agreeing with him? Is our activism on issue x unnecessary? Do we support Obama by opposing him or oppose Obama by supporting him?
Let’s also consider that there are two audiences for Obama’s actions: the public, and the politicians in Washington, and that the game of 11-dimensional chess (if it’s being played) would play one audience against the other, or at the least would negate the involvement of the public. So let’s agree that the putative game itself is anti-democratic, insofar as it makes public opinion both irrelevant and without foundation.
Let’s also ask whether in hindsight, we can see Obama’s supposed version of 11-dimensional chess played by previous Presidents. Hypocrisy and ex-post-facto rationalization don’t count. We’d have to find examples of a President throwing the game on purpose, or fighting for something he doesn’t want to succeed.
Finally, let’s ask, after considering the small number of facts that we can agree on (the tiny overlap of what would be true if the game were being played or if it weren’t), and the gains and losses of the game, whether it should be played (if it’s being playing) or even hypothesized in the first place.
Not knowing Obama’s position makes activism all but ineffective.
No, it doesn’t. What it does is underline the importance of targeting the issue, not the man.
Think back to the ads the AARP ran about Chained CPI and raising the Medicare age during the debt ceiling and fiscal cliff fights. They talked about Social Security and Medicare, not Barack Obama. “Some in Congress” was as specific as they got in defining the opposition.
Yet those ads were incredibly effective. They helped muster exactly the public opposition that was needed.
Think also about the DADT protests at the White House in 2010. They were very effective, but not at their stated purpose. They didn’t “pressure Obama,” who wasn’t the problem and didn’t need to be pressured, but they ramped up public awareness and motivation over the issue.
I think you’ve got it all wrong.
Rather than trying to figure out what the president thinks on a particular issue, you should always ask what he wants. And then you should look at whether he can get what he wants or not.
I don’t even want to call it 11 Dimensional Chess, since that has become a term of mockery and people just stop listening.
What it is, is the ability to look many steps ahead. It’s the ability to know what your opponents’ objectives are, and, if you discern them correctly, it’s easy to lay traps for them.
The Republicans are very aggressive by nature. In some ways they are entirely predictable. Strategically, it’s very easy to outmaneuver them. Where they excel is in tactics, outrage, gotchas, controversies, short-term mobilization.
With Plan B, let’s go back to the beginning when it was something the Health Department had on their plate and everyone knew it was a hot potato ready to explode in the reelection effort’s face.
The political folks want to know from all the agencies what the hot potatoes are. What is coming down the pike that the Republicans can seize on and really bleed us? For Health & Human Services, that was Plan B.
The political folks don’t really care about the science. They just don’t want anything screwing things up.
So, kick it to the president. He does agree with the science. He does care about policy. How does he take this weapon out of the Republicans’ hands?
Bring in the legal team. “If we have Sebelius overrule the FDA ruling and it gets challenged in court, what chance would we have of prevailing?” The answer comes back, “Basically, none.”
So, in the end, the policy will be right but the risk is off the table.
Now, that’s got a few layers to it, but it’s really a basic play. The logic takes you there on its own.
Keystone is different. The president can do no better than letting State make the decision for him. Let the experts make their determinations, and try to hide behind them and their expertise. In other words, he can’t use the same play he may have used on Plan B.
In reality, this decision is important enough that Obama is going to make it. But what he wants may be too costly. The issue badly divides the Democratic Party, and the president has to determine if he can afford that and what the collateral damage would be, how it could impact the midterm elections, how it could weaken him vis-a-vis Congress, and even whether he might be overridden and lose the battle.
It’s impossible to make a decision like that without playing on many levels. But it’s ultimately a yes or no and he can’t escape having his fingerprints on the outcome.
As to your discomfort with a president who does not always say what he means, the important thing is that knows what he’s doing. If in outsmarting the Republicans he also confuses a portion of his own base, that’s a small price to pay.
My whole post is about what the President wants (i.e, whether he wants x or not-x, etc)., so we agree on the question to ask.
But your argument just doesn’t make any sense to me. Today’s GOP is the most self-interested, dishonest, and sabotaging party that we’ve seen in American history since Reconstruction. They’re also blinded by their own misinformation and irrationality. They constantly take positions that are contrary to the vast majority of Americans. And your argument is that Obama has to appear to take their positions to trap them into some political corner? Honestly, if you’re correct, then Obama’s strategic approach is much less arguable than I’m giving him credit for.
And your argument is that Obama has to appear to take their positions to trap them into some political corner?
Think about the “both sides are to blame” message the media were pushing in the run-up to the debt ceiling crisis in 2011. Why, oh why, can’t Washington get together to solve our problems?
Then think about the media narrative, and the public polling apportioning blame, after that episode, and during the fiscal cliff talks.
BooMan isn’t theorizing; he’s describing history.
Your thinking is too narrow.
