Skip to comments.Did the Supreme Courtís initial ObamaCare vote leak to Obama?
Posted on 04/03/2012 6:38:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Unless he's trying to goose a slow news day with speculation, I have no idea why Drudge is pushing the "leak" angle. There's nothing about it in the Reuters story he links to and, as far as I saw, nothing in O's comments today in the Rose Garden to suggest he had inside info. If he had seized on some obscure part of last week's arguments, like the Anti-Injunction Act, then that might have been a clue that something the media had overlooked was weighing heavily inside the Court's own deliberations and that O had gotten wind of it. But he didn't. He gave a straightforward pitch that, unless the Court rules his way, it’s illegitimate. I expected nothing less. Neither, I’m sure, did Anthony Kennedy, who has three months to make up his mind and therefore probably isn’t a firm yes or no yet. And, if you’ve been reading liberal pundits lately, neither did you.
Speaking of which, having endured a “train wreck” and a “plane wreck” at the Supreme Court last week, Jeffrey Toobin shakes off the trauma and joins in the left’s newfound appreciation for why judicial activism is a bad thing:
For example, the Justices had no trouble upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which used the [Commerce Clause] to mandate the integration of hotels and restaurants. It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination, Justice Tom C. Clark wrote, for his unanimous brethren. But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress, not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce may be removedwhat means are to be employedis within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress. In other words, Justice Kennedy had it backward. The heavy burden is not on the defenders of the law but on its challengers. Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it isor should bea grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government…
It is simply not the Supreme Courts business to be making these kinds of judgments. The awesome, and final, powers of the Justices are best exercised sparingly and with restraint. Their normal burdens of interpreting laws are heavy enough. No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either.
Rest assured, if Obama wins reelection and replaces Scalia or Kennedy with a hardcore liberal, the revered principle of judicial deference to Congress will be power-flushed down the toilet once a Republican president and legislature are in office together again. But never mind that, and never mind the fact that he sidesteps the question of whether people who aren’t participating in commerce are reachable by the Commerce Clause. He seems to be imagining here an almost conclusory deference to Congress by the Court on all things commerce. Imagine that the Court took his advice and declared that the “heavy burden” is on the states to show why Congress doesn’t have this entirely novel power to force people to buy things. What would the states have to show to convince Justice Toobin that they’d met that burden? This is a case of first impression so there’s no direct precedent that either side can point to. What argument, then, could the states theoretically make to convince Toobin that Congress had exceeded its commerce power? I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that, like so much of the left, he thinks there is no conceptual limit on the Commerce Clause except the Bill of Rights. If you can’t show that the mandate violates, say, the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause, then you’re out of luck. But that’s absurd; the whole point of enumerated powers is to set limits on what Congress can do apart from the Bill of Rights (which, of course, wasn’t even part of the Constitution originally). Within that larger context of circumscribed federal power, when you have Congress seeking to do something that it’s never done before, why should its prerogative enjoy heavy deference and not the states’?
Here’s Mark Levin unloading on The One for his comments about the Court today. Click the image to listen.
yeah...the flaming Beyotch that should have recused herself...probably spilled the beans to her messiah.
And this tool, Jeffrey Toobin (who used to post here) will be standing on the sidelines cheering.
Leftwing Supreme Court justices conspiring with leftwing presidents is a time-honored tradition among Marxists. Brandeis regularly used his daughter, Elizabeth, to tip off FDR on what was going on behind the scenes at SCOTUS. FDR’s nickname for him was “Isaiah.”
I wonder if any members of the largely worthless white house press corps will stop sucking Obama's arse long enough to ask how it squares with his DOJ's lawsuit to stop Arizona's SB 1070.
That may well be the silliest question I have ever seen in my life! He knew what the result of that vote was before the sun went down that day!
I think that probably 7 or 8 of the Justices thought the law was baloney, and then they sat around and decided which four would receive cover by voting for the law. Tattling about the vote was important, but so was tattling the information about who wasn’t sticking to the Democrat vote on this law.
Democrats - Thieves, Thugs, Thralls and Thickheads
Imagine the hue and cry when the ax finally falls on Obamugabe Care!
Oh, the humanity!.........................
Imagine the hue and cry when it doesn’t.
No one has had the balls to stand in the way of this communist thug, and I don’t see it happening now.
One one hand, a SCOTUS decision upholding Obamacare might get the conservative wing out in November like Romney never could.
It has, and we will know how they ruled by the level of panic coming out of Barry and his minions in the weeks ahead.
yes it was leaked, that’s their commie game. The supremes should fast track the final ruling soon, otherwise they will get commie alinsky potshots for next two months.
In the book Left Behind, a snake-oil salesman named Carpathian brings the World to ruin.
Dictator Baby-Doc Barack is our Carpathian as he tries to bring America to ruin.
I think there is an advantage to letting Barry stew until June. If he lost and he knows it, by June he will have finally cracked and launched into the full-scale public meltdown we need to puncture once and for all his “Mr. Cool” persona.
I would almost guarantee that Justices Scalia, Alito, and most certainly Thomas have the balls to overturn--the question is, do Roberts and Kennedy?
Remains to be seen. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the court upholds the whole law, and if somehow they do overturn it, Obama will implement it anyway.
I mean, seriously, what are they going to do about it?
Once the vote was taken the staff starts working on research for the opinions..so the staff knows what the vote was. You can be sure it was leaked to Obama.
El Mulatto has two stooges on the court who most likely DID leak out the preliminary vote.
I try to keep an open mind, but something fishy is going on because why would Dear Leader put down on the Supremes. I don’t think we’ve begun to see bad yet, but It’s coming.
You know Kagan told the administration the law is dead.. its not even up for debate, her entire appointment to the court was so she could be a vote for it, nothing more. She has no business being on the court based on merit.
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.