Skip to comments.Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down
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 arent 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 courts 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 whove practiced law are to see the intense questions from the justices. Theyre 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. Theyre 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 Acts requirement to purchase insurance, a central pillar of the law. The firestorm was ignited by legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who called Tuesdays arguments a train wreck for the White House and predicted that Obamacare would be struck down.
Pushing back, Blumenthal said that theres a heavy burden on the challengers.
Everybody learns in the first year of law school that the law thats 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 its too difficult to predict how the court will rule.
Affordable Care Act, HCR/SCOTUS, Supreme Court
"Why don't you shut up....."
You nailed it. The dems are obviously applying political pressure on the court, but that could backfire big time.
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, the previous days were for nothing but theatre for public consumption. In the end Kennedy will sign onto the Sotamayor view and it will be upheld 5-4.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...
Yes, I can clearly see why the Democrats would claim that the SCOTUS, upholding the rule of Law according to the letter of the Constitution, would see this as a “discredit”.
BUT DO IT ANYWAY! Discredit me please!
What will damage the credibility of the Supreme Court or any particular Justice is any vote to uphold the mandate.
The road to socialism requires millions of lies.
The court already has no credibility. Overturning Obamacare would be a small, a very small, step toward reclaiming some.
The court may no command armies, but it has a whole slew of federal marshals ready to throw into jail anyone a judge so says.
that, not its credibility, is why people obey the courts.
Logic would lead you to believe that it is difficult to vet something that you have not read and need to pass to see what it says.
CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE.. SCREW 'CHANGE'!
I take this as a threat from the Democrats!
So thoroughly researched it had to pass before it was read.
STOP WITH YOUR THREATS YOU COMMIES!! The will of the people have spoken.
Looks like the Rats are in full panic. They just saw their whole ideology put on trial and they didn't like what they saw one bit. It is as though they never had a concept of how bad their thinking looks after being dissected.
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 (I admit I’d be a lousy justice since something like this could affect me).
The bigger deal is if I were 1 of 4 justices on the losing side of a 5-4 decision. If the court’s credibility is being attacked by congress, I’d feel the need to side with the majority so that it isn’t a 5-4 decision. Maybe the Democrats are expecting a 5-4 their way and hoping to turn it into a 6-3. I doubt they are thinking that much though and are just making threats.
Credibility? 52 million murders of our most innocent and vulnerable demonstrates that our highest court in the land has nothing in common with the US constitution.