Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down
TPM ^ | 3/28/2012 | sahil kapul

Posted on 03/29/2012 1:50:01 PM PDT by Sybeck1

A handful of Senate Democrats sought to assure doubtful liberals that the Supreme Court justices aren’t ready to strike down their crowning achievement, standing before cameras and mics Wednesday in front of the court. One warned that doing so would ruin the court’s credibility.

“This court would not only have to stretch, it would have to abandon and completely overrule a lot of modern precedent, which would do grave damage to this court, in its credibility and power,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted.

“As a senior member of the Finance Committee,” he said, “I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress. We worked with some of the brightest, most thoughtful and experienced constitutional lawyers in order to make sure that the law was constitutional.”

Kerry said the assumptions that tough questions from the justices will amount to striking down some or all of the Affordable Care Act are a fallacy — he predicted, as the final oral arguments were transpiring inside, that it would be upheld.

“Now I am glad — as I think any of us who’ve practiced law are — to see the intense questions from the justices. They’re engaged, and they are thoughtfully working through these issues,” Kerry said. “But questions are a legitimate way of probing the basis of their own thinking. They are not an indication of a judgment made, or a vote ready to be cast. They’re working through this process as they ought to, mindful of the fact that 30 courts below them have already made a judgment upholding it.”

Blumenthal and Kerry — who were joined by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) — called the press conference one day after liberals and other court watchers expressed serious doubts that the justices would uphold the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to purchase insurance, a central pillar of the law. The firestorm was ignited by legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who called Tuesday’s arguments a “train wreck” for the White House and predicted that “Obamacare” would be struck down.

Pushing back, Blumenthal said that there’s a “heavy burden” on the challengers.

“Everybody learns in the first year of law school that the law that’s challenged is presumed to be constitutional,” Blumenthal said. “That is a heavy burden for anyone challenging the constitutionality of a law to overcome. When in doubt, uphold the law. There is a lot of room for doubt here, and there is a lot of clear precedent that requires this court to uphold this law.”

The Democrats’ level of confidence has diminished since the days when they dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act as frivolous. Indeed, the tough questioning from swing Justices John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy about the limits of federal power at least rattled liberals enough to require the nerve-soothing press conference. But Democrats are seeking to quell liberal fears that the game is already over.

Experts say it’s too difficult to predict how the court will rule.

Affordable Care Act, HCR/SCOTUS, Supreme Court


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2012; abortion; chicagoway; corruption; deathpanels; dementalillness; democratcorruption; democrats; democratthuggery; elections; fascistleft; johnkerry; leftuniverse; liberalfascism; mediawingofthednc; nodemocrats2012; obamacare; occutardation; occutards; occuturds; partisanmediashills; richardblumenthal; scotus; scotusintimidation; scotusocareanalysis; scotusthreat; thugbama; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-261 next last
To: Sybeck1

Good frickin’ grief. as my Father used to say “quit blowing smoke up my rear end!” I really never understood that but it sounds like a good response to this article.


151 posted on 03/29/2012 4:06:25 PM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
“This court would not only have to stretch, it would have to abandon and completely overrule a lot of modern precedent, which would do grave damage to this court, in its credibility and power,”

so now precedent is the guideline for legislation, not the constitution? Sure, the multitude of precedent legislation is why this country has a bunch of empty suits in DC.

152 posted on 03/29/2012 4:08:10 PM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

 

 

Rush mentioned this today....That it has to do with this ObamaCare case in front of the Supreme Court.

 

 

Wickard v. Filburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Contents

 [hide


153 posted on 03/29/2012 4:08:38 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

Dred Scott


154 posted on 03/29/2012 4:12:58 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (We kneel to no prince but the Prince of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

“The court commands no armies”

Hitler made a similar comment when he asked (rhetorically) how many divisions the Pope commands.

So what are the Democrats planning? Maybe simply ignore what the court rules? If they do, I can’t say that I would complain all that much - given the Court thinks they run the country, well ahead of the other branches.


