Articles of Impeachment about to be filed against Thurbert Baker?

[UPDATE] The resolution had around 30 signatures and things were moving forward. Apparently, the sponsor agreed hold off until legislators meet with Gov. Perdue in the morning to further discuss options.

The basis of the Articles of Impeachment are that Baker has violated Article V, Section 3, Paragraph IV of the state Constitution and OCGA §45-15-35, both of which direct the Attorney General to take on matters of the state in court at the direction of the Governor.

Impeachment of a public official would take a simple majority in the House, but a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

[UPDATE – 9:34] Previous update has been edited for clarification.

Earlier in the day, you may have heard that Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat and candidate for Governor, politely told Gov. Sonny Perdue that he would not join 14 other states in challenging federal mandates in ObamaCare.

Many states are concerned over how expansion of Medicaid would impact their budgets and an individual mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance.

Frustrated by the failure to get a constitutional amendment passed in either chamber (SR 794 and HR 1086) allowing Georgians to opt-out and an attorney general not willing to pursue legal action, Legislative leaders begin looking for other options.

How far this actually goes, I don’t know, but there is a movement inside the House to suspend the rules and introduce Articles of Impeachment against Baker for failing to uphold his oath of office.


      • Mike Hauncho says:

        This is right where Baker wants to be. He is defending the Democrats and Obamacare in Georgia and because of it he has received more press in the last two days than he has his entire campaign. He is the last line of defense for Democrats in a Republican state. Roy Barnes can’t do anything about it. The General can’t do anything about it. Baker can.

      • Provocateur says:

        I thought the House appointed the constitutional officers? Or, is that just Sonny’s dream sequence in reverse?

    • Republican Lady says:

      Which part? Calling for impeachment of an elected offical? Baker for refusing a direct order from the governor? The governor asking Baker to file? The 30 signatures on a resolution? I don’t know you well enough to determine which part of the post you are referring to so please post let me know.

      Baker, in an interview on Channel 2 news tonight (3-24-10), said he declined the governor’s request because of the economic cost of such an action to this state. As a Republican, I think he may be torn between the requirements of his position and his party platform. I personally think he should file.

      • jm says:

        Thurbert Baker is a Democrat. Or by saying “As a Republican”, you were referring to yourself? It wasn’t clear. I think the fiduciary argument is probably a nice out for Baker. As a Democrat, he probably wanted the health care bill to pass, and to be able to use the conservative mantra, fiscal responsibility, it leaves him in a very pretty good situation politically.

        Impeach him for playing the political game better than you can? Is there anything on the Georgia Republican lawmakers’ agenda that is about fixing what needs to be fixed, or is it all just games? These guys are about as dumb as my cat, who still thinks she can catch my laser pointer.

    • kim000 says:

      I agree. The GOP across-the-board is going way overboard on this one. It’s like one big temper tantrum. I’m actually starting to cringe. Is the healthcare law perfect, certainly not. Is it worth all this mass hysteria, certainly not either. As someone said, the law is basically RomneyCare and DoleCare; so, at some point (pre-Obama of course) the current healthcare reform was acceptable.

      I just wish these pro-suit people were as worked up and intent on suing during Bush…may would’ve saved us an extra trillion?

      • NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

        It is very disconcerting to me that people can be okay with a federal takeover of health care with the excuse that it is RomneyCare and DoleCare. Has our education system failed us so much that we can’t see that this is not what freedom looks like?

        Until we get back to the realization that government is not the solution to our problems, it is the cause of most of them, then we are never going to do anything but become a European Socialist state.

        Every piece of legislation, from the local on up to the federal, needs to pass this test: is this a proper role of government under the system of limited government set up by our Founding Fathers? If not, I don’t care how nice and pleasant it sounds, it should fail.

        • ByteMe says:

          Oh, do, please tell us: what exactly did the government take over on Tuesday?

          I think your education failed you if you can’t see that this isn’t socialism. It’s corporatism.

          • NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

            Whenever you take from one group of people to give to another group of people, it is socialism. Whether you call it corporatism or socialism, it is wrong. I am growing extremely weary of the pushing of class warfare in this country, and that it is okay to “tax the rich” to pay for things people want.

            And for the record, my family lives on one income and is middle class, but I don’t think “the rich” should pay for my life. I believe in people being responsible for their own lives and bills, and in private charities being allowed to take care of the rest. The government is not the proper entity to take care of the poor.

            • ByteMe says:

              You realize that “class warfare” has been going on for a while and the lower class is losing, right? You think bailing out bondholders at the expense of everyone else wasn’t class warfare?

            • griftdrift says:

              “Whenever you take from one group of people to give to another group of people, it is socialism.”

              If that is the definition, shall I list the many programs that already do this?

              I think I’ll start with school vouchers.

                  • NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

                    We may not have to if our economy completely collapses and China takes over. Borrowing $0.43 of every dollar spent is completely unsustainable.

                    I know, the tentacles are everywhere, and it would be extremely painful, but things are headed towards extremely painful anyway.

        • rugby says:

          The Founding Fathers also wanted the subjugation of humans as property and non-White, land-owning males to not have any rights, so sure, let’s make sure every single piece of legislation follows their desires because there is nothing at all wrong with slavishly adhering to a nearly 250 year old view of government.

            • rugby says:

              But women not having rights is OK? As is the whole concept of not voting if you don’t own land? Do you REALLY want me to go on with the flaws in their philosophies?

                • NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

                  I’ll probably open up a can of worms here, but as a female, I recognize that a lot of the pandering to emotions and lack of logic in political rhetoric these days can likely be traced back to women getting to vote.

                  If you hate the philosophies of our Founders so much, there are plenty of countries you could move to that hold your philosophies. They are, in fact, the very countries our Founders were fleeing.

                  By the way, it does seem kind of funny to let some of our citizens who don’t pay taxes vote for people who will promise to give them more of what others have. It’s like voting themselves benefits.

        • benevolus says:

          I must have misunderstood. I thought that what they were doing was making the 15% of the population that don’t have insurance chip in for their share so that the other 85% of us don’t have to continue to carry them.

