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

Skip to comments.

Dems wage pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling
The Hill ^ | 4/02/12 | Alexander Bolton

Posted on 04/03/2012 2:14:46 AM PDT by Libloather

Dems wage pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling
By Alexander Bolton - 04/02/12 06:02 PM ET

Democrats have waged a not-so-subtle pressure campaign on the Supreme Court in recent days by warning a ruling against the healthcare reform law would smash precedent and threaten popular social programs.

President Obama was the latest to weigh in when he declared Monday that a wide array of legal experts would be astonished if the court struck down part or all of his signature domestic initiative.

“I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold the law,” Obama said Monday during a Rose Garden press conference. “That’s not just my opinion but also the opinion of legal experts across the political spectrum.”

He said it would be “unprecedented” for the court to strike down the individual mandate, which requires the uninsured to buy health coverage or pay a penalty.

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and a prominent advocate during Supreme Court confirmation battles, said Obama and Democrats have made it clear that they would fiercely criticize a ruling against the healthcare law.

“I do think the statements by some of the senators and the president are serving notice to the court that, frankly, if the court does overturn the law, in essence, the court will become a political football in the election,” Aron said.

“I wouldn’t have said that before of the president’s comments. By virtue of the fact that he spoke out, it does serve notice: Think twice before throwing out this baby. It will be viewed more as a political act,” she added.

Justices have shown in the recent past that they are not impervious to the president’s words and how they might influence public perception of the high court.

Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words “not true” when Obama criticized the court’s decision in the Citizens United case during his 2010 State of the Union address, and Aron noted that Chief Justice John Roberts has a reputation for being mindful of his legacy.

“We do know this is a justice who reads the press about himself. There have been reports about that,” Aron said.

Senior Democratic lawmakers have warned the court would upend the legal precedent that gives Congress the power to provide for the nation’s general welfare if it rules that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause does not allow the mandate to have insurance.

“If they were to throw out the healthcare law, things like Medicare, Social Security, food safety laws could be in jeopardy on the very same grounds,” Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Senate Democratic leader, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. “It would be a dramatic, 180-degree turn of the tradition of the Commerce Clause.”

Democrats have cited the words of conservative legal scholars and past Republican support for the individual mandate to bolster their argument.

Schumer and Senate Health Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have both quoted J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was appointed by former president Ronald Reagan to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilkinson said “the idea that Congress is constitutionally disabled” from regulating the healthcare market is a “heavy judicial lift.”

Schumer called Wilkinson the dean of conservative judges on the courts of appeal and has frequently reminded reporters that the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, first proposed the idea of a health insurance mandate in 1993.

Harkin said, “the opponents of healthcare reform, the Affordable Care Act, are basing their arguments on politics rather than precedents.”

“This court can go no other way but to uphold the individual mandate the Congress has put into the individual mandate,” he said at a press conference Democrats held after the second day of oral arguments.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) warned the court last week that a ruling against the healthcare reform law would have far-reaching consequences.

“I think it’s a clear-cut case. I think you have to stretch to say this is unconstitutional but Social Security, for example, or Medicare is constitutional,” Leahy said. “If you say this is unconstitutional, then you have to say Social Security and Medicare are also unconstitutional. I’m not sure the court is prepared to do that.”

Senate Republicans have taken a different tack. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has declined to predict how the court will rule.

Despite filing an amicus brief in the case, he has been relatively reticent about the legal merits of the case.

He said last week that if the court upheld the mandate, its interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be so broad as to make meaningless its constraint on federal power.

“What that leads to ultimately, we don’t know but we know the suspense will be over in June,” he said.

McConnell says regardless of how the court rules, he is committed to making repeal of the law a high priority if Republicans capture control of the Senate.

Some legal experts, however, doubt the Democratic public relations campaign will have much influence on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is widely seen as the swing vote on the closely divided court.

“I don’t think they’ll have any impact. It’s possible they would have an adverse impact,” said Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to former President Bill Clinton and is the principal at the law firm Lanny J. Davis & Associates.

“The history of Justice Kennedy is quite independent and thoughtful and he’ll make the decision on the merits and not on political influences. I won’t say that about every justice, some of whom came out of political world.”