155 posted on 03/29/2012 4:13:26 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

I imagine this will be how Nasty Pelozi looks the day the Supreme Court tells her, "Game Over. Your piece of crap law is dead."
156 posted on 03/29/2012 4:14:37 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I figure Kagan or that other idiot Sotomayor will tip them off and they’ll start attacking and impugning the integrity of the court.
With Ginsberg retiring during a Republican administration, we can only hope for a young appointee that will be able to stand against the hoards along side Roberts and Alito for the next generation.


157 posted on 03/29/2012 4:16:03 PM PDT by newnhdad (Where will you be during the Election Riots of 2012/2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
“Everybody learns in the first year of law school that the law that’s challenged is presumed to be constitutional,” Blumenthal said.”

Most people used to learn in junior high that Article III of the Constitution creates a Supreme Court, too, Blumie.

By the way, Blumie wasn't even around to vote on this turd law, was he? He was still skunking the people of Connecticut.

By the way, the voters of Connecticut must have declared war on women because they voted for Blumie and rejected a female candidate. Mysogyny lives in Connecticut.

158 posted on 03/29/2012 4:19:14 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

Did John Semmens write this?


159 posted on 03/29/2012 4:25:42 PM PDT by Excellence (9/11 was an act of faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trappedincanuckistan
“New Black Panther Party to offer $10 000 for the capture of Antonin Scalia” Just kidding for those of you in Rio Linda.

Actually, I wouldn't put it past the Left to physically threaten the Justices, and for Obama to threaten to withdraw their security.

160 posted on 03/29/2012 4:26:16 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name
I have always believed that liberals RATS are so determined to get their way that they are willing to risk civil war to do so.

Well, they did it once before didn't they?

161 posted on 03/29/2012 4:30:13 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

“The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility.”


Here we go. I knew this would happen. He is essentially saying that the court will be unable to enforce a ruling (which is true) that strikes down any part of obamacare, and that any such ruling should be ignored. President Andrew Jackson pretty much did the same thing. The SC made a ruling he didn’t like, so he told them to shove it and to try to enforce their ruling. An entire branch of our govt. is becoming virtually useless. This country is going down the toilet faster and faster every day. No matter what the SC decides, neither side will accept the ruling if it is against them.


162 posted on 03/29/2012 4:33:18 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
Is it wrong to enjoy the smell of fear emanating from the democRATs/socialists/communists?

5.56mm

163 posted on 03/29/2012 4:33:37 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
By the way, Blumie wasn't even around to vote on this turd law, was he? He was still skunking the people of Connecticut.

Blummie is *so* much like Eliot Spitzer in *so* many ways that I've often wondered if he might even be Client #10.

164 posted on 03/29/2012 4:33:41 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Jimmy Carter Is No Longer The Worst President To Have Served In My Lifetime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

Hmmm. Maybe we should dismantle the Constitutionally appointed USSC and make these RAT senators the new court. Because they are experts and all. We don’t even need a court. Just RAT lawmakers.


165 posted on 03/29/2012 4:34:29 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Hitler made a similar comment when he asked (rhetorically) how many divisions the Pope commands.

I think that was Stalin but what's the difference? The point's been well made.

166 posted on 03/29/2012 4:39:27 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Jimmy Carter Is No Longer The Worst President To Have Served In My Lifetime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted.

This is a demonstrable lie, of course, since the Dems had no idea what was in the bill in the first place. Nice of the Dems to make veiled threats to the SC justices, though.

167 posted on 03/29/2012 4:40:31 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason ("Journalism is dead. All news is suspect." - Noamie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JrsyJack

This is a blatant attempt to intimidate The Court by 3 sitting Senators by referencing the Courts reliance on the Senate for funding.


Yup. And they have 3 more months to apply more and more pressure on the SC and to threaten them.


168 posted on 03/29/2012 4:44:04 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

“I think that was Stalin but what’s the difference? The point’s been well made.”

Yea, not much difference, thanks. It’s scary to hear that from a SENATOR.


169 posted on 03/29/2012 4:45:21 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: LouD

>He might want to check that. A whole lot of us have pledged to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...