What the president wants in the context of the Plan B decision is the get reelected. And then he wants to get the right policy outcome, too. I mean, I presume that. Others don’t. But I presume that he was just covering his ass when he had Sebelius step in and spike the FDA decision.
You are looking at it like, “does the president really believe Plan B should be a script for underage girls?”
To me, there is nothing to indicate that other than his words.
And his words have no more passion in them than his previous words about gay marriage. I don’t buy those words. I look to see what actually happens. The administration will lose on Plan B and they’ll be able to blame the courts. Seems like just about the optimal outcome.
I’m a pro-choice woman, who is absolutely horrified at this drug being available over the counter to children.
why is it so hard for folks to believe that there are people who are NOT Bible Thumpers, that have a problem with this being available to children?
No. I don’t believe that for a second.
Sometimes, Booman, you let your admiration for Obama utterly cloud your judgement and it leads you to make pronouncements that seem to fly in the face of objective reality.
There are simply some areas where Obama is not good. Civil liberties, which you acknowledge. But he’s also not so great on the environment either: he’s been enthusiastic about offshore oil drilling, and campaigned on “clean coal” in 2008.
Sorry, the Obama administration is juts wrong IMO on Plan B. And considering he’s not up for re-electon ever again, why would he put so much effort into fighting the FDA on this?
He said why, if you remember. He wants to punish the women of this country just because he thinks sex is icky, and probably thinks his daughters should remain virgins until they’re married.
Truly sophisticated political observers know that the best way to evaluate a professional politician is to take his public pronouncements at face value.
AAAAAHHHH!.
Thank you Oui. Now I understand. This is similar to the deal the Administration made with Big Pharma on generics vs. brand name drugs in the Obamacare negotiations.
It’s not about women or morality at all: it’s about protecting some drug company’s precious profits.
One of the things I admire about the US judicial system – on the rare occasions these days that it functions properly – is that you really do get judges who decide cases on the merits of the law, rather than (as in most Supreme Court votes now) on ideological grounds. So you can have a Reagan appointee issue a blistering condemnation of an Obama administration policy that is both illegal (Congress set up the FDA trial process specifically so that science, not political or economic considerations, would guide decisions) and redolent of the sort of hostility to both science and social justice that the Tea Party champions. And at the circuit and district level there are plenty of examples of judges that rule contrary to their perceived ideological leanings, because those leanings, in the given case, aren’t supported by law.
The FDA trial process is basically broken (sold out to Big Pharma, by and large); the judicial system is basically broken, with politicized appointments and, now, even more politicized vacancies; but every now and then we get reminders like this that when the system is allowed to function as designed, it works really well.
Korman’s ruling is just brutal, and Sebelius and Obama deserve every word. Frankly, I don’t care even if the administration’s strategy makes some sort of eleven-dimensional-chess sense. It’s immoral, set a bad precedent for future immoral policies, and those are the kinds of lines you shouldn’t cross for simple political expediency.
One of the main points the judge makes is that Obama’s policy doesn’t just affect women under 17 (or 15): since limiting access to a certain age group requires women to present a photo ID, Obama’s anti-science policy keeps all women without a photo ID from getting the pill, and minority and poor women are less likely to have a photo ID (not to mention women too young to drive).
In his memo, the judge goes on at length about how Obama’s policy hurts minority women especially. So the judge sounds like a liberal, whereas the Obama administration might as well be Tea Partyers here.
Who cares if hundreds or thousands of women a year unintentionally get pregnant because they didn’t have a photo ID! Obama has to show the FDA that he is above the law! He and his minions can overrule any federal bureaucracy on anything, no matter how science-based and rational that bureaucracy’s decision making process was! The power of POTUS must be absolutely unlimited!
He’s mocking them, throwing the AG’s complaints against requiring photo id for voters right back in their faces.
I kind of suspect that Booman wants to lose the argument that Obama wants to lose the fight over Plan B contraception, but doesn’t want to appear to disagree with Obama’s position. I can’t prove that, but the fact that his reasoning keeps getting panned in his comments here could indicate more than just that his side of the argument is a loser.
Heads you win, tails you win.
Profile in Cowardice?
Ah, how subtly you defend your man Obama even when he’s flat on the wrong side of the liberal agenda (and my own, as it happens)!
I kind of suspect that the Obama administration wants to lose the fight over Plan B contraception, but they don’t want any ownership of the over-the-counter policy. I can’t prove that but the fact that their attorneys keep getting laughed out of court could indicate more than just that their side of the argument is a loser.
I got that same sense during the DOMA trial, when the administration was still defending the law’s constitutionality. The Justice Dept. lawyers threw out all of their arguments, acknowledged to the judge that the justifications for the law given by Congress when they passed the bill were unconstitutional, and argued “Pretty please let the courts stay out of this because it’s a controversial issue.” That last part was just goading them.
Yes, the self-sabotage on DOMA was inarguable, as later events made even clearer.
“Your argument must be wrong because it is favorable to the administration” is considered a logical, respectable line of thought by far too many of BooMan’s commenters.