Davis, a columnist for The Hill, said it is “perfectly legitimate” for justices to consider the political ramifications of their decisions.

He noted that then Chief Justice Earl Warren strove to unify his fellow justices behind a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas, knowing the decision would have broad political impact and receive criticism. That decision struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine for racial segregation.

Last week’s hearing on the 2010 healthcare reform law was the most time the Supreme Court set aside for oral arguments since Brown v. Board of Education, according to Senate sources who reviewed the record.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alinskytactics; bhofascism; commiecare; corruption; court; democrats; fraud; healthcare; individualmandate; liberalfascism; obamacare; scotus; supreme; tyranny; unconstitutional
Did the Supremes comment when the RATS held their secret Commiecare™ meetings? RATS just don't know when to shaddap.
1 posted on 04/03/2012 2:14:53 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Obama is just trying to figure out how to play this....and to remind “the new girls on the block” as to how they got there.


2 posted on 04/03/2012 2:19:44 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I wish we had a president who appreciated our system of government instead of being the lead bully trying to undo it.


3 posted on 04/03/2012 2:21:48 AM PDT by greatvikingone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I thought it was illegal to try to pressure judges . . . well, maybe not anymore; after all, contract killings seem to be acceptable now . . .


4 posted on 04/03/2012 2:22:00 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The assertion that welfare and social security would be threatened is ridiculous. It’s one thing to take my taxes and dole it out, it’s another to force me to PURCHASE A PRODUCT FROM ANOTHER ENTITY.


5 posted on 04/03/2012 2:55:42 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
“I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold the law,” Obama said Monday during a Rose Garden press conference.

I wonder if Obama is aware that not all laws passed by the congress are necessarily constitutional? Our country has checks and balances in order to ensure that the law is constitutional. There are many, many examples of past controversial rulings in which cases an unconstitutional law was not upheld for obvious reasons.

Many, if not most Americans know this.

6 posted on 04/03/2012 3:30:07 AM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Sounds like we have a Bunch of Radicals and some Prima Donnas on the Court,God Help us all


7 posted on 04/03/2012 3:30:14 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Kagan has already given them the bad news, based on Obama’s reaction here.


8 posted on 04/03/2012 3:30:14 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
I was watching the Military channel last night on Hitler's bodyguards and low and behold Hitler got his start as a Community organizer.

I am surprised he didn't add a law degree to his resume.

9 posted on 04/03/2012 3:58:34 AM PDT by scooby321 (h tones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Kagan has already given them the bad news, based on Obama’s reaction here.

It's certainly looking that way...

10 posted on 04/03/2012 4:02:44 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Mitt Romney is SEVERELY conservative - and I'm SEVERELY against giving him my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

11 posted on 04/03/2012 4:10:14 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

shaddap...You sound like you’re from Brooklyn, my home town!


12 posted on 04/03/2012 4:24:32 AM PDT by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
If Obama had been given "good news" on the SCOTUS decision, his reaction would have been very different. Something like, "We have every confidence in the wisdom of the Supreme Court."

So thank you, Justice Kagan for giving us a sneak peak at the SCOTUS decision.

13 posted on 04/03/2012 4:29:25 AM PDT by PJ-Comix ("How To Overcome Writer's Block In Less Than An Hour" ---Available at Amazon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

We are seeing the left resort to intimidation, personal attacks, and throwing fits on a daily basis now. It’s becoming a moment to moment way of life for them and it is starting to seem normal behavior to many people who seem to just excuse it out of hand.

America is truly lost if we can demand no better from elected officials.


14 posted on 04/03/2012 4:37:53 AM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and a prominent advocate during Supreme Court confirmation battles, said Obama and Democrats have made it clear that they would fiercely criticize a ruling against the healthcare law.

You knew she'd look like this.


15 posted on 04/03/2012 4:57:35 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorists savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

It is my hope that as things began to unravel, that more and more people will see the administration for what it is. Threatening the highest court? Maybe the SCOTUS has smoked out the imposter and also found the mole.


16 posted on 04/03/2012 5:00:36 AM PDT by toolman1401
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
...Obama and Democrats have made it clear that they would fiercely criticize a ruling against the healthcare law

So what?

