Posted on 03/16/2012 7:32:33 PM PDT by Mariner
From the inaugural oath do-over to an unprecedented State of the Union throwdown, relations between President Obama and the conservative members of the Supreme Court have had an unusually cantankerous feel.
If it had been up to Obama, after all, John G. Roberts Jr. would not have been holding the Bible at the president’s swearing-in, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. would still have been in his New Jersey judicial chambers rather than in the second row of the House mouthing “not true” during Obama’s 2010 address to the nation. As a senator, Obama voted against the Supreme Court confirmations of both men.
But these days, the president must hope that grudges are put aside. He will need at least one Republican-appointed justice on the increasingly conservative court to uphold the signature domestic achievement of his presidency: health-care reform. The court’s four liberals, two appointed by Obama, are forecast as reliable votes in favor. But Obama needs at least five.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Clarence Thomas is the only Justice I really like a lot.”
Quoted for truth. He’s the best justice in at least the past 100 years. Simple, straightforward, principled. Writes short, understandable opinions that guide further action.
This is nothing but a fantasy and wishful thinking by the Washington Post. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are all a sure bet to at least strike down the individual mandate. The four leftist judges are certain to rule unconstitutionally in favor of fully upholding Obamacare. It’s all coming down to Kennedy, pure and simple. I just hope he hasn’t forgotten how Obama arrogantly and insolently ridiculed the Supreme Court during a nationally televised State-of-the-Union address. And even though the Supreme Court isn’t supposed to take popular public opinion into account, I believe they actually do and there’s no question that ObamaCare has been consistently unpopular from Day 1. The Ohio referendum last November alone was a RESOUNDING rejection of ObamaCare.
I am cautiously optimistic that the U.S. Supreme Court will at least strike down the individual mandate.
I feel like we are being cornered into doing that at some point when all other means fail. When corners, even 8 week old kittens and day old baby chicks will fight despite the odds. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”
“I would settle for an amicable parting of the ways. Let the progressive states wallow in their filth. Folks would have a limited time to move freely to a state of their choice. After that, the flyover states would have to institute strict border controls to prevent California from spreading its disease as people flee without understanding what they are fleeing.”
I would love to see just such an outcome but as you go on to point out. Realistically it likely wont be that easy. There is too much money and “revered” history at stake for D.C. to let her imperial provinces go their own way. The left may not realistic it in mass but the truth is without us working under their currency they will have gigantic financial issues.
It has to do with inflationary banking and the rural vs urban/industrial economic systems. Generally speaking rural economy’s have a more predictable money cycle with storage demands due to the farm cycle. Urban economy’s a much more flexible. When you combine that difference with fractional reserve banking based upon a currency we are forced to uses the end result is a massive and consistent rural to urban wealth transfer system, not all that unlike that of a property tax. Except the property is banknotes in storage for the next planting season, and undercut in value come selling season.
“OK. It’s kind of utopian. D.C. would never allow Texas tax revenues to escape without war. Nor would it allow the mouth of the Mississippi river to be controlled by another country without war. The later issue, along with slavery, were the two principal factors why the Civil War was fought to the bitter end. The more things change . . .”
Well today weapons & commutations technological has changed the landscape dramatically.(I read some of the old Yankee newspapers at the time, and of the key problems for the south who’s entity strategy contendged upon getting foreign support to help offset the northern numerical and industrial advantage.) If we were inclined I believe we could win without firing a shot.
If we had to fight everything would come down to what happens before the deceleration in preparation(such as maneuvering to take control of key weapons) and what happens after. If the revolutary states get their hands on nukes then the imperial states will have to choose between losing their own citys to try and retain control of others.
A morally dubious choice, which the revolutary states will not fail to point out to the world and their neighbors population loudly and clearly. The imperial union will likely try to make a nonproliferation type argument or declare the rebel states rebels that cant be trusted.
But if our vote is open and broadcasting to the whole of the world they will know better.(unlike the 1860 North who were told The southern legislation were hijacked, and that their people had no desire to withdraw).
Maybe they are worried and trying to reassure each other.