That does assume that the Supreme Court’s actions are themselves Constitutional. Things like Kelo, Wickard, and Roe v. Wade indicate that it is not; things like the very recent 9-0 smackdown of the EPA’s denyal of due-process do give me some hope for the Court though.


170 posted on 03/29/2012 4:47:27 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

Damn these liars !.......


171 posted on 03/29/2012 4:48:43 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

They only have to “get to” Kennedy and he won’t be that hard to coerce behind the scenes. I’m not at all convinced the court will overturn,


Yup. I wouldn’t put it past them to threaten his family. I’m pretty much convinced the court will rule in obama’s favor. I think it will be passed by more than 5-4. More like 6-3, maybe even 7-2. Threats can change a lot of the justices minds.


172 posted on 03/29/2012 4:52:39 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name
“The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility.

And how many divisions has the Pope? But when 0bamacare knocked down the conscience clause exception to abortion related medical care, the Church found that it had allies all across the religious spectrum.

Reiterating my tagline, the Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.


173 posted on 03/29/2012 4:54:23 PM PDT by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
"...Do liberals really think this way...?"

They don't "think"—they plot.

174 posted on 03/29/2012 5:05:57 PM PDT by Does so ("What elephant?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LostPassword

Playing politics and attacking the court’s credibility seems dangerous. If I was a justice on the fence this may be what pushes me the other way


You, maybe,,,but not Ginsberg, etc. They are probably applauding Kerry’s comments. Even thought the govts. arguments were ripped to she shreds, they will still vote in favor of obama.


175 posted on 03/29/2012 5:07:32 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oberon; mickie
"The court commands no armies.....it depends for its power on its credibility."

As we all know, the Dems command legions of gimme entitlement takers for their power and armies of effeminate, idiotic intellectuals for their credibility. Their ranks also include an ever-shrinking corps of union dolts plus 9 or 10 overweight New Black Panthers who are the Dems Special Forces.

Bring 'em on.....

P.S.....you can make book that the Court's decision will reflect payback time for Obama's State of the Union insult.

Leni

176 posted on 03/29/2012 5:08:45 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

It’s just talk, for now. We’ll see if it gets ignored if overturned. If so, that anger in the country is gonna boil over.


177 posted on 03/29/2012 5:12:23 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Nice!


178 posted on 03/29/2012 5:18:43 PM PDT by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

The court has no armies. Sounds like a threat from the left.


179 posted on 03/29/2012 5:22:00 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( "It happened. And we let it happen. - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

FDR said pretty much the same thing.

Put Reagan on the dime!!!


180 posted on 03/29/2012 5:26:24 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

“Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down”

Nancy Pelosi’s wig will have to work overtime scrambling to come up with an Obamacare II.


181 posted on 03/29/2012 5:27:15 PM PDT by denimnlace (True hope does not disappoint.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

How can you have the Speaker of the House at the time say “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it,” and then claim rigorous vetting, constitionality, and transparency.

Once again Senator Kerry reminds the nation of the dodged bullet for not electing his partisan hack brain dead a$$.


182 posted on 03/29/2012 5:29:41 PM PDT by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; AuntB
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted. “As a senior member of the Finance Committee,” he said, “I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress.


183 posted on 03/29/2012 5:38:14 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

B U M P


184 posted on 03/29/2012 6:00:49 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

Go ahead, whizz off the Chief Justice....I double dawg dare ya...


185 posted on 03/29/2012 6:11:28 PM PDT by halfright (Just a serf in the Kingdom of Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB
It serves as a warning as to why we CANNOT let the dems control both Houses of Congress...article III has a hidden bomb in it: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. what that means practically is that Congress could, simply by passing a law, make a case off limits for the SC to hear. So far the Congress' respect for due process and democracy has caused them not to exercise that power, but with these guys?
186 posted on 03/29/2012 6:12:06 PM PDT by Lex Gabba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
If the do not overturn this POS law and I really do hope they kill it, they should eliminate every exemption that have been passed. Eliminate all of them, every company has to pay into it especially the Cadillac plans, eliminate the exception for muslims and the such.

If it is good for everyone than force everyone to pay into it and force them to use it, otherwise kill it.