17 posted on 04/03/2012 5:05:45 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“fiercely” as in holding their breath AND stamping their little feet.


18 posted on 04/03/2012 5:12:24 AM PDT by tm61 (somewhere in chicago, a ward is missing it's crook)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

One thing that falls under the same premise as the “individual mandate” is government offices and institutions playing the part of “enforcer” for AFSCME and other public employee unions, ie, deducting union dues from your wages so the employee is stripped of any choice in the matter. That practice, much like the individual mandate, forces workers - who pay taxes to support the government - to pay unions dues regardless of whether these people WANT to belong to the union or not. (Of course they are offered the “alternative” of donating that money to a charity of the UNION’S choice.) This is NOT the government’s first foray into forcing people to pay for a product they neither want or need and acting as enforcer. From the viewpoint of many of us, the court is our last and possibly only defense against a government run amok.


19 posted on 04/03/2012 5:16:26 AM PDT by onevoter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Kagan has already given them the bad news, based on Obama’s reaction here.

I agree. The little troll called her buddy on Thursday to tell him and it took all weekend to get the other 'Rats (Blumenthal, Leahy & Schumer) on board with the talking points.

There's no a doubt in my mind that her nomination was contingent on her not recusing herself from the case and that she would keep them informed early on the decision.

20 posted on 04/03/2012 5:23:28 AM PDT by submarinerswife (Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results~Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

I agree, let’s just hope that his arrogant speech from a petulant man child is enough to thoroughly piss them off, and in their disgust OVERTURN WICKARD v FILBURN. Abolish 80% of the Federal Government in One Ruling. No that would be HOPE AND CHANGE.


21 posted on 04/03/2012 5:34:13 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; ...
RE :”President Obama was the latest to weigh in when he declared Monday that a wide array of legal experts would be astonished if the court struck down part or all of his signature domestic initiative.
“I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold the law,” Obama said Monday during a Rose Garden press conference. “That’s not just my opinion but also the opinion of legal experts across the political spectrum.”
He said it would be “unprecedented” for the court to strike down the individual mandate, which requires the uninsured to buy health coverage or pay a penalty.

This is obviously a political message to Obama’s liberal base who didnt like Obama-care in the first place but found themselves rallying behind Obama against the Republican House. Once again he plays the same act against the SCOTUS to rally them.

Note his consistent style : He says is confident that the SCOTUS will do the right thing. He said the exact same thing about the Republican House on that deficit deal he blew up. Call it Phony optimism for political effect.

The legal arguments for upholding the mandate and other parts all revolve around court precedents giving congress power to do mostly anything it wants since Roosevelt. Notice Libs don't see precedents as their limitation, like marraige definition 10,000 years as opposite sex.

This is the obama who claims that DOMA is unconstitutional. Arrogance is his name for sure.

22 posted on 04/03/2012 5:41:44 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

If they throw out the individual mandate, but leave the rest in place, it is the equivalent of the Supreme Court having a Line Item Veto, which they ruled as unconstitutional for the President!


23 posted on 04/03/2012 6:07:02 AM PDT by Mannaggia l'America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

2 possibilities:

1) the vote went against him and Obama is desperately trying to flip Kennedy before June

2) the vote went for him and Obama is positioning himself to take credit.

Based on his demeanor and tone of voice I’m going with Option 1.


24 posted on 04/03/2012 6:57:06 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“If you say this is unconstitutional, then you have to say Social Security and Medicare are also unconstitutional”

I can live with that!

I concur that the timing and intensity of this hand-wringing strongly suggest Kagan has leaked word that Friday’s vote went badly for Obamacare.

Of course, all this ex parte lobbying may well backfire, as it amounts to “piling on” after the president’s attempt to publicly humiliate the Court during the SOTU. The conservative justices on SCOTUS well know the Court’s proper role and presumably are deeply offended by POTUS’s unprecedented politicking for a favored result.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC, even AlGore had the decency to keep his lips zipped while SCOTUS was deliberately during Bush v. Gore.


25 posted on 04/03/2012 7:07:54 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Kagan has already given them the bad news, based on Obama’s reaction here.