          • c_murrayiii says:

            I’m one of those 15% and no one in the other 85% has paid for a dime of my medical expenses. I paid for my eye exams and dental exams out of pocket. If I needed to see a doctored, that would come out of pocket too. And don’t start with the “what if you were in an accident” nonsense. If I went to the Emergency room, most hospitals I know of offer payment plans to folks. I would never put my health costs on others. I have VA coverage for an injury I suffered in the military and I haven’t even used that, because I can live with my pain for now and there are guys who need the attention more.

  1. Doug Deal says:

    Another reason that demonstrates why there are too many elected exectutives in the state. The AG is elected to do his job, not set state policy. The Federal system is a much more reasonable one.

  2. SavannahDem says:

    This issue has already been decided in court. See: Perdue v. Baker, 586 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. 2003).

      • SavannahDem says:

        In 2003 Perdue and Baker got crossways over a lawsuit stemming from the Barnes reapportionment maps.

        Perdue tried to direct Baker to dismiss an appeal he had taken to the SCOTUS. Baker refused, and Perdue sued. The SCOGA ruled that Baker had the authority to make such decisions, not Perdue.

        So, no matter how much Perdue or the legislature want Baker to sue, he has the power to make the decision – not them.

        • benevolus says:

          If I am not mistaken, it was just that both Perdue and the AG have independent authority to make such decisions. I suppose that means that Perdue could pursue a (why do I want to say perview?) lawsuit without Baker. Not sure what the mechanism would be.

        • Doug Deal says:


          But I think it is insane that we have a fractured exectutive. Most states do it, but whats the point of having a governor if not to set state policy on such things.

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          Here’s the OPINION, by FLETCHER, Chief Justice.

          “Governor Sonny Perdue filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Attorney General Thurbert Baker to dismiss an appeal filed on behalf of the State of Georgia in a case involving legislative reapportionment under the Voting Rights Act. The trial court denied the
          Governor’s petition, ruling that the Attorney General had exclusive authority to decide whether to continue the State’s efforts to enforce a law enacted by the General Assembly and
          signed by the Governor. The issue presented here is whether the Attorney General has the authority under state law to appeal a court decision invalidating a state redistricting statute despite the Governor’s order to dismiss the appeal. Because there is constitutional authority for the General Assembly to vest the Attorney General with specific duties and a state statute vested the Attorney General with the authority to litigate in the voting rights action, we [*2]
          hold that the Attorney General had the power to seek a final determination on the validity of the State Senate redistricting statute under the federal Voting Rights Act. ,Therefore we affirm the trial court’s ruling that the Governor had no clear legal right to order the Attorney
          General to dismiss the appeal filed on behalf of the State of Georgia in the United States Supreme Court.”

          Court decisions are usually limited in scope. You can imply that this case from 2003 sets precedent, but it may not have.

          • Steve Ellis says:

            I agree Doug. It appears that the 2003 case is clearly distinguishable from the current case. In 2003, there was a law passed by the GA and signed by the Gov that the AG was attempting to have upheld. There was then a new Gov trying to stop the appeal, that would in essence kill the law that was passed by the GA. In that case, policy had already been set by the GA and the Gov.

            In the present case, you have the Gov setting a policy for the State and asking the AG to enforce that policy. Therefore, I don’t see the 2003 case as any sort of binding precedent in this situation. Just my .02.

            • mrbeechum says:

              Read the full opinion if you get a chance. Purdue v. Baker. The language seems clear that the Gov can direct the AG to pursue litigation. He cannot STOP the AG from pursuing an action on his own. It’s a major distinction. It’s also one that Baker doesn’t seem to understand.

  3. LibertyFetish says:

    So our state legislators could not even do their job, their duty, so now want to point the finger.

  4. seenbetrdayz says:

    How many votes would be needed to impeach? If it is more than 2/3, and they could not get 2/3 to put an opt-out amendment on the ballot, they’re getting ahead of themselves.

  5. Icarus says:

    I’m not yet sure what happened there, as I’m on a phone and trying to watch the live feed. Looks like it may have been changed to a resolution and assigned. Where hopefully, it will never be heard from again, except from a very unforgiving press.

  6. benevolus says:

    It would free him up to run for Governor, and he wouldn’t even have to deal with the fallout of having resigned mid-term.

  7. John Konop says:

    This might be a major reason!

    Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

    …..Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don’t have to abide by it — just set up your own plan. ….

    — legislative language he authored which “allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate.”

    …..It’s called the “Empowering States to be Innovative” amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system — with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option — provided that, as Wyden puts it, “they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill.”

    “Why don’t you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?” the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. “Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?”

    The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden’s Healthy Americans Act …..

    • ByteMe says:

      You’re implying that the crazy panderers have actually read the bill and understand what’s in there. More votes to be had in this state by suing and lying about the bill than there is trying to set up a good health insurance system.

      • John Konop says:


        As I said before this is not bill I would have done. And I do find it somewhat ironic how the bill is basically combination of Romney care and Dole/McCain healthcare bill.

        Yet this bill really does not deal with many core issues like ant-trust exemptions in healthcare laws creating monopolies in the health care industry. How we can import poisonous food from China but cannot buy medicine to help people, from Canada at a less expensive price. This bill does nothing to fix Medicare which is about to explode in out of control debt…….

        Yet the current hateful rhetoric from the GOP could have been replaced with real solutions. The country is lacking in real adult conversation about tough issues we must all face.

        I have friends on both sides of this issue. My GOP friends get upset when I remind them that Medicare is a unfunded liability not a program you paid for. And I have friends on the DEM side that want coverage for all without facing the cost.

        Finally, the irony is how the party for personal responsibility would be against mandatory pay healthcare system.

        • ByteMe says:

          2013, they finally raise the payroll tax for Medicare. They will have a board looking to find ways to cut Medicare costs and a mechanism for the board’s recommendations to be voted on by Congress without changes. They’ve extended the glide path another 7 years or so. More will have to happen.

          I’m not going to be voted “Dictator for Life” any time soon either and this isn’t the reform I wanted (I wanted the bill to be called “The End of Health-Related Bankruptcies Bill”), but it’s a step forward and more than any other Congress has done in… decades? Many more steps to go, just not this year.