187 posted on 03/29/2012 6:30:29 PM PDT by SledgeCS (I will vote for Obama when he says "The F'ing MUSLIMS attacked the USA and are the enemy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Sybeck1; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; AuntB

Yes, I agree with the Dems that “‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down”. I saw Maddow argue this the other night.
At least Kagan is unbiased on this case and has a head start on it too.

This reminds me of something I noticed during Bush’s first term. Back then Republicans were complaining about the SCOTUS decisions so CNN and few others liberal MSM started doing shows and segments on how Republicans questioning the SCOTUS would undermine the ‘rule of law’. Not the decisions themselves, but the criticism.

It’s amazing how tables can turn.


188 posted on 03/29/2012 6:39:39 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

All depends on whose OX is being Algored : )


189 posted on 03/29/2012 6:58:10 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility.”

No, you sick, twisted psycho....people obey it, because it is the L A W


190 posted on 03/29/2012 7:01:53 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Are these fools threatening the SCOTUS!!???


Yup. And they know the SCOTUS is powerless to do anything about it.


191 posted on 03/29/2012 7:12:22 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: All

Dems Warn Of “Grave Damage”....

Obama did promise “shovel ready” jobs ;)


192 posted on 03/29/2012 7:16:45 PM PDT by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
RE :”All depends on whose OX is being Algored : )

You fat cats need to pay their fair share.
As long as there is a SINGLE poor Hispanic kid in AZ then you are not paying enough $$$ to Obama, and more of them are on the way :)

193 posted on 03/29/2012 7:17:00 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Sybeck1; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; ...

The Dems don’t want to kick Lucy’s football twice. No tax increases on Big Oil, to pay for another bankrupt green criminal enterprise.

Dems “Go F yourself, Obama!!”


194 posted on 03/29/2012 7:34:28 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Yes, we need to tax oil to make it cheaper, Obamas experts promise us that it will work at least as good as Obama-care and the stimulus did.


195 posted on 03/29/2012 7:40:39 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Resist we MUCH !!

al sharpton


196 posted on 03/29/2012 8:13:05 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name

I have always believed that liberals are so determined to get their way that they are willing to risk civil war to do so. I don’t know what the issue will be (maybe it’s this one) but one day it will happen. They are NOT going to allow rule of law, the constitution, will of the people, or any of that to keep them from getting what they want.

As far as I’m concerned, they can start now. Let it happen while I’m still young enough to carry a gun and fight. I would hate to see it start when I’m in my late 70s or 80s and unable to do my part.


I honestly think they think we will just lay down and accept it.

However, if it does lead to a war. I agree. Lets get it started. I am young enough to fight and my kids are old enough to be ok with out me. I am raising my kids the right way, outside of the nest of the government. Neither attend government schools (my wife teaches them)

we started deprogramming them 4 months ago. Both are turning in to great little capitalists with the ability to help rebuild our nation once what infects it is rooted out and removed.


197 posted on 03/29/2012 9:02:42 PM PDT by cableguymn (Good thing I am a conservative. Otherwise I would have to support Mittens like Republicans do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

With Ginsberg retiring during a Republican administration


I doubt that will happen unless shes passes away.

She’ll stay until a democrat can replace her or she is dead. (of natural causes)


198 posted on 03/29/2012 9:09:18 PM PDT by cableguymn (Good thing I am a conservative. Otherwise I would have to support Mittens like Republicans do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
The Dems don’t want to kick Lucy’s football twice. No tax increases on Big Oil, to pay for another bankrupt green criminal enterprise.

The ones who see others' wealth as their own don't care about govt. boondoggles. Hell, some of them want to govt. to spend as much as possible on Solyndras. But grabbing private citizens' wealth and property via the power of taxation and "redistribution" is the main goal.

But I think you are partly right. Some of them know it would be foolish and wrong.

199 posted on 03/29/2012 9:42:48 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility.

Logical conclusion from this statement: If Obamacare is struck down, the Supreme Court has no credibility. If the Supreme Court has no credibility, it's ruling can be ignored. Therefore, the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.

What then?

200 posted on 03/29/2012 10:30:15 PM PDT by abishai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-261 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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