IMHO the news was worse than expected.

If this is a 5-4 vote, Obama can spin it as political.

A 7-2 vote, with one of his own voting against him, is much harder to explain away.

26 posted on 04/03/2012 7:16:14 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I wonder if this sort of thing would be enough to make Kennedy fold like a cheap umbrella...


27 posted on 04/03/2012 7:24:19 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

Somewhere there is an ugly tree with all of its branches snapped off.


28 posted on 04/03/2012 7:34:54 AM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemies of freedom. Be Andrew Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
A 7-2 vote, with one of his own voting against him, is much harder to explain away.

Even a 6-3 would show that one of the 4 stooges voted against him. I look for a 5-4. Which way? Who knows how Kennedy will vote?

29 posted on 04/03/2012 9:08:56 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Haggai 1, V6.. and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes. (My plight))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: formosa

“...We are seeing the left resort to intimidation, personal attacks, and throwing fits on a daily basis now....”

Just wait till after Ø is defeated in November. We ain’t seen nothing yet!


30 posted on 04/03/2012 9:16:09 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (In Memphis on January 20, 2009, pump price were $1.49. We all know what happened after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
“Obama is just trying to figure out how to play this....and to remind “the new girls on the block” as to how they got there.”

He screwed the pooch now. I suspect his unholier that everyone ‘tude will cause a shift in the court to 6-3.

That guy (0) is the most obnoxious SOB to ever sit in the WH.

Interesting to note that the more he loses, the more irrational he gets.

I am afraid of what he might do,

31 posted on 04/03/2012 9:24:00 AM PDT by chooseascreennamepat (The response to 1984 is 1776.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold the law,” Obama said Monday during a Rose Garden press conference. “That’s not just my opinion but also the opinion of legal experts across the political spectrum.”


Translated:
“we have asked the opinion of people from across the spectrum for their opinions. White liberals, black liberals, Hispanic liberals, gay liberals, female liberals, handicapped liberals, old liberals and young ones too. All agree this law should be upheld”

Seriously, he lives in a real life echo chamber.


32 posted on 04/03/2012 9:29:15 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Obama 2012: Dozens of MSNBC viewers can't be wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Obama throws “fag fit” the Bulldyke whispered “You lost” to

him.


33 posted on 04/03/2012 9:42:30 AM 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 22 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

i am thinking the same


34 posted on 04/03/2012 9:49:00 AM PDT by markman46 (engage brain before using keyboard!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Agree.... Stay safe !


35 posted on 04/03/2012 11:44:58 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
Just wait till after Ø is defeated in November. We ain’t seen nothing yet!

Maybe you should not count your chickens yet.p> I predict that Romney will not beat Zero, and I further predict that the Zero bill will be upheld, with maybe a ruling against the mandate, which will somehow be passed on to the States.

The reason the bill will stand can be directly attributed to the GOPe.

Just my prediction, hope I am wrong for sure.

36 posted on 04/03/2012 12:14:34 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are most of my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I love the smell of tyranny in the morning...smells like oppression.


37 posted on 04/03/2012 12:27:47 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chooseascreennamepat

Not trying to sound like Michelle, but for the first time in my life I am afraid for the safety of the Supreme Court Justices. This President his Commie buddies scare me.


38 posted on 04/03/2012 12:33:45 PM PDT by July4 (Remember the price paid for your freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

This Motherhugging Kenyan Socialist Muslim Marxist Crack Smoking D**k Sucker (also known as President Barack Obama) knows full well that Judicial Review, which is their precise function, has been the job of the Supreme Court since the country was founded.

Unprecedented???!? This is the use of Hitler's Big Lie premise!!!

Let me give you a feew precedents to the Supreme Court "overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"

1) Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Finance Law

2) Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional. The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Initially the case involved Secretary of State James Madison, who refused to seat four judicial appointees although they had been confirmed by the Senate.

And that's just two examples. There are more.

39 posted on 04/03/2012 12:38:55 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Shut up and drill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mannaggia l'America
If they throw out the individual mandate, but leave the rest in place, it is the equivalent of the Supreme Court having a Line Item Veto, which they ruled as unconstitutional for the President!