        • Simon Jester says:

          How is that ironic? Romney & McCain aren’t that far away from the rest of the Liberals…

          • ByteMe says:

            Or you could conclude that the Democrats appropriated conservative ideas back when conservative politicians weren’t dabbling in the crazy.

    • Bill Greene says:

      “You don’t have to abide by it — just set up your own plan.”

      And this is better… how? “Hey, you don’t have to abide by the unconstitutional healthcare plan we just passed… as long as you make sure that your State steps way outside the boundaries of the role of government and takes over healthcare THERE, we all can be happy.” (“All” being defined as “fascists” of course.) Statists never cease to amaze in their audacity…

      • benevolus says:

        The boundaries of state government are quite different from that of the federal government. At least I’m told that’s what The Founders thought.

  8. Dan Deacon says:

    Impeachment would be too nice for this lazy attorney general. He used cost as a basis for not filing the suit. Did he mistaken what the Government was telling him? The Governor wasn’t telling him he wanted to hire anyone, he wanted Thurmond to do the litigation (we’re already paying Thurmond a salary anyway)…there lies the laziness. Thurmond doesn’t want to work and obviously is using this as a crutch. Additionally, he is “brothering” with Obama on the healthcare issue and not representing the majority of citizens in the great state.

    Give him the option to do as he’s told and instructed (politely asked by the Governor) or advise him he will be impeached for being insubordinate and failing to uphold his duties as attorney general as outlined in the state constitution.

    • AubieTurtle says:

      > Impeachment would be too nice for this lazy attorney general.

      Hmmm… so what do you recommend as the appropriate punishment? If it was up to you, what would be done to him?

    • Gerald says:

      So, Baker is lazy.
      And he is “brothering” Obama.

      Keep the racial code words coming. Tea Party adherent perhaps?

      And maybe Baker is lazy. After all, he didn’t sue Perdue, Richardson, and a bunch of other state GOP leaders for corruption. And he also didn’t do the same with the GOP in Washington who was being marched off to the slammer or resigning after scandals like every other week.

      Or maybe Baker is lazy because he didn’t sue to opt out of Bush’s No Child Left Behind. Or didn’t sue to opt out of Bush’s own expansion of MediCare, the prescription drug benefit that set the stage for ObamaCare to begin with. Or didn’t sue in order to keep our National Guardsmen out of that Iraq fiasco. Or he didn’t sue in order to block all of that corporate welfare and no-bid contracts that Bush spent eight years handing out to his cronies. And he didn’t sue to recover from the federal government expenses to recover our taking in all those Hurricane Katrina refugees because A) the GOP didn’t approve funding to fix the levees and B) because “Brownie” was running FEMA.

      Guess you are right. Baker is lazy.

  9. fishtail says:

    Smart politics for Thurbert Baker. A way to work himself back into the hearts of his brethern after the Genarlow Wilson mess.

    • drjay says:

      no no no, this impeachment thing is kinda silly, the renaming freedom fries was brilliant, what are you some kind of frenchy…

  10. Dan Deacon says:

    I called him Thurmond….well actually Thurbert is his correct name. Of course, I’ve could think of a few other ones for him but we won’t go there.

    AubieTurtle…you asked what would be my appropriate punishment for Thurbert, other than impeachment? Here’s my answer:

    1 – Require him to write 100 times, “I apologize to the majority of the citizens of Georgia for my ignorance and self centeredness.

    2- Require him to apologize publicly to the commander in chief of our great state, Governor Sonny Perdue, so that every person in our state would have the opportunity to see and hear the apology.

    3- Because of being insubordinate, I’d strip him of his retirement. This way the citizens can later determine just how Thurbert will pay his premiums for this required government run insurance or be locked up and fined by the IRS who is assigned responsibility to police the program. Now the shoe is showing up on the other foot and the program becomes much more understandable to Thurbert.
    (but it’s too late and he’s subject to jail and fines)

    4- Ultimately within minutes later…..I’d fire him.

    Does that answer your question?

    • AubieTurtle says:

      That was much more interesting than I expected. Thank you for taking the time to let your views known. Everyone should hear loud and clear what you, Sarah and your allies think on this issue. It is important that such views are heard by everyone with the right to vote.

  11. ByteMe says:

    Kim000’s right: this is really one giant temper tantrum on the part of the GOP.

    What’s the advantage to joining the suit: we get to pay for it and maybe Perdue gets his name in the media and interview requests.

    What’s the advantage to staying out: we get the same outcome as the rest of the states who filed suit. The Supreme Court decision will apply to Georgia even if Georgia isn’t a party to the suit.

    What’s the advantage to impeachment: ensures Roy is the (D) nominee without a real fight and makes independents wonder why the legislature didn’t focus on ethics, transportation, water, …

    Anyone who votes for those who are moving to impeach should get branded on the forehead with “I’m Stupid”.

  12. Dan Deacon says:

    Byteme…you asked what the advantage is to standing out and letting other states fight for our freedoms. That speaks volumes for itself. It shows the ignorance of those that feel this way.

    It’s important that we as True American Citizens stand up for what’s right and fight to protect our freedoms that our honorable forefathers fought and died for. To sit idle by the sidelines is to be a coward and impotent. It’s the very thing that people want from government run programs…..a free ride while others work hard to earn their money and way of living. Perhaps those that sit idle and afraid to fight for our freedoms should be branded on the forehead “Ignorant Coward”.

    • ByteMe says:

      They are soooo not “fighting for our freedoms”. Puh-leaze. Four of the AGs filing are running for governor in this election cycle. This is not about “freedom”, this is about GOP vs. Democratic politics. This is about the GOP trying to repudiate their losses in the last election. This is soooo not about freedom in any meaningful sense of the term.

    • Gerald says:

      See my comment above. How come no one wanted Georgia to fight for its freedoms when George W. Bush was expanding government? NCLB and prescription drugs and campaign finance reform anyone?

      • NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

        I wanted them to fight against NCLB and prescription drugs, et al. None of those things pass the “proper role of government” test.

