Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama going "all in"
(Vanity) | 28 September 2011 | areukiddingme1

Posted on 09/28/2011 7:37:22 PM PDT by areukiddingme1

It appears that this administration and Republicans are going ahead with a request to have the Supreme Court rule on obamacare early in 2012.

You have to ask yourself, "why would this administration want to pursue a ruling on his signature piece of legislation," if...if they didn't have some sort of ace up their sleeve.

This administration is perceived as weak and losing steam -- Why, why would they push for this. We know why the Republicans are pushing for this, we have the votes and the legislation is un-Constitutional it will get defeated. We know this!

But why is this administration going along with this -- What are they up to.

Sun Tzu wrote; "All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him." ~ the Art of War


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Health/Medicine; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: obama; obamacare; obamacarescotus; scotusobamacare; teaparty; teapartyexpress; teapartyrebellion
Are we being sandbagged?
1 posted on 09/28/2011 7:37:24 PM PDT by areukiddingme1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Been wondering about this myself. Bump for replies.


2 posted on 09/28/2011 7:38:40 PM PDT by Ronin (If we were serious about using the death penalty as a deterrent, we would bring back public hangings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

I thought this was going to be about Barry get hitched to the wookie.


3 posted on 09/28/2011 7:41:46 PM PDT by bigheadfred (But alas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
He needs this win to have any chance of being re-elected.
4 posted on 09/28/2011 7:43:51 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

“He needs this win to have any chance of being re-elected.”

Absolutely agree — But with over half of the states opposed to this legislation...does it even stand a chance.


5 posted on 09/28/2011 7:46:17 PM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

My theory is .. they are trying to disarm the GOP. They know the Supreme Court will rule against it and once it does, it will no longer be a campaign issue. As a result a lot of people who were fiercely motivated to defeat Democrats in 2010 will lose one of their main motivation to head to the polls.


6 posted on 09/28/2011 7:46:43 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
They want an early ruling so that, if the court goes against them, they can cobble together a corrective piece before the elections. They have nothing to gain if they wait, because after the elections they won't even have the Senate.
7 posted on 09/28/2011 7:49:24 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

“...it will no longer be a campaign issue...”

Those sneaky rat b@#&*%$s!!!


8 posted on 09/28/2011 7:50:02 PM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

“...because after the elections they won’t even have the Senate.”

Your keyboard to God!


9 posted on 09/28/2011 7:51:28 PM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Just wondering.... Why is it when someone is opposed to a president, they always refer to it as “This Administration”? The Lefties did it when Bush was in office.

You never hear someone that is in favor of the sitting president say “This Administration”.

Just curious as to why that is.... (lol)


10 posted on 09/28/2011 7:54:28 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

They want a rat administration defending this in the SCOTUS - not a republican admin. i.e. the rats have taken into consideration they won’t be in power after the next election.


11 posted on 09/28/2011 7:54:28 PM PDT by Aria ( "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er

So you think the Economy is not the #1 reason people want to vote in 2012?


12 posted on 09/28/2011 7:54:59 PM PDT by omega4179 (Cain makes a perfectly acceptable replacement front runner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

I almost used a lower case “o” in his name...


13 posted on 09/28/2011 7:58:33 PM PDT by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law. Obama”care” is designed to be a monopoly.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.


14 posted on 09/28/2011 7:59:02 PM PDT by Graewoulf ( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
"I almost used a lower case “o” in his name..."

I typically spell it with a zero, eg: 0bama.

Sadly appropriate....

15 posted on 09/28/2011 8:01:28 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Maybe they have a “sure vote” for their side and want to win before somebody gets cold feet.


16 posted on 09/28/2011 8:02:38 PM PDT by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
"They know the Supreme Court will rule against it and once it does, it will no longer be a campaign issue."

Its repeal is also likely to have a postitive effect on the economy and may even reduce some costs, it will bring over-the-counter meds back to tax deductibility through section 125 plans, and it makes health care a more positive campaign issue for the Dems. They can demagogue the daylights out of this if that POS bill dies.

17 posted on 09/28/2011 8:12:49 PM PDT by hometoroost (Frodo lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

All I can say is:

A. It ain’t over till it’s over. Who knows what’s going on behind the scenes, or what the court will decide?

B. I wouldn’t trust Obama any further than I could kick him. (Secret Service: that’s a METAPHOR!) Who knows what the Chicago Mafia might have up their sleeves?


18 posted on 09/28/2011 8:19:16 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
... we have the votes and the legislation is un-Constitutional it will get defeated. We know this!

