Skip to comments.Mark Levin Eviscerates the Obamacare Ruling
Posted on 06/28/2012 4:57:08 PM PDT by Hojczyk
This decision I would go as far to say is lawless. Absolutely lawless! Listen to his First Segment from June 28s Show
I pity anyone that called in approving of the decision.
The Dred Scott/Plessy vs. Ferguson/Roe v. Wade ruling of the 21st Century.
Last night he said he was “scsred to death.” Levin never predicted that 0bamacare would be overturned.
>> Mark Levin Eviscerates the Obamacare Ruling
In his ego-dreams, maybe.
No, that’s the problem with SCOTUS decisions. They leave a MARK. For a long time, sometimes. What pundits like Levin think doesn’t mean squat.
Ref: Roe vs Wade
This hurts more than Barky’s win in ‘08.
I’m praying hard. Don’t know what else to do. Prayer is always good.
Mark also dismisses those who claim that Roberts did good with regard to the commerce clause....listen to what he has to say about that, he makes much sense!
He is ABSOLUTELY right!
Welcome to socialism America! It’s been 80 years in the making. The feds now have the power to pretty much do whatever suits their fancy.
Im praying hard. Dont know what else to do.
Keep praying but “faith without works is dead”. We need to work our butts off to, on Nov. 6, 2012, elect a GOP President, House and Senate and then, come January, repeal JudgeRobertsCare.
How much weight will that carry? He stretched to find it constitutional as a tax in a clear judicial overreach.
>> Keep praying but faith without works is dead. We need to work our butts off to, on Nov. 6, 2012, elect a GOP President, House and Senate and then, come January, repeal JudgeRobertsCare.
Excellent point, Papa.
I pray that this (R) party is up to the task, if we succeed in choosing them.
God bless Mark Levin.
The only way I can reconcile this decision is that Roberts did this so that it would be an issue against Obama in November.
Does anyone else remember that Roberts flubbed Obama’s swearing-in and then held a private swearing-in for him. I was suspicious then and I’m suspicious now.
There’s a clip going around with Roberts saying he would find a way to make every piece that comes to him work. He changed it from a mandate to a tax.
You do understand Levin's legal foundation, Landmark Legal, submitted briefs on ObamaCare which helped persuade an Appeals Court to strike it down? He helped do the heavily lifting that got the case before SCOTUS.
What squat did you do about it?
I increasingly think that today’s awful decision was leaked to Obama, etc. and that’s why he so boldly asserted immunity in the gun running investigation. He knew today’s ruling would overshadow his ploy.
Clicking on the link to the show gets you a playback icon that when clicked says “file not found” No file there. And won’t be until tonight’s shows are all archived.
> He helped do the heavily lifting that got the case before SCOTUS. He helped do the heavily lifting that got the case before SCOTUS.
And his RESULTS were ... ???
(Incidentally, what did YOU do?)
I think it was Obama who flubbed the swearing-in.
All the skids have been greased for this guy from the word “go”.
He pretty much did whatever was humanly possible. Both your remarks were rather mindless.
>> Both your remarks were rather mindless.
You’re going to have to do better than that to convince me.
Pundits are a dime a dozen. Just more news as entertainment. Levin lines his own pockets very nicely. That’s his reward. Not results.
Not that I disagree with anything Mark has said on this matter (I don’t), MY problem with this ruling is MUCH more fundamental and I would be quite thankful for any legal scholar who can point me to the grant of authority in the constitution which would allow any judge anywhere to re-write a law as the Roberts majority did in this case.
I have been reading that document for many years now but seem to have missed that part. Perhaps that to is in the penumbra! I admit to have a great deal of difficulty in reading those!
There are quite a few briefs Mark’s foundation submitted. But in much the same way his group was unable to convince the five knuckleheads on the SCOTUS I doubt I’ll convince you.
“”The only way I can reconcile this decision is that Roberts did this so that it would be an issue against Obama in November””
I too, would like to believe that he was sending us a message to get busy and throw all the bums out in November. Wishful thinking?
Levin’s entire rant today was brilliant.
“In his ego-dreams, maybe.”