        • Gerald says:

          Well, you have principles, but it appears that 95% of the GOP and the other “conservatives” out there don’t. They only oppose big government and corruption when the left does it. Of course, Democrats and the left are equally good (bad) at being hypocritical.

  13. Chris says:

    Perhaps this goes to show why the GOP was stupid to nominate an AG in 2006 who thought one of the top priorities of the job was to pull down the truck-stop-nudie-bar billboards from I75.

  14. rugby says:

    PLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASE let this get legs. The crazy is so entertaining to watch.

    And am I the only one who actually thinks this would be good politics in Georgia?

  15. btpull says:

    The goal of the GOP should be not to do anything stupid while Health Care Reform implodes on the Democrats. Verizon, who insures 900,000 employees and retirees, told their employees yesterday their cost will increase as a result of the legislation. This should be an oh _ _ _ _ moment for the Democrats.

    • polisavvy says:

      I heard that yesterday too, bypull. I have a feeling that more companies will be sharing what this will do to their employees in the future. It is almost like no one thought about the impact that this would ultimately have on businesses/corporations.

        • Bill Greene says:

          The Chamber stopped representing the majority of business interests long ago. They are now a power-hungry echo chamber, more than happy to go along with any fascist agenda that keeps them in power and in the money personally.

          • rugby says:


            You really want me to dig up quotes from huge MNC Presidents and other business leaders saying comprehensive healthcare in America will be a good thing then?

            • Bill Greene says:

              rugby, you should know as well as anyone that MNCs don’t represent the majority of business interests in America. In fact, the estimated 29.6 million small businesses in the United States employ just over half of the country’s private sector workforce, and represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

              You really want me to dig up quotes from huge MNC Presidents and other business leaders in Germany who said that fascism in Germany would be a good thing then?

              • ByteMe says:

                I’ll take you up on that offer. Just my own weird curiosity to see if you can find any, since there weren’t that many MNC’s back then.

                • Bill Greene says:

                  Probably the biggest one was I.G. Farben, the makers of Zyklon-B, used to kill Jews in gas chambers (and later, in its re-organized incarnation as Hoechst, the makers of RU-486, used to kill babies in the womb). Farben had been a working partner with German governments in the past, especially in its supply of chemicals to the German army, which was put to use in the rudimentary forms of chemical warfare employed in World War I. Farben’s owners had been active in electoral politics and the support of various political parties in Germany, as well. Ties with the leadership were therefore strong, with deep roots. They welcomed a continuation of the traditional mutual assistance which existed between the German government and the German industrial giants.

                  I’m not going to do all of the work for you, BM, so for reference, see Peter Hayes, Industry and Ideology: IG Farben in the Nazi Era (New York: Cambridge, 1987).

              • rugby says:

                I’m sorry I missed this but I’m pretty sure Godwin’s Law also applies to the fascists.

                Never mind you missed the entire point of my comment.

    • Chris says:

      I can’t recall who said it, but the time frame was 2006.

      “Sometimes the best thing you can do is stand back and let the other guy screw up”

    • ByteMe says:

      So is Verizon implying that without this legislation, their health care costs would decrease? Is that a credible position?

        • ByteMe says:

          Nope. As I wrote earlier, I do expect policy prices to go up a little faster than usual in the first 3 years and then slow in subsequent years, just because of the way certain features of the legislation are being phased in.

          But making a blanket statement about rates going up with no context and then touting that statement as being the reason HCR is terrible is just … blah. Everyone heard about rates going up by nearly 40% in California for one insurer… before HCR passed. If HCR is worse than that, then I’m manning the ramparts as well.

          • polisavvy says:

            Thanks for your information. I agree with you about just yammering about increases — I want dollar figures. That’s the only way to know if things could be as bad as some of us think it could be (sorry, I am still quite skeptical — still reading the dang thing). I also agree, a 40% increase for us would mean that we would not have insurance. Save me a spot next to you at the ramparts and I’ll help. 🙂

            • polisavvy says:

              I think you’re right about the $2500 figure and something relative to health care, Mayo; but, I can’t remember the exact language. Just remember that campaign promises are made to be broken. There has already been quite a few that have.

            • polisavvy says:

              I believe there was something regarding a $2500 figure and health care, I just can’t remember the exact language, Mayo. Just remember that campaign promises are made to be broken — there already has been a few, hasn’t there?

            • polisavvy says:

              Sorry about the sort of double post. I have absolutely no idea what happened to the first, so I submitted a second. Sorry for the redundancy.

            • ByteMe says:

              Instead of spin, here’s a pretty cut-and-dried view of the $2500 promise from nearly 2 years ago:


              On the other hand, my insurance premiums went up 10% THIS YEAR, before any HCR was enacted and Mrs. ByteMe is unable to purchase a reasonable insurance policy because of “pre-existing conditions” from 13 years ago. Somehow people think what’s coming is worse. I have trouble imagining how.

              • polisavvy says:

                Thanks for the link. Sorry to hear about Mrs. Byte! Our insurance jumped 11.2% last year. Sucked because it was already high enough — it’s now $1500 a month. I don’t really know what to expect. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see, huh?

                • ByteMe says:

                  Luckily, I can employ her, so she doesn’t need to go into the marketplace to get her own policy (we have a company health plan for our two-person company and those plans ignore pre-existing conditions). But that only lasts as long as I stay in business. 3 1/2 more years until she can get her own individual policy….

                  I think a lot of folks need to take a deep breath and spend time reading the bill instead of reading the crazy interpretations of the bill.

  16. Mayonnaise says:

    We always over-play our hand. Human Resource directors will be getting the cost/bid numbers back for 2011 enrollment sometime in September/October …. sticker shock will hit in time for Nov elections … patience my fellow manic republicans … patience …. 🙂

    • ByteMe says:

      The problem is that — once again — they got into bed with the angry paranoid mob and now are finding it hard to control it or to separate themselves from it. Bill Buckley understood what it would do to the modern conservative movement to get into bed with the Birchers and he rightly repudiated them. The current crowd is illiterate about their own history and it’s going to cost them their political clout for another generation.

      • polisavvy says:

        Buckley was a very intelligent man, that’s for sure. I wonder why anyone bought into the “Birchers” to begin with? Any ideas?

        • ByteMe says:

          There are always going to be people who are — for whatever reason — going to be paranoid and try to blame all their troubles on “the others” and there will always be people who will work to get those people agitated so that they can separate them from their money.

          You can make great money preying on the fears of the paranoid; just ask talk radio people about that. And it afflicts both ends of the political spectrum, but seems to be more concentrated (and successful) on the right for whatever reason.

          The Tea Parties were started and organized by a lobbying group, but few thought to ask before they joined who was funding them and why they were being funded by those particular corporations (you think advertising and holding a “Tea Party” is free?).

          • polisavvy says:

            This all reminds of the Stealers Wheel’s song, “Stuck in the Middle with You.”

            Trying to make some sense of it all,
            But I can see that it makes no sense at all,
            . . . .
            Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
            Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

          • Bill Greene says:

            Ummmm… I took part in the first Tea Party, on 12/16/07. It was most certainly NOT organized by any lobbying group; it was organized by grassroots conservatives looking to take back their country from the corporatists, statists and fascists who had stolen it over the last few decades. And they were right to do so.

            Later Tea Parties, launched after Rick Santelli’s “rant heard ’round the world,” sprung up just as much from the grassroots. Did groups and organizations get involved and help fund and promote their activities. Sure. Nothing wrong with that at all.

          • Chris says:

            “There are always going to be people who are — for whatever reason — going to be paranoid and try to blame all their troubles on “the others””

            See: Jackson, Jessie and Sharpton, Al

            • ByteMe says:

              I did point out that it was on both ends of the spectrum. On the other hand, let me know when either of your two examples hits 10 million listeners a day.

  17. modelships says:

    I have a neat book which contains the Declaration of Independence and our beloved Constitution. It’s 46 pages long and fits quite well in my shirt pocket.
    I have studied this book from cover to cover and am unable to find anywhere in the Constitution where this government has the legitimate right, either expressed, implied or inferred, to force any of it’s citizens to buy anything they don’t want. Amendment X, addresses this point quite clearly, in 28 words.
    This illegal and moreso unconstitutional charade this so-called government perpetrated on we, the people last Sunday, has truly crossed the line of legitimacy and all the extraneous blah, blah we now hear, is just that…. blah, blah, if it doesn’t scream out the basic fact that the illegal “bill” signed into “illegal law” was, in 3 words: UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
    I’m not a regular commentor here but after reading the previous 55 or so comments regarding the plan to impeach the Attorney General for dereliction of duties, I don’t recall anyone citing this basic FACT of the matter……….

    • GOPGeorgia says:

      Let me understand this. Do most Georgians want their state government to do everything it can to protect them from an overreach of the federal government? My guess is yes, at least on this one issue.

      If congress won’t follow the will of the people, should we complain when our legislature and Governor want to protect us from a 1 billion dollar unfunded mandate?

      I also agree it’s unconstitutional, and I don’t think it’s the most stupid political move ever. We’ve lots more stupid moves from campaigns this year and last year.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      No one cites it because the left in particular doesn’t like bringing up the Constitution, its no conducive to their goals. The Constitution is an obstacle to power, as written by the Founders. Too often politicians of both stripes seek ways around this obstacle.

    • benevolus says:

      The thing is, I’m already buying health care for those who show up at an emergency room with no insurance, so unless you are going to repeal the Hippocratic Oath and let disease run rampant, we need to pay for the health care we are already providing. You can prefer a different mechanism if you want, but we still have to do it.

  18. Scott65 says:

    From Jay Bookmans column: (The amendment was sponsored by state Sen. Judson Hill, who three years earlier had introduced legislation that would have — wait for it — forced Georgians to buy health insurance, even giving state officials the power to garnish wages of those who refused. At the time, Hill attributed the legislation to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is now one of the sternest critics of “Obamacare”. In other words, mandated health insurance was a good idea until it became part of the Democratic health-reform bill, at which point it became unconstitutional and the most dire threat to American liberty since General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.)
    These Republican legislators have lost their mind. Pure politics without regard for the welfare of the citizens of Georgia. INSANE…these guys are INSANE. No transportation bill, no budget talks…just RED HERRINGS! They all need to go if you ask me

    • Steve Ellis says:

      There is as difference between the Federal Government mandating health insurance and the State doing it. Although I wouldn’t agree with either, it is clear that the Federal Government has no authority to do so.

      The arguments against mandatory health insurance by the Feds are:
      1) It is not a legitimate function of civil government; and
      2) Even if it is a legitimate function of civil government, it is not a function delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution.

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          McCulloch v. Maryland said that state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

          The key words are “valid constitutional exercises of power.” That’s part of what is in question.

          • kyleinatl says:

            How would an individual mandate differ from the already forced participation in Social Security/Medicare?
            I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m just curious…we already have forced participation into a federal government program that provides healthcare, and that’s never been ruled as an invalid exercise of power.

              • ByteMe says:

                Yes, it has. The Social Security Act was upheld by a 1937 decision (7-2 in favor) that favored Hamilton’s view of the government’s abilities over Madison’s.

                So much for “what would the founding fathers think”, eh?

                • kyleinatl says:

                  Correct and from that decision came the conclusion of healthcare as commerce if I remember correctly…which the Federal Government regulates.

                  • c_murrayiii says:

                    Social Security and Medicare are paid directly to the Government and administered by the government (see how well thats worked). The individual mandate in the current bill dictates payment to a private entity or the paying of a fine (fines are criminal punishments for failing to abide by the law). So there is a considerably difference, though I do not expect you libs to admit such.

                    • c_murrayiii says:

                      Health care is commerce, as is health insurance. However, choosing not to purchase either health care or insurance is the absence of commerce, wouldn’t you agree? So now the government can regulate interstate commerce and non-commerce according to the argument presented by the Dems.

                • DTK says:


                  I’m not sure if I would read Hamilton’s admittedly robust view of the federal government’s powers to include the creation of a nationwide, mandatory social insurance scheme. Just because he envisioned the national government to have more power than Jefferson did, doesn’t mean he would’ve approved of Roosevelt’s Social Security plan.

                  Also, it should be noted that Thomas Paine (who I would consider a “founding father”) proposed a social insurance plan as early as 1795. Of course, it was ignored, and I would argue this is at least some evidence the founding generation disapproved of such programs.

                  I’ve found that many left-of-center people think, at least implicitly, that the founders didn’t enact sweeping social welfare laws because they were just unaware of such ideas. This isn’t true, as the Paine example shows. There were plenty of all-encompassing, totalitarian ideas during the founder’s time (just consider the French Revolution). They just viewed such ideas as despotic and unworthy of support, rather than as “progressive” and the wave of the future.

                  • ByteMe says:

                    What can I tell you, that’s the way the justices called it (in their recorded decision), not me. I wouldn’t know Hamilton if I fell over him. Or Madison, for that matter. I heard they’re dead, though.

                    • Bill Greene says:

                      The justices supported slavery (Dred Scott) and segregation (Plessey v. Ferguson). You must be a racist. (Hey, is THAT what you guys feel like every time you say that? Cool.)

                      Justices in recorded decisions can be wrong, which is why I prefer the plain language of the Constitution to the opinion of members of what is supposed to be the weakest branch of government. Just sayin’.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Justices in recorded decisions can also be right on the mark. You just hate it when you’re on the wrong side of history being made.

                    • Bill Greene says:

                      “Ho Ho Ho” is only spoken by a WHITE man – you ARE a racist! The proof is in the pudding!

                      Oh wait… most pudding is chocolate… oh no, now I’M a racist!

                      Hold on… Jell-O makes vanilla pudding too… so THEY’RE racists!


                    • Bill Greene says:

                      Keep on tokin’, brutha, keep on tokin’. We’re all here to help you when you’re ready. You’ll get by with a little help from your friends.

                    • DTK says:


                      Really? You have no interest in Madison, Hamilton, et al.? Surely your feigning ignorance here, right?

                      Because if you’re not, that’s a hell of an admission.

                      How can anyone try to seriously debate political issues without being at least interested in what the founders of the country had to say? I can understand the viewpoint of not wanting to be beholden to their views in modern times, but shouldn’t you at least be well-versed in their thoughts just so you knock down their reasoning from their modern-day adherants?

                      Dewey, Croly, and James are dead too, as well as their political proteges Wilson and Roosevelt. But that doesn’t stop you from singing from their choir book. Or did you think “pragmatism” and “progressivisim” were invented when you were born?

                    • ByteMe says:

                      DTK: relax. I write a lot of jokes around here. Often they work, sometimes not so much. For you, this was a “not so much” moment.

            • DTK says:

              The individual mandate is distinguishable from Social Security and Medicare, because the former requires you to purchase a product from a private business while the latter requires you to contribute financially to a government program.

              Futhermore, no one is forced to actually draw on their Social Security or to enroll in Medicare, if they do not wish. Of course, virtually no one forgoes these programs once they are eligible, but you have the option to not use them. With the individual mandate, you must purchase health insurance from a private insurer or face a fine.

              If the federal government can constitutionally force you to purchase health insurance from Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Georgia, then why can’t it force you to purchase, say, a car from Ford?

              As a thought experiment, assume the government did force all Americans to purchase a personal vehicle every year, or else face a fine. Would this be constitutional? If not, why?

              • kyleinatl says:

                But the individual mandate isn’t company specific, you can pick whatever plan you want…and if your state has opened cross-state sales (Georgia is trying to do so) I assume you would then be given a wider-variety of plans to purchase. BCBS isn’t the only provider here in the state.

                • DTK says:


                  You misunderstand my point. I used BCBS and Ford as examples of private companies who would benefit under such schemes, not as the specific, intended beneficiaries of legislation. I’m sorry if I was unclear in the third paragraph.

                  My final paragraph makes it clear, however, that I’m talking about a general mandate to buy products from private producers.

                  My questions still stands: Is it constitutional for the federal government to require all U.S. citizens to buy a personal vehicle (or any other product for that matter)? If not, why?

                  • kyleinatl says:

                    Fair enough, I get your point…much like a friend of mine pointed out an analogy to me last night about forcing every American to play golf…I get it. The difference is, having healthcare coverage can be a life-saver…an automobile is a convenience.

                    As a side-note (and I apologize for changing courses in the coversation) conservatives cannot have both sides of this argument. I’m so tired of hearing both, the insurance industry is going to go down in the tubes!! and Insurance companies are going to benefit! It’s one or the other. Sorry, rant over.

                    • DTK says:


                      Constitutionally, it shouldn’t matter whether a product is a “life-saver” or not. Congress either has the power to mandate every American purchase or product from a private business or it doesn’t.

                      As for your policy reasoning, I’m not so sure mandating health insurance coverage can be labeled “life-saving.” Congress only mandated everybody get have health insurance; they didn’t abolish the laws of supply and demand.

                      Just mandating that everyone have health insurance doesn’t guarantee immediate access to a physician. If it did, our Canadian and European friends wouldn’t have to wait so long for access to their doctors.

                      The fact is, we’re going to bring more than 30 million people into a system that was already straining under the pressures of excess demand. There will not be enough doctors to absorb the extra patients, and we will all have to wait to see our physicians.

                      Health care is going to be rationed under whatever regime we choose to use. In countries that socialize the cost of medicine, rationing takes the form of waiting lists. In countries that leave it to individuals to pay for their own health care, rationing takes the form of high prices.

                      You can’t escape scarcity. We’ve seen it under our old way of financing health care and we will see under our new payment regime. That’s just the way it is.

                    • benevolus says:

                      Section 1331 says that states can opt out and create their own systems if they prefer.

                      Those 30 million are already getting some health care. We just talking about getting them insurance.

                • Steve Ellis says:

                  Ok, so would it be ok for the Federal Government to require you to buy any new car, as long as it is approved by the government of course?