Even Scalia has been part of this trend, although he was also in the majority in the two cases in which the court said Congress exceeded its commerce clause powers. But more relevant to the health-care law — and why he might uphold it — is his decision in a 2005 case, Gonzalez v. Raich , which concerned whether the federal government could keep Californians from growing medicinal marijuana for their own use, as state law allowed.
Scalia sided with the government, partly because of the court’s precedents regarding the commerce clause. While in that case Angel Raich’s pot was for her own use, “marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market,” and thus subject to federal regulation, Scalia wrote in a concurring opinion.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. adopts Scalia’s language in his brief to the court defending the individual mandate, and in a nod to how important the government considers the precedent, he mentions the Raich decision 10 times. “Because of human susceptibility to disease and accident, we are all potentially never more than an instant” from requiring health care, Verrilli writes — so the government has an interest in making sure that individuals have a way to pay for it.
It is indeed Ironic that a nuclear confrontation would invariably and specifically devastate the leftist population, leaving the bulk of the rural and suburban conservative population more or less intact. Indeed generally speaking most people would be surprises just how much of our population would in fact survive a real nuclear war. And your not even talking abut something even approaching that in the even of a Civil War. Nether side has a vested interest in destroying the other, least of all the side that wishes to rule the other.
The objective of the revolutary would have to be a MAD policy at least long enough to secure their independence. The objective of the imperial government would have to be to recover control of their weapons and disarm the breakaway republic so that it can be conquered.
Frankly the revolutary state might even agree to give them back to nukes in exchange for recondition of their Independence and a resumption of peaceful trade relations.
While we may not trust the leftist with direct power over us as to vote away our rights, we probably would trust them to respect our borders, at least long enough for us to firmly establish and entrench our own defenses & relations with the world.
This country’s problem is to not see that a Presidential Candidate is just like you and I. However, all this pre-annointing and conditioning of a candidate as a President is throwing all the game off. You cannot criticize them, you cannot do anything.
The minute Zero is stepping off to campaign is the minute he should be brought to local trials for personal harms done.
I do not know what is so hard for people to understand that it is not because they wear a badge of some sort that they are immune from arrest.
When the president of the United States can commit open fraud and forgery to gain and hold his seat in the oval office, and the judicial branch is unwilling to defend this country and it’s constitution against such, Argument over what the Supreme court will or won’t do in other legal matters is virtually MOOT!
If Obama can get SCOTUS to keep it’s mouth shut about his eligibility, and force lower courts to keep the issue subdued, then applying the same political leverage (whatever that may be) to uphold Obamacare should be a very easy task in comparison.
There’s an interesting thought — maybe Obama has overstepped here and could piss off the SCOTUS, who might decide to take a look at that eligibility thing after all.
>>> maybe Obama has overstepped here and could piss off the SCOTUS, who might decide to take a look at that eligibility thing after all.
My point was just the opposite.
The chance for SCOTUS to act on clear evidence of fraud and forgery has long since come and gone...
Besides... to suggest that our highest court in the land would apply the law selectively in a tit-for-tat is a worse charge against them than the one I was making.
My guess is that whatever Obama used in that backdoor meeting to keep them and the lower courts under wraps illustrates a form of control that our president is NOT supposed to have, and is most likely also being used to defend Obamacare...
So the point is... If you are a Supreme Court Justice, and you have been successfully pigeon-holed by the president over a clear and obvious miscarriage of the election laws via individual fraud, how much easier would it be to pigeon-hole you over a law passed by both houses of Congress?
Frankly any and all Federal Employees in black robes being hand picked and approved by the same folk that most directly weld the power “they claim” to be in final constitutional judgement of. Is itself a farce on face value as it has proven itself to be over our history.
Federal courts have always been disinclined to rule against federal power. This is particularly the case sense our States were robed of their representational in the senate by the 17th amendment. But even before the 17th amendment it was weak as Hamilton insisted the senate be a kind of self-serving nobility only standing for election every 6 years.
The point is wether or not they are specifically in Obama’s pocket matters little. Federal courts ARE in Washington’s pocket, always have been and structurally always will be being handed picked & empowered employees of the same.
Impartiality in cases between the Federal government and either the people or their States is as utterly implausible for the Federal courts, as your best friend would be presiding over a dispute between the two of us.
As for what Obama could say to his federal employees to further influence them It seems likely given the nature of many of his Chicago friends that he might suggest that should they not go his way some of his supporters might try to kill them leaving him(Obama) to appoint their replacement. An unnecessary threat in the long run for a “court” already structurally inclined support and advance federal power inevitable at the expense of individual liberty and control over their own states.
But of course Obama may simply be too impatient to wait for the lawless Federal “courts”
Come on, folks, while we need to pray for our four conservative justices and the quasi-conservative Justice Kennedy, this article is liberal dreaming. Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts are not going to bend on this issue.
What's this now..?
“Come on, folks, while we need to pray for our four conservative justices and the quasi-conservative Justice Kennedy, this article is liberal dreaming. Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts are not going to bend on this issue.”
I am praying and I hope to God you’re right.
You know, the only way I think I can even barely stomach the idea of supporting Romney is if the SCOTUS strikes down this law and the issue is off the table. Cause if Mitt becomes POTUS, there’s no way he’ll fight to repeal it.
One can only hope so.
One can only hope so.
“True. I think a good point to is I wonder what will happen to our nukes if something like this happens? Will each side have them? Is there a plan to render them inoperable if this happens? I know they have PAL, Permissive Action Links, but what and if either side can hack into them? Which side will the missile silo, submarine and bomber crews join? How will they be used?”
The imperial Government will retain control of the vast majority of the nukes particular those in possession of the Navy. This is due largely to the fact that Washington controls which officers and personal they will will be in control of theses weapons and thus will almost asurendly take great pains to see to it that every last one of them is loyal to the politicians in D.C. not any Constitution and certantly not liberty.
This is not to paint an unusually dark picture of our troops its simply to explain that by Washington’s design the Federal army, Navy, and airforce’s loyalty will be overwhelmingly to the politicians in D.C.
It is critical before any move is taken that the same Federal army, Navy, and air-force be as defended and small as possible. For conservatives this is simply a matter of over many years letting the leftist gut Federal military and while only insisting that the equipment and best personnel be transferred to their respective State National Guard Units for retention.
State National Guard units can be purged of non-patriot personnel by State governments who can insist upon asserting their Article 1 section 8 reserved rights for officer selection & training.
The truth is with the existing Federal military your talking about a large bulk of the personnel who are trained to follow the orders of their Washington masters not defend liberty or any kind of Constitutional law. You ask personnel what do they do if their orders are unlawful and frankly they can’t even begin to guess at what is unlawful much-less how to uphold their oath practically.
To them their oath might as well be simply service to the president and congress. Anything else will get them court marshaled. The U.S. army is not an army worthy of a free republic but rather fit to impose an empire.
On the nulear question, it is perhaps indispesnabel that any patirot states sucessfull bid for indepdence against an imperal goverment will require something that makes invastion & reconquest of the same state unpalliable. A nueral weapons based Mutually Assured Destruction policy is by far the most oviouse and practically the most reliable way to secure freedom & Independence.
It is therefor imperative that the first and highest military priority for a free patriot state will be to obtain control of some of theses weapons. This will not be possible except for a few states that currently pay host to the weapons and then only provably possible with the cooperation and assistance of their negboring states. But the objective is so vital to the success of a patriot revolution that no expense can be spared in obtaining theses tools.
At the time of the revolutionary war Many of the of the patriots will know where theses weapons are stored and a lot about the defense. in many cases it will simply be a matter of overwhelming the defenses and rebuilding the weapons for immediate deployment in a MAD deterrence system.
In other-case it may be about destroying the weapons and making the imperial government think you have control of em in an effective MAD deterrence system. In all cases deterrence is the critical objective as uses of the weapons will not result in any real gain for either side.
Like it or not whether or not patriots win the revolution they will continue to need the loyalist empire as a trading & defense partner and likewise. Just like the U.S. and U.K. to this day. Every effort must be taken to avoid any death or destruction of either side, because death & destruction of either side damages both sides economic. Indeed the simple disruption in the break down of trade during the stand off will be nearly as economics destructive as it is unavoidable.
Dispute our inability to live under the same government together we are in fact natural trading partners nobody should be under any illusions that either side should desire any death or destruction upon the other.
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.