Mark Levin is no egomaniac, and if you ever listened to his show you would know that.
Mark Levin DID eviscerate the ruling. Look up the word and learn something.
Another in a long list ..COWARDs! ( yawn!)
I’ve read that a lot today but I feel that’s just wishful thinking. It will be a larger issue in November but that’s not his job. His job is to judge constitutionality, which they did but they re-wrote it after they deemed it unconstitutional..
I’ve been a court watcher since the Thomas hearings and this is the most disjointed decision I can remember. Krauthammer described a mental patient mumbling in an incoherent fashion as speaking in “word salad”. Roberts’ written opinion was “word salad” ..
That's what my husband predicted. I on the other hand am devastated.
Thank you Jorge Bush for giving us Roberts, which gave us to Obamacare, and for pretty much destroying the Republican party and leading us to America’s demise with your idiotic “compassionate conservatism.”
Another in a long list ..COWARDs!
If you think Mark Levin is anything less than a courageous and patriotic defender of liberty, you are truly a delusional idiot.
I knew Levin would be frothing at the mouth. I know I am.
Great ...but let’s give kudos to Michael Savage who predicted on Tuesday that Roberts would sell us out and side with the left .
>> Mark Levin DID eviscerate the ruling.
Well, no, he did not.
>> Look up the word and learn something.
Oh, I know what the word “eviscerate” means. I have eviscerated plenty of animals.
Mark Levin most certainly did not eviscerate the court of last resort’s ruling in his punditry.
Look up the meaning of the word SUPREME, and learn something.
Here, let me help you by using the word SUPREME in a sentence: “The SUPREME court today upheld Obamacare, eviscerating conservative Mark Levin’s impotent fantasy of overturning the law.”
I’m not happy about it, but it’s time you fanbois stop uulating up Levin’s ass and face simple fact.
Levin has zero credibility due to his inaction on the usurper issue. This is a fact.
If you’d listen to Mark’s monologue you’d know that he agrees with you. He played no fantasies about overturning the law. But if you’d rather quibble about a dictionary definition concerning Mark pointing out the obvious stupidity of Robert’s majority opinion then quibble away, quibbler. But it’s only juvenile quibbling.
“Thank you Jorge Bush for giving us Roberts, which gave us to Obamacare, and for pretty much destroying the Republican party and leading us to Americas demise with your idiotic compassionate conservatism.
It really is Bush’s fault this time.
Savage does have a way of seeing through things....I remember some soldiers who were accused, the LaCrosse players....among others and now this.
Hmmm. Did he say why he thought Roberts would do this? I used to listen to Savage but sometimes the screaming got to be too much.
“Levin has zero credibility due to his inaction on the usurper issue. This is a fact.”
While Mark Levin hasn’t beat the issue to death, he did proffer the opinion that at the point Obama was sworn in by a Supreme Court Justice, the ONLY constitutional means for removal is impeachment, trial and removal, (paraphrasing).
Who runs the senate?
The House will be fine and the presidency will depend on lots of things; gaffes, debates, F&F, etc. but with 50% of the US getting a check from Uncle Sam I think a landslide is unlikely for Romney despite Obama's weaknesses.
Lots of other reasons of course, like one side's well-practiced and widespread vote stealing efforts, politics of destruction, LSM support etc., etc.
To summarize, I think our best efforts would be praying for all but focusing on taking back the Senate.
Here in Florida we need to back Connie Mack the younger over Dim extraordinaire Bill Nelson. We could end up with two pubbie senators.
That's my plan anyway. Anyone else? Nite! ;-)
Levin is ignoring the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, as well as the first two words of the eligibility requirements in Article two.
The Twentieth Amendment Section Three:
"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
A few notes. 1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify." Congress avoiding its duty to uphold Section 3 results in the same "failure to qualify", something they may have done on purpose in this instance depending upon the reasons why. National security? Who knows at this point.
3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.
4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.
Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".
Levin is WRONG about the ability to remove a USURPER. Someone who cannot legally hold the office of President can NEVER be President. They can be apprehended and arrested. My case rest entirely within the Constitution that Levin supposedly is an expert on. He is a coward by ignoring it.
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.