                    • c_murrayiii says:

                      That’s true ByteMe, and they have that power because GM/Ford, etc sell those cars across state line (interstate commerce). To use your example in the current health insurance scenario, it would be like the government requiring you to build a car you otherwise didn’t intend to build, so they could regulate what goes in it. Or, more absurdly, to make you put air bags in a car you aren’t gonna build.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Oh, I get the underlying point. Was just pointing out that government could indeed spec what’s in your car.

                      The state of CA also has a tougher set of restrictions on car manufacturers than the US does.

                      But back to HCR, the mandate isn’t a Federal one on the individuals. It’s a Federal one on the states with a large carrot/stick approach. Either participate or lose LOTS of money. Even the lawsuit acknowledges that.

  19. GOPGeorgia says:

    I have just called Thurbert Baker’s office and been told that they have not heard that (rumor) so it may or may not be true.

  20. GOPGeorgia says:

    I was called and told that Baker had resigned. It’s now in the real unconfirmed rumor category. That state GOP has not been notified and I don’t have the Gov’s cell phone. We’ll see if it’s true soon enough. My source is someone I would consider reliable. If this rumor is false, then I won’t rely on that person as much anymore.

    • RuralDem says:

      “If this rumor is false, then I won’t rely on that person as much anymore.”

      Well, that’s great, but if it turns out to be false, will you post a retraction, or will you simply not click on this post again?

      I think it’s unfortunate that someone in your position would toss around rumors and then hide behind the phrase “well if it’s not true I won’t rely on this person anymore”.

      If the parties were different, would you be so quick to post? I doubt it.

      • GOPGeorgia says:

        I was specific that it was not confirmed. There’s no need for a retraction. Rumor spreading is fair game on here, at least as long as it is disclosed as such. I think I have disclosed it as such. I have been told by one person who has their ear to the ground. I thought some of you would be happy to have news as fast as it maybe coming out.

        • rugby says:

          There is a rumor GOPGeorgia is an idiot.

          Got it from one person who has their ear to the ground. If this turns out to be false I won’t rely on this person anymore.

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            I’ve read the Dem party rules. I can’t see in there when you don’t have an arguement to make, you call (in this case, imply) the other person names? It seems to be SOP. Can you please point that out for us?

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                Seriously, You didn’t have anything to say other than to say you heard that I am an idiot. That is a play called time and time again by the dem party. If you can’t argue facts, call someone names. You are guilty of that type of action.

                Hearing a rumor and reporting as a rumor is done on here all the time. Stating that I heard someone resigned is a fair rumor. Saying I heard he had a goat is petty. I am saying your contribution to this dialog is petty.

                • rugby says:

                  Yes it is I am under no pretense that it is anything other than petty. And despite how petty it is, you still didn’t see why it isn’t OK just to start spreading rumors.

                  • GOPGeorgia says:


                    I’ve broken news on here in the past week by being the first to post that the special election in the Ninth was moved to May 11. If you are going to be consistent, I want to see you barking at anyone one here starting a rumor, including yourself. At least you admit you were being petty. I’ll give you a little credit for that. When you are spreading rumors, I will point it out to you. (I’ll bet you’ll do that inside of a week.)

                    I really thought he had resigned, but I had made it clear I didn’t have confirmation. If I had not made that clear, your righteous indignation might be more appropriate.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      Rugby = insult instead of intellect. If you have nothing of potential value to add, why do you post? Were you picked on in the fifth grade and this is your chance to get even with the world?

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          My source was told that since the governor was appointing another attorney, they assumed Baker was out.

  21. John Konop says:

    It is Obamacare or GOPcare?

    The GOP’s Dirty Health-Care Secret

    Republicans are screaming that Obamacare’s mandates are a “stunning assault on liberty,” as one put it. That’s ironic, since Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, and Bill Frist all embraced the idea.

    The new mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance is “the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember,” said South Carolina Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster. He is among more than a dozen state attorneys general who have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare the mandate unconstitutional because it is “an unprecedented encroachment” on the rights of both individuals and the states by the federal government. The political scrum that’s erupted over the mandate plan is deeply ironic—given that the idea has been warmly embraced by elements of the right since at least the early 1970s.

    Far from the “stunning assault on liberty” decried by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the individual mandate is partially traceable to conservative embrace of an anti-Medicare, pro-free-market health-reform agenda. President Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget Director Caspar Weinberger believed that providing insurance to all Americans was a worthy goal, for instance. At the same time, he opposed reforms that would expand a government-run health-care system. So, as Daily Beast contributor Adam Clymer recounts in his fine biography of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Weinberger proposed a “solution” that would put the burden on employers “by requiring them to insure their workers.” This was an “employer mandate,” and it appealed to Weinberger among others because it ensured that health care in America would remain in the hands of the private sector, not fall under control of Washington.

    • Bill Greene says:

      Thank you for posting this, JK. I wouldn’t mind the complete about-face of our so-called “leaders” in the GOP if they would just preface everything they’re saying with, “I once thought that this kind of fascist activity was acceptable and even desirable, but I was dead wrong.” As I’ve often said, I wish we could govern from the minority (like the Dems do when they’re out of power), because that’s when the GOP finds its limited-government spine again.

  22. Gerald says:

    Only NorthGaGirl took me up before, but I will try for the third time. The reason why none of this is going to gain any political traction with people who aren’t already partisan Republicans is the same why the Tea Party movement never spread beyond the echo chamber: we didn’t hear from ANY of you opponents of big government when George W. Bush enacted NCLB, campaign finance reform, and prescription drugs. Not one Republican attorney general sued Bush over prescription drugs – which was a precursor and a model for ObamaCare, along with RomneyCare in Massachusetts incidentally – and states didn’t opt out of NCLB either, or if they did it took years. There was virtually no resistance right away.

    People aren’t going to take conservatives seriously if they only fight when the other guy is in office.

    • Bill Greene says:

      Which is exactly why the GOP was voted out of power – our “leaders” wouldn’t stand up for what was RIGHT, and the people saw that and rejected them. I only hope that when the Dems are swept out of power in the next 2-4 years, the GOP remembers why they lost before. But I ain’t holding my breath.