I don't understand your comments here. How do we have the votes? We do not know if the votes exist to overturn Obamacare in the Supreme Court because we have no idea how Kennedy will come down. And in Congress, we most certainly don't have the votes to overturn it considering Democrats control the Senate.

Much time and money has been poured into putting Obamacare into effect. Even if we win everything in 2012, we are going to need big majorities to kill Obamacare. I would not be surprised if a lot of Republican Senators won't have the stomach for it, so massive majorities will be necessary to ensure the complete death of Obamacare.

19 posted on 09/28/2011 8:32:34 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
While trying to remove this as an election issue may be one reason; another may be to avoid having it heard by the full 11th Circuit.

A full hearing by the court would have more judges weighing in; given SCOTUS more opinions to derive their ruling from. Since the 11th is fairly conservative, Obama figured he'd get slapped down anyway; and why give SCOTUS more unfavorable opinions to weigh from??

I believe SCOTUS could bounce this back to the 11th asking for a full review, thereby delaying a ruling until possibly 2013. Which by then the whole thing might be moot if we take the Senate and Presidency next year.

20 posted on 09/28/2011 8:43:50 PM PDT by skully (I don't need no steenking tagline!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Ruth G is dying of pancreas cancer and may not last long and Obama will not have the votes to replace her this election year . Its a race .
21 posted on 09/28/2011 9:07:31 PM PDT by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

22 posted on 09/28/2011 9:24:43 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Obama got mostly Ds and Fs all through college and law school. Keep repeating it.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
If he loses, he can run against the "right wing" Supreme Court.

Time basically ran out. If they'd appealed the 11th circuit to the full court they may have lost, giving the Supreme Court even more ammo.

If they don't appeal a Republican president might be left to appeal ObamaCare and they would rather control that appeal.

We pretty much know it'll be 5-4 one way or another.

23 posted on 09/28/2011 9:29:14 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama wins reelecton; GOP will find a way to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skully

OR SCOTUS could just refuse to take it up...letting the 11th’s decisions stand that is the law is OK sans the part about having to buy insurance. That effectively tosses it back to Congress to fix, the money portion, or the law invalidates itself without funding.

SCOTUS is wary of taking cases that are so consequential and could impact other areas, like the SS Law for instance. This way they have it both ways..not on the hook and let the Congress either fix it or not.


24 posted on 09/28/2011 9:30:16 PM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

That seems to be the soundest analysis of why they’re seeking S.Ct. review now.


25 posted on 09/28/2011 9:31:21 PM PDT by Oceander (Not voting is tantamount to voting for Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

I’m hoping 6-3, with Kennedy and Breyer joining the four Justices who actually believe in the Constitution of the United States of America.


26 posted on 09/28/2011 9:35:39 PM PDT by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1
Even Obama now realizes he will lose the next election. So he wants the ruling to occur while he still has some control. We know he has no problem putting pressure on the court. IMHO.
27 posted on 09/28/2011 9:39:19 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

They may think they can force Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, but it’s highly unlikely that will work, and it would only give them a 4-4 vote.


28 posted on 09/28/2011 9:47:49 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt

Would it be frowned upon to feel that your scenario is likely the best outcome for our country?


29 posted on 09/28/2011 9:56:44 PM PDT by BlueMondaySkipper (Involuntarily subsidizing the parasite class since 1981)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Do you still think they won’t have another retirement on the Supremes, allowing Obama to nominate a so-called “moderate”?

I don’t think we can afford to place our country’s future in the hands of anyone organization; we need to stop this cr@p in legislatures across the land, including Washington, D.C., then ensure that any new Supreme Court nominees are strict constructionist conservatives. Screw the goal of “balance” on the Court, which has taken us to the edge of this dangerous precipice.


30 posted on 09/28/2011 10:20:42 PM PDT by bt_dooftlook (Democrats - the party of Amnesty, Abortion, and Adolescence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
They want an early ruling so that, if the court goes against them, they can cobble together a corrective piece before the elections. They have nothing to gain if they wait, because after the elections they won't even have the Senate.

Bingo. Well done.

31 posted on 09/28/2011 11:58:32 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bt_dooftlook
What matters is that none of the 4 conservatives or the swing vote (Kennedy) retires or dies while Obama is still in office--I don't think any of them will voluntarily step down so we have to hope no unexpected deaths or incapacitations occur. If Obama seems headed for defeat next year, maybe one of the older leftists will retire to let him pick a young leftist as a replacement.

If he gets another four years he would have a much better chance of getting another chance to load the Court with hard-line leftists.

32 posted on 09/29/2011 6:52:32 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson