Skip to comments.Left Shocked by Court Developments
Posted on 03/27/2012 1:13:49 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Grab sound bite two before we get to sound bites 23 and 24. This is last night. We'll do a little timeline here involving Jeff Toobin. Last night on Charlie Rose, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin -- who, by the way, for those of you old enough to remember, is the son of former NBC News reporter Marlene Sanders. He wrote a big book after the O.J. trial, and he's been at CNN for quite a while. And Charlie Rose said, Jeffrey Toobin, "How big a deal is this Obamacare case at the Supreme Court?"
TOOBIN: Epic! Awesome! Enormous! Huge!
TOOBIN: This is the biggest case involving the power of the federal government since the New Deal. And if this law is struck down, the federal government is gonna look very different the next day. And lots of plans and lots existing programs are in jeopardy. So, I mean, as big as you think this case is, it's actually bigger.
RUSH: Last night, Jeffrey Toobin accurately describes the size and scope of Obamacare. Today, it's Politico "breaking news," but we've got sound bites from CNN. Toobin, quote: "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... [I]f I had to bet today, Wolf, I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate." Tom Goldstein, attorney and cofounder, center-left SCOTUS blog: "The individual mandate is in trouble, significant trouble." Los Angeles Times' Noam Levey: "Tuesday's arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law's program for achieving universal health care coverage for the first time in the nation's history."
Politico breaking news: "The conservative justices and potential swing vote Anthony Kennedy raised concerns Tuesday that forcing Americans to buy health insurance would open the door to other intrusive requirements from the federal government..." What was so hard to predict about this? This goes right to my point. What's so hard to predict that this thing is unconstitutional? It is unconstitutional. And a Civics 101 student in junior high, after having the Constitution explained to them, would know this. And here come these legal experts: "There's no way that justices are gonna strike this down! There ain't no way," and then after one day of oral arguments, these same experts (probably just as qualified as the economic experts at the Associated Press) say: My God, these justices, they don't like the individual mandate! We're in big trouble.
Here's Jeff Toobin. He's on CNN this afternoon. The coanchor, Ashleigh Banfield, said, "Tell me everything, Jeff. What happened today?"
TOOBIN: This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's gonna be struck down. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. Every comment Kennedy made -- uh, at least that I heard -- was skeptical of the law. The wild card in this argument was, uh, Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts actually asked a lot of hard questions. Roberts seemed like a much more likely vote to uphold the law than Kennedy was.
RUSH: See, he had to find something positive after saying today "was a train wreck for the Obama administration." And again he said, "I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... this court is going to strike down the individual mandate." Wolf Blitzer then weighed in...
BLITZER: This is really huge! Uh, uh, uh, what you're saying -- and you're an authority on the US Supreme Court. You've written the major book on the current Supreme Court -- uh, The Nine. So you fully understand. But just because a justice is asking tough questions, let's say of the government lawyer -- Mr. Verrilli in this case -- that doesn't necessarily mean that that justice is gonna come down on the other side. Isn't that right?
TOOBIN: It's true, but it's not very true, Wolf. Yes, it is true that sometimes we're surprised by the justices' votes after hearing their comments at oral argument. Most of the time -- and it's not all the time, but most of the time -- the questions that the justices ask at oral argument are very good predictors of how they're gonna vote.
RUSH: So the left is in panic! Wolf Blitzer is in panic, looking for a life preserver from Jeff Toobin, who didn't give him one. And they're shocked! This is what's funny. They are shocked. We aren't. Well, we might be because we're surprised that the Constitution is actually being adhered to here, or appears to be.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to temper your expectations on this. This is just oral argument, and we're nowhere near the vote on this thing and we really don't know how this is gonna go. All we have right now is palpable fear on the left. ... This fascinates me, all of this shock and surprise on the left. The media, court watchers, leftist legal beagles. They are in a state of shock, a legitimate state of shock, folks. They really believed this was gonna sail through. And we have to always keep in mind how relatively young most of these people are, and thus how they've been educated. They didn't get Constitution 101 like I did. They have been taught that the Constitution's a flawed document that needs to be changed whenever it can be.