      • Gerald says:

        Wrong. That was just GOP face-saving spin. It wasn’t the GOP who voted the GOP out of power. The GOP still supported their candidates in 2006 and 2008. There were just (slightly) smaller numbers of them. Instead, it was the DEMOCRATS and INDEPENDENTS who voted GOP in 2000, 2002 and 2004 who voted the GOP out of power. They didn’t vote the GOP out of power because the GOP betrayed small government principles, because Democrats and independents aren’t small government types. They voted the GOP out in 2006 because of the Katrina and Iraq fiascos, and in 2008 because of the economy.

        As for the GOP … the small government fiscally conservative Republicans stuck with their ticket in 2006 and 2008 like they always do. Everyone knows it, and that’s why everyone knows that the GOP only gets angry when the Democrats grow government and spending, not when the GOP does it.

  23. Bill Greene says:

    I don’t get it. An elected Executive official very obviously violated the State constitution; some elected Representatives of the State want to impeach him for doing so; and conservatives want to condemn that? What are you trying to “conserve,” the GOP majority? What good is that if the GOP doesn’t respect and follow the State (or U.S.) constitution? Then they’re no better than Democrats.

    Ah, Peach Pundit. Pragmatism and partisanship triumph over principle again.

      • ByteMe says:

        By not doing what Bill wants him to do. There’s a constitutional amendment about that, dontcha know?

      • Bill Greene says:

        It was already stated in the update at the top of the page, John: “Baker has violated Article V, Section 3, Paragraph IV of the state Constitution and OCGA §45-15-35, both of which direct the Attorney General to take on matters of the state in court at the direction of the Governor.”

        • John Konop says:


          How can Baker file a lawsuit with no grounds? The bill is optional for a state. As I said I have issues with bill but that does not mean I can file a lawsuit.

          The Governor could file a lawsuit against himself if he implements the plan.

          • Bill Greene says:

            While I would love to see that (can we make it a class action lawsuit?), we were discussing the grounds for impeachment, not the grounds for a lawsuit. Or, at least, I thought we were.

            • John Konop says:

              How can you impeach him for not filing a lawsuit with no grounds? What is more bizarre is Sonny has to actually agree to opt into the plan. So the AG would have to file it against Sonny who is requesting the lawsuit.

              Help me understand how any rational person would vote for this?

              • Bill Greene says:

                Well, John, if Article V, Section 3, Paragraph IV of the state Constitution and OCGA §45-15-35 both direct the Attorney General to take on matters of the state in court at the direction of the Governor, then it matters very little whether the lawsuit has no grounds (in your opinion), or whether the Governor has done any other thing that’s bizarre (which is not surprising). If the Governor directs the AG to file a certain lawsuit, then to not do so is a violation of the State Constitution and State law.

                A rational person could vote for this if he examined the issue rationally, and not in the context of political gamesmanship.

                • benevolus says:

                  Doesn’t say much for the legislators who would pick this issue, and take the side of a crazy governor who makes no sense over the AG who is doing the responsible thing.

                  The legislators have two choices: Go to the Governor and tell him he will essentially be suing himself, or impeach the AG for giving good advice.

    • Gerald says:

      An executive obviously violated the Constitution? You are right … Bush authorized the invasion of Iraq without a formal declaration of war or in response to an imminent emergency pending a declaration of war that the Constitution requires. So based on that he should have been impeached. Oh, wait … you aren’t talking about Bush.

      So … was the executive who obviously violated the Constitution Perdue on any number of issues? Well, no … I guess you weren’t talking about him either.

      So … why was it that you wanted to impeach Baker again? Oh I get it, another case of selective outrage. My side can do it but the other side can’t. Right.

      And by the way … the Constitution wasn’t “clearly” violated. The attorney general has the right to decline the governor’s request to file a lawsuit. That’s why when Perdue was specifically, directly asked about the issue, he demurred. The people who claim that Baker violated the Constitution are selling you a bill of goods.

      Baker is a lot of things, but he isn’t stupid. He knows that if he is caught violating the law over this, his political career is over. It would have been easier for Baker, the path of least resistance, to join the lawsuit that EVERYONE KNOWS is going to fail anyway. I repeat: this lawsuit is going to fail. It has absolutely no shot at succeeding. The Democrats’ wouldn’t have wasted all this political capital on something this massive only to have the Supreme Court throw it out. You guys aren’t dealing with some small town city councilman’s ordinance here. The people who wrote this bill know the law, and they know the Supreme Court’s precedents and tendencies.

      So rather than ruin his career by violating the state constitution, Baker could have gone along, stated that he was bound by the constitution to do what the governor says, and then apply absolutely no effort to pursuing a lawsuit that he knows has no chance of succeeding whatsoever.

      And get this: the GOPers (including Perdue) know that this lawsuit has no chance. It is just political grandstanding to try to win Congress back in November.

  24. John Konop says:


    You would want to impeach an AG for telling the Governor he has no ground for a lawsuit? That sounds like fascism? Also you understand he cannot sue until Sonny decides to opt into the program and decides what parts he is using?

    • B Balz says:

      Thanks John, you are correct.

      Only in WDC can two political opposites agree on a how to correct a few healthcare injustices, i.e. recessions, lifetime policy caps, and PERHAPS elimination of pre-existing conditions, only to come up with this Bill.

      Many, many people will benefit from provisions in the CLASS Act, and other good stuff in this Bill. Yet, it is a huge entitlement that will cost States a fortune, and another huge government program. The GOP will lose mightily in November will this feckless attempt to sue the Feds.

      The same type of lawsuits proved fruitless after Medicare and Social Security were enacted.

  25. SASSYRED says:

    You all need to listen to yourselves!!! Baker is using the same tactics the Federal Government did to get this bill through……”screw you people who don’t want it – we’ll do it because we can”. This is socialism in it’s worst form. If you care what happens to your families, you will exercise your rights, if we still have them by November, and vote everyone now in office of any kind out. No one party is to blame – we got ourselves in this mess by electing this sorry lot of politicians and we are the only ones who can get ourselves out by wiping the slate clean and starting over

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I agree with your sentiment and I think you’re way ahead of your time. But, that day is coming . . .

Comments are closed.