That's the severability issue, and you're right about the implications. It was also noted by the Court that Congress had a severability clause in Obamacare and then specifically threw it out. So it's not likely that it will be acknowledged as acting. Which means when the individual mandate goes, all of Obamacaer goes with it (which would be true financially even with severability, but the Court will just strike the whole thing outright).

40 posted on 04/03/2012 1:30:48 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
This Motherhugging Kenyan Socialist Muslim Marxist Crack Smoking D**k Sucker (also known as President Barack Obama)...

You realize of course, Laz, don't you, that you just hit it?

41 posted on 04/03/2012 1:33:08 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
“I think it’s a clear-cut case. I think you have to stretch to say this is unconstitutional but Social Security, for example, or Medicare is constitutional,” Leahy said. “If you say this is unconstitutional, then you have to say Social Security and Medicare are also unconstitutional. I’m not sure the court is prepared to do that.”

Hey Leakey, neither Social Security nor Medicare require me to buy something under threat of penalty if I don't. Plus, in theory, both of these programs are paid for through payroll withholding. In theory, it is a return of money I've already invested.

42 posted on 04/03/2012 2:54:53 PM PDT by upchuck (Need is not an acceptable lifestyle choice; dependent is not a career. ~ Dr. Tim Nerenz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tm61

Well.... do you think it’s coincidence that the New Black Panthers put out a bounty on George Zimmerman and threatened into hiding his family as well as somebody living at the address wrongly tweeted as Zimmerman’s address, all at the time that SCOTUS was hearing the arguments for Obamacare?

Or was it a little reminder that when King Herod has a tantrum innocent people die? Or a little reminder the week before Holy Week that when the mob shouts “Crucify him” and “If you let him go, you are no friend of Ceasar”*, Pilate will give in to the crowd even though he knows the man on trial is innocent and has been handed over because of envy.

(* “Friends of Caesar” was the actual name for an elite club whose only exit mechanism was mandatory suicide. And Pilate had just recently been told that if he had any more run-ins with the Jews he would be ousted.)

Tantrums would be funny if innocent people weren’t killed by them...


43 posted on 04/03/2012 4:37:35 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Intimidation - it's a way of life to the Rats...
44 posted on 04/03/2012 4:38:45 PM PDT by 4Liberty (88% of Americans are NON-UNION. We value honest, peaceful Free trade-NOT protectionist CARTELS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Every day I think it is not possible to despise RATS more than I do already. Every day I am proven wrong.


45 posted on 04/03/2012 6:46:52 PM PDT by allblues
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I heard the lib radio show host in Portland talking about how George Washington companies to place insurance on merchant marines and sailors.

Ok first of all even if I take that on it’s face(which I admit I haven’t researched) it was the government forcing insurance on merchant marines and sailors purchased by companies. Also it had nothing to do with all citizens forcing to buy a product from a private company.


46 posted on 04/03/2012 9:25:49 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

None of the 4 liberal stooges will vote to overturn it, that is what makes them stooges, and the Obama positioning is ALL about trying to discredit the 5-4 likely overturn result.

Who knows how Kennedy will vote? we dont, but it sure was a pisspoor result at oral arguments for Obama Team and obvious call to say the individual mandate is not in the federal govts power.


47 posted on 04/04/2012 7:29:24 AM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: allblues
They sure are pushing us into a corner, aren't they?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Isn't this what we're seeing?
They are "pursuing invariably the same object" of reducing the individual under absolute despotism.

48 posted on 04/04/2012 7:38:28 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: toolman1401

I hope that Roberts is smart enough to handle Kagan and Sotomayor through this. Can he recuse Kaga if she won’t do it herself? Has she recused herself? Could the constitutional justices feed misinformation through Kagan, or something like that?


49 posted on 04/04/2012 9:37:39 AM PDT by CPO retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CPO retired

I don’t think he can make her recuse. I also don’t think she will on her own since she should have already if it were going to happen. I don’t think misinformation is used. The final ruling will come in June and the opinions will be interesting (both majority and dissenting). The latest remarks by the administration are misleading at best.


50 posted on 04/04/2012 10:15:16 AM PDT by toolman1401
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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