And this represents the greatest opportunity to do that that they have all ever had. The very fact that Obamacare became law against the objection of a majority of the American people -- and the way it became law, basically under cover of darkness with every legislative trick under the sun being tried -- didn't matter. It didn't matter that it might be illegal. It didn't matter that it might be unconstitutional, because that's precisely what this was about: Making it constitutional by virtue of changing the Constitution and using this law to do it. Then all of a sudden the oral arguments come up today, and the four conservative justices and the so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, all have problems with the mandate.
And they're literally shocked, A, that everybody doesn't have the same worldview of this that they do; and, B, that there is any objection to it at all. Remember for these people the government is the end. It's the be-all, end-all. Government is the final authority. Government is where everything important happens and every important decision happens for everybody. But it didn't go that way today in the case of oral arguments and so now they're scratching their heads and they're genuinely surprised. Jeffrey Toobin is genuinely surprised. The CNN legal guy predicted this would sail through, and they probably were looking at this court's actions on campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold. "Well, if that sailed through, this will."
So where we are with this is the left now blogging incessantly their fears and their hopes at the same time. There is a left-wing blog called SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States. And this is a very relevant post on that blog: "Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedys. After pressing the government with great questions, Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment."
So they take all of Kennedy's questioning here, which indicated to Toobin: This thing's dead, this thing is a "train wreck." One question by Kennedy at the end is now given them hope that he might see this as so unique that he would vote for the mandate. A reporter at the Huffing and Puffington Post is saying that it's, quote, "almost entirely unequivocal that a majority of the court thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional." They are scared to death. Lyle Denniston used to be the court reporter for the Baltimore Sun. He posts this:
"If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal governments defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him," and therefore give us a huge winning majority. "But if [Kennedy] does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesdays argument wound up -- with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandates savior." A lot of these blogs are being critical of the solicitor general, the government's lawyer, Mr. "Virility."
One blog is saying: "I can't believe how poorly prepared this guy was on the mandate! I can't believe they sent him up there and he had no idea how to answer these very obvious questions on the mandate." So apparently the government's lawyer didn't do a good job. The left can't believe he wasn't prepared any better. Well, how do you defend the indefensible? What is this guy gonna say? When that burial analogy comes up, he's dead. When the broccoli analogy comes up, he's dead. If you're up arguing before the Supreme Court that the government has the right to require us to buy health insurance, then why not burial insurance? Why not broccoli?
This guy had no answer for that other than a bunch of gobbledygook. And all of his supporters watching this know what a poor job he did, and so now they're worried, and they've just go on a little carrot. Anthony Kennedy gave 'em a little carrot dangling there at the far end of the mine. It's right down there next to the canary. He might find a way. This situation is so unique and we're talking about health care, so maybe this could be okay. That's what they're desperately hoping. But their instincts tell them that it was a "train wreck" today. And I must tell you, I still find it... I don't know, I guess I shouldn't, 'cause I know how they were educated (which was poorly). I'm still struck by the fact that they're surprised, that they're shocked.
What world do they live in?
This could not have been the first day in their lives that they've heard these objections to the mandate. But what if it is? What if they live in such a close-knit circle and they hang around only with each other? What if it actually was the first time they've heard these objections? That can't be! These objections, these arguments, against the mandate have been made throughout the media everywhere. So I guess they just locked in on the idea that it doesn't have a prayer of losing. But like so much of liberalism, and like so many liberals, they live in their cloistered world of the faculty lounge. They sit around and they talk theory all day. They don't understand dynamism. Everything is static to them.
And then they get confronted with reality one day and it's like a cold shower or a slap upside the head and they are bewildered. And it still amazes me that people who are reputed to be so intelligent and so smart can be so surprised when they hear arguments -- logical arguments -- that make it obvious this is unconstitutional. But, again, I fall back on something we must never forget, and that is: This is not about health care and it's not about the mandate per se. It's about changing the Constitution. Not piecemeal with this one. This is huge. If you have it codified as the law of the land that the government can make you buy something? Then, my friends, the Constitution has finally been defeated -- and that's what they can taste. In fact, it's in their grasp, but it's a little slippery and they can't hold onto it.
