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

TPM ^ | 3/28/2012 | sahil kapul

[Wordkraft]

That sounds like the Dems. are making threats to the safety of the members of the court.

[longtermmemmory]

you can’t eliminate lawsuits. Hospitals already kill people via incompetence. CYA medicine is not bad because it actually works. Items that are missed are caught,etc.

In states where caps have been imposed, hospitals know they can outspend and out last any poor patient and burry the rest of their mistakes.

[Menehune56]

Is this not an out and out threat?

It certainly is a threat on the order of "nice little supreme court you have there, pity if anything were to happen to it." These dreadful people are nothing but common thugs.

[TigersEye]

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

Is that a threat? (it probably is)

[danamco]

Well, $700 millon$$++ was enought to purchase an illegal alien and a criminal Chicago thug to fraudulent occupy the W.H.!!!

[TigersEye]

I suspect sKerry’s mental disability is self-inflicted too.

[dennisw]

yep its a veiled threat....God willing the Kenyan regime gets ousted in November and these arrogant “Senators” can go pond sand

[nothingnew]

I’d wager “Kelo” already did some major damage.

Absolutely. One of the worst decisions I can remember. I have little faith in USSC to follow the Constitution as what their job is to do.

FMCDH(BITS)

[LibLieSlayer]

THE SAME WAY THAT kerry CAN “Sear” A MEMORY INTO HIS BRAIN... A MEMORY THAT NEVER HAPPENED... OF A PLACE HE HAS NEVER BEEN... AND ORDERED BY A PRESIDENT THAT WAS NOT PRESIDENT AT THE TIME AND IS WHO HE CLAIMS TO HAVE ISSUED HIS ORDERS.

Sorry... I had to shout that from the rooftops!

LLS

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I’d wager “Kelo” already did some major damage.

Kelo, R. v. Wade, CFR, etc etc etc

[ColdOne]

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.

[drypowder]

“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.

[dennisw]

 

 

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] 

• 1 Background
• 2 Opinion of the Court
• 3 Subsequent developments
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 Further reading
• 7 External links

[TASMANIANRED]

Dred Scott

[BobL]

“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.

[SoFloFreeper]

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."

[newnhdad]

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.

[SoFloFreeper]

“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.

[Excellence]

Did John Semmens write this?

[PapaBear3625]

“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.