But it's right there.
RUSH: Wolf Blitzer was in hysterics moment ago on CNN. He had the congressional correspondent Kate Bolduan on. They had this exchange. We already heard Toobin. Blitzer is beside himself with what happened today on oral arguments.
BLITZER: Kate, you were inside the courtroom! The solicitor general, uh, Donald Verrilli, uh, was he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Uh, did he seem unprepared and overly nervous in responding to the conservative justices' tough questioning?
BOLDUAN: It's hard to get into his mind. But I can say, if you compare it to yesterday, he did appear to stumble more; almost seem apologetic for some of the answers that he was giving.
RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. So now it's time to dump on "Virility" here, the government lawyer. Blitzer: "[W]as he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Did he seen unprepared...?" Wolf, you go defend this law up there and see how you do. There isn't anybody who can! Obama's not even trying to defend it. Pelosi's only defense is, "What do you mean 'unconstitutional'? Don't be silly!" Nobody can defend this. Nobody. It isn't constitutional.
It is beginning to appear to me that Obama is more of a leftist / socialist / liberal (but I repeat myself) than even the Democratically-appointed members of the SCOTUS can stomach.
I know it’s not over ‘til the fat lady sings, but I think I hear her warming up.
Mark Levin’s analysis of today’s events is OUTSTANDING: http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
Mandatory late term abortions of liberals?
Coming on this thread late but... Obama 'publically' on naional and International TV, insulted the 'Supremes'....I doubt very much that they saw that as a simple offense...they may very well "play with the Broccoli" in full view of the audiance because Obam knows what the Broccli issue was about...even if the audiance might not. Bottom line...I don't think you're pulling at straws at all... and it is a major thing.
I totally agree, but even if Chairman O loses in November, he'll do everything in his power until January to widen the destruction he has already started!
You are kidding yourself if you think the Supremes will make a decision by a minor slight obambi said at a State of Union message. I actually hope they are not that biased and rule by Constitutional intent.
Amen. “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”
Agreed. She has her socialist totalitarian agenda and will not deviate from it. Socialists like her, know since clinton days, they can get away with anything if they just stand firm. Everyday people don't care because they just don't care, and she knows this.
What part of Romneycare = Obamacare don’t you get?
You touch on an interesting point, one I hope the Justices consider. The Democrats should have foreseen this before enacting ObamaCare.
It gives unlimited power to the Executive and the legislative branches, both in Democrat hands at the time. That will not always be the case, and when the Rights takes power, they can enact anything into ObamaCare, like eliminating abortion.
This is a lose-lose for Obama and the Dems no matter which way SCOTUS decides.
I admire the sentiment, but we are looking at a more serious situation then just one upmanship. They may, and very properly in my view, look at it as a priceless opportunity to knock him down to size by reminding him of that.
Remember, if Barry is (and he has been) allowed to pretty much do away with Congress, what would make the Supreme Court think he can’t get along without them, too?
And what if he lost the case and went ahead with the mandate anyhow claiming that it fell under that recently revised EO. In fact, has any taken a look at that thing close enough to be sure there are no sneaky little clauses that can be twisted to fit?
Congress and the US Supreme Court both need to realize what is at stake here and that their total relevance as institutions in the future may indeed rest with their ability to bring down Obama before he brings down the Constitution completely.
The most important reason that the United States Government has lasted as long as it has is that it is build on checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government. It hasn’t always worked perfectly, but it HAS up to now, worked. That’s vital.
Everybody’s talking about this now. I went to the comic pages today to get some relief from this crazy political crisis and look what I found on Prickly City.
Now this is NOT intended to be funny people. The comic artist is using his medium to tell us he sees it too, and he wants other people to wake up and look around them.
We’re getting right up to the edge.
I will sleep well at night knowing I didn't contribute to our "country's demise" by voting for obama lite. If you and others want to put such a RINO in the White House, that's your god-damn Constitutional right. When obambi wins against such a poor debater, it's on your shoulders, not mine.
When Bambi wins, and continues his "hopey/changey" thing from a free nation into a socialist nation, and the uprising occurs, I'll be there. You will probably be looking at the next election cycle thinking "We can win this one. Rah, rah, shish boom ba".
Grow up. You're not getting it. It's over whether Bambi or Romney gets in the White House. They are simply different shades of the same political color. Unless conservatives get a super-majority in the Senate (60+), there is NO chance of correcting this course into the failed state of socialism. It's almost a done deal with some 49% of Americans being on the dole.
Arguably, Alexander Tytler said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Even though I'm an aging 62 year old, I will not allow our great experiment to go quietly into the good night. I will stand my ground before I ever vote for a socialist (Romneycare) like Romney! If obambi wins, so be it. He will probably take our country to the brink and the sh*t will definitely hit the fan.
I'm okay with that, because unlike most, I remember my Oath and will do my best to fight against further totalitarian efforts. If I have to lose all to attempt to regain our Constitutional heritage, I will do so. I will die happy knowing I tried and gave a small part of what all our military has done throughout our national history.
God Bless the United States of America and her original principles, values and intent.
Welcome to Free Republic!
The 15 Trillion + are desperate for an opt out, as long as they are EXEMPT. And this extortion attempt Federal Labor Camp is it.
Fed’s Bullard headline. No coming Qe due to oil price shock.
The 15 trillion + pensions and retirements flooding the economy already have oil SUSTAINED (and food/commodities/essentials) above 105. Gas near or above 4.00.
I repeat, this is an attempt at a real forced Federal Labor Camp bailout (which never happened in 2008 due to deflation.) The “bailout” was a government pension-retirement give-away propagandized as “stimulus.”
I stated years ago, that their refusal to back off and cut down with the rest, will lead to an attempted forced U.S. work camp. And that’s what their attempting to pull.
That’s right, the MassMitt Mandate deception. A campaign of deception. “End” Mandate-Care, yet enforce at the state level.
“Ask a liberal: If the government can force you to buy health insurance, can the government force you to buy a firearm?”
I’m afraid that is not the question to ask a liberal, as firearms would be found under the militia clause, specifically the part where man of military age is regarded as part of the militia.
The question is whether or not the governmental can force you to buy into a contract agreeing to be institutionalized if you happen to hold believes your “desinated party” finds insane. That is all part of forcing you into a government approved contract.
Ask a Liberal if they feel comfortable with the idea of Republicans taking the presidency then using their new founded power over health insurance to prohibit contraception, abortions, and various other “services” used primarily by leftist?
I think Obama may not want to win this, because if they do their dead.
On our conservative radio today according to one authority who is covering the proceedings very thoroughly, said, near the end of the day, Kennedy said, something close to, “well, maybe healthcare is different”...point is this isn’t a slam dunk as the early arguments as reported by our side and even the Left think...she predicts 5-4 and whatever Kennedy does will redefine or keep intact the government’s relationship to the people. Either we are free or we become subjects of the government.
BEWARE reading ANYTHING into questions by the Justices. Ive argued before SCOTUS, the VA Sup Ct and several appellate courts and questions dont mean a whole lot. In fact, Justices will frequently ask questions the opposite of what they are inclined to do to force you to make their argument.
Judicial questions are for one purpose ... to spur discussion. Many times a Judge would grill me on an issue as though he didnt buy it only to rule in my favor.
Anyone who tells you they can read the tea leaves on this one, or that there are even tea leaves to read, have know idea about what they speak.
**** Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. ****
Thats all you need to know. Slam dunk, done. They are going to tie themselves in knots to uphold this law.
-—, near the end of the day, Kennedy said, something close to, well, maybe healthcare is different...point is this isnt a slam dunk as the early arguments as reported by our side and even the Left think...she predicts 5-4 and whatever Kennedy does will redefine or keep intact the governments relationship to the people. Either we are free or we become subjects of the government.-—
That’s frightening. I’ve felt all along that the opportunity to “do something historic” will be too tempting for the majority to resist.
I pray that I’m wrong.
At least they’re using the term ‘trainwreck’-!!!
Will any Republican contender prosecute anyone in this administration if elected?
Will they fire ALL the leftists and Democrat appointees?
Bush’s nice-guy reach-across-the-aisle “diplomacy” got a lot of Americans killed.
The leftards are simply managing expectations. We could be in for a very rude awakening if we believe the nature of the questions foretell the outcome of this case.
Ok, I’m no lawyer. Just a mom in IL trying to wrap my brain around all this idiocy but can someone please explain to me this “unique” argument that you all are talking about?
What does being “unique” have to do with it? I don’t give a rip if it is, still doesn’t mean I should have to buy something I don’t want. An energy with bull piss in it is unique and I may or may not want to buy it.
If it doesn't, the President and every damn politician who voted for this should be voted OUT !!!!!
Trust me. Obama will be the happiest person in the room if it gets shot down.
Why....He's already in the midst of trying a different course....via the activist Fluck....regulate the insurance policies!!!
Wise words indeed.
Hell, they'd be finished by now.
What does being unique have to do with it? I dont give a rip if it is, still doesnt mean I should have to buy something I dont want. An energy with bull piss in it is unique and I may or may not want to buy it.
Your brilliant, incisive legal analysis proves once again why 99 times out of a hundred I would much rather listen to regular folks concerning law and constitutionality than any lawyer.
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.
"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them, the people adopt them, the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common-sense, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.
Bu tperhaps SocSec could be addressed, as it is a requirement to participate, just by virtue of you breathing.
IMO, No and No!
GOP stands for Gutless Old Party! Does that help??
You said - “but I’ll vote for the Republican candidate in November regardless - because the alternative is our nation’s destruction.”
I opine that it makes no difference. Romney is a ‘clone’ for Obama, he just has an R at his name.
IF Romney is the candidate, we truly have no choice. This NOT a case of sour grapes, rather a reasoned assessment of Romenys past policies and current words. He LIKES Obamacare.
Either way, we are in deep doo-doo. TPTB do not desire for ObamaCare to go away, it is the very real enslaving enablement that they have worked so hard for.
A vote for Romeny IS a vote FOR ObamaCare.
Do you think the fact that there was no “severability” written into the bill will play into any Justice’s decision? I guess, as a neophyte watcher of the Justices....I’m thinking they know if they strike down the mandate, then the lack of a severability clause really strikes down the whole mess, right? So, this mandate decision is REALLY the deciding factor...maybe?
I would love to see the whole thing get tossed out simply because of no severability clause. Those goons were in such a great hurry to shove that monstrosity down our throats, that they forget to put in severability. It would be LMAO poetic justice.
LOL you pay for medicare your entire working life silly...
Compromise for the sake of compromise is not a good in and of itself. Two bad guys debating letting everyone live or killing everyone, “compromise” of killing half the people isn’t moral, it’s still murder.
Everything of the bill must be tossed out, if not by the Supreme Court then by the next Congress. If this edict stands, the Republic is lost.
Of course you are right.
I'm no Romneybot - I have made that abundantly clear, both in this thread and in many others. Within the present field, I support Gingrich. Realistically speaking, I don't think that Newt can win, but I support him nonetheless and will certainly vote for him EVEN IF he's withdrawn from the race by then.
Despite my wishes, if Romney wins the nomination it will be a Romney-Obama race. Possibly the worst choice EVER in our history - but nevertheless a choice. Whatever one's opinion of Romney on social matters, I do believe that he'll restore some sanity to our budgeting process, and I am quite certain that he won't be making behind-the-scenes self-out deals with the Russkies. Nor will he be bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia or anyone else. To maintain that there is no difference between Obama and Romney is quite clearly wrong - and you know it. Believe me, I do understand partisanship, but let's not carry this thing too far. Yes, Romney is the worst of the Republican candidates (IMHO), but even the worst Republican is better than Obama - and its not even close.
If that happens, it will through goading of the masses hasten the sort of major correction that we need per Tytler's cycle:
from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.
If we elect a lukewarm GOPer, all we do is slow the death and delay the inevitable.
Little Socializt UNthinkers. Bellyfeel socializm.
I agree. Sotomeyer has a nice smile and looks like she could be a charmer, plus she “looks smart.” Kagan looks as ugly and dumb as a sack of potatoes, plus they won’t respect her because she didn’t recuse herself, and that makes them all look bad. I bet they don’t even say hello to her in the elevator.
I was at a dinner once where Scalia told us the same thing. The question was, “What was the most persuasive oral argument you’ve ever heard?”. Scalia’s answer, “I’ve never heard a persuasive oral argument.”
Later on, I was a law clerk for an appellate judge. I can certainly say that I’ve never seen a judge change his mind after oral arguments. More than once, I had already drafted the judge’s opinion.
Good Lord, I can’t believe all the negative doom-and-gloom posts on here!! I realize the U.S. Supreme Court justices are very unpredictable and that it’s always wise to exercise caution when anticipating a verdict, but you’d swear we are a slam dunk to lose this case based on the incessant hand-wringing and apocalyptic pessimism here! On the contrary, I’ve seen MANY encouraging questions and comments by all five conservative members of the court that would leave me to believe they’ve already pretty much decided to at least strike down the individual mandate and then it’s just a matter of how much of the rest of the law will be permitted to stand.
And one key thing that’s gotten lost in all this... Let’s not forget that Obama tried to PUBLICLY HUMILIATE the members of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech two years ago by arrogantly ridiculing their ruling on the Citizens United Case. Rest assure, THEY haven’t forgotten about it and you know what the famous expression says about payback!
Honestly, I don’t know how some of you can even stand to roll out of bed each day with the overly negative outlook you have on everything!
It’s over. 5-4 find individual mandate unconstitional.
It was unmistakably contained in Alito’s line of questioning on burial insurance. Alito’s metaphor is easily understood as signaling his disgust at the idea of penultimately giving the Commerce Clause vis divina over every other word in the Constitution, particularly those rather important Articles regarding separation of powers. It’s a short step to render drawing (or re-drawing) that bright line.
Even the choice of wording was pointed. In fact, Alito’s questioning was so composed, the majority opinion is already written in his head, and probably Nino’s too. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Roberts hands the majority opinion to Alito so Roberts and Kennedy can disagree in part if necessary.
I also thought the other major key moment was when Justice Kennedy stated: “And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.” This does NOT sound to me like a ringing endorsement by Kennedy for the mandate being Constitutional.
Certainly, the majority of Americans hope that the SCOTUS will overturn the law. After that, there is no telling how Congress and the administration will react. IMO, Reed and the Dems in the Senate will try to ram it through and pass it again just to prove that they can.
Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have absolutely no chance of ramming through a similar health care bill without a veto-proof majority in the Senate and with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
BTW, for those who won’t support a Republican candidate who is not of your choosing, think about Obama appointing another 1, 2 or 3 justices (and, especially, replacing Thomas, Alito or Scalia). Think about the hundreds of District and Appeals Court judges he will appoint in the next 4 years. If Obama gets to do that, regardless of how this case turns out, our republic is dead. This election is THAT important - and sometimes the lesser of 2 evils is the best choice, because if it isn’t chosen then the greater evil wins. Obama is an extremely radical opponent of limited government and of American exceptionalism. He will accelerate the tearing down of this country in a 2nd term - so that term must not come about. I am NOT a Romney supporter by any stretch of the imagination, and I am PLENTY pissed off at what the Republican establishment has done over the past few decades, but I’ll vote for the Republican candidate in November regardless - because the alternative is our nation’s destruction.
AMEN! I could not have stated this any better!
Its disturbing that a SCOTUS Justice is so powerful and it is uncomfortable to think how he must view his power. I wonder if enjoys the power, if he enjoys being the deciding justice on this.
Yep... The fact that our great republic teeters on the brink and its future now literally comes down to a “yay” or “nay” vote by one judge in a black robe is disturbingly mind-boggling.
Did you miss the part where I said "IMO, Reed and the Dems in the Senate will try to ram it through and pass it again just to prove that they can. Secondly, the Dems still own the Senate with a simple majority. I'm not sure that they necessarily need a veto-proof majority, although there is even money that they wouldn't get all of the same Dems to vote for it again. But, the House is definitely out of reach.
That is the issue, yes.