Left Shocked by Court Developments

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 27, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[michigancatholic]

That’s actually a credible possibility. It won’t be a broad interpretation, agree.

[michigancatholic]

In fact, this question of why not a direct tax came up at one point yesterday briefly. It got a smirk, since everyone knows why not. Yet, it’s the most direct and least troublesome way to do it from a technical point of view, even if not a political one.

It did come up. I’d have to listen to the whole thing again to tell you at what minute of the tape it did, though.

[DestroyLiberalism]

DustyMoment wrote:
<<
Did you miss the part where I said “IMO, Reed and the Dems in the Senate will try to ram it through and pass it again just to prove that they can. Secondly, the Dems still own the Senate with a simple majority. I’m not sure that they necessarily need a veto-proof majority, although there is even money that they wouldn’t get all of the same Dems to vote for it again. But, the House is definitely out of reach.
>>

************************************************************

Whether they try or not, the Senate Dems have absolutely no chance of succeeding. Like you said, even if they could ram it through the Senate, the House will block it. So what would this accomplish? It would be a wasted exercise and I’d think they’d be considered a laughing stock for trying to ram through something that’s already been deemed unconstitutional.

[michigancatholic]

Correct. For 2 years, the Dems had the enviable position of having the House, Senate & White House, and this bill is what they did with it. It took the better part of a year—half the time they had.

They’re not in that position now, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that they don’t get into that position or anything near it (!) again anytime soon.

It’s important to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. Obama must be replaced.

People whining about Romney? They sound like a man being chased by a bear who is too picky to choose a tree to climb up, because after all, none of them are ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. Who wins in that situation???

[Melinda in TN]

You can opt out of Medicare. My husband did since I cover him at work and my insurance is better. If Obamacare passes you won’t be allowed to opt out. That is why it is unconstitutional and Medicare is not. You have a choice to purchase Medicare or not. You aren’t forced.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: the public bitch-slapping Obozo gave the Court during the SOTU address ::

Couople that display of arrogance with Verilli’s classroom-style “teaching” of the Justice’s regarding past SCOTUS rulings and we may see Obamacare go down in retributive flames!

[conservativebabe]

I may sound like a simpleton and crude but I just don’t like all the attempted displays of showcasing one’s intelligence.

I am currently taking the online constitution course offered by Hillsdale college. I’m learning a lot about the founders intent among other things. The language and logic they applied, while eloquent and intellectually superior to ours was for their time meant to be quite simple. The way they saw the role of government was to do 3 things...1. Provide a national defense. 2. Regulate commerce only insofar as to allow the third thing which was to ensure everyone the means to participate in commerce unobstructed by others. In other words, enumerated powers and everything else left to the states by way of individuals. Simple.

All the justice system and the legislative branch does now is complicate things and argue over what the definition of “is” is.

All this bloviating over words is annoying. And I don’t understand why the Supremes need until June to make a ruling. So they can sit around and impress each other and themselves with their own arguments all day long? I mean really. 4 of them are already in the bag for Obamacare, no surprise there. And all of them probably mostly had their minds made up before arguments were even over. Just get on with it already and either put the nail in our coffin or let us fix this sh!t.

[thepatriot1]

Alright, I am a fan of Clarence Thomas but he is NOT Chief Justice material. He hasn’t uttered a word during an argument in 6 years!! - thats a fact. He is a brilliant mind but he is no Roberts, Scalia or even Alito for that matter...sorry.

[DustyMoment]

So what would this accomplish?

Symbolism over substance. The Congress is NOT about doing what's right for America, anymore, it's about playing partisan politics.

Recall that, when Bush tried to get the original stimulus bill passed in Congress right at the end of his presidency, the House rejected it. To make whatever point they thought they were making, the Senate passed their version of the $700 Billion stimulus bill, then turned around and kicked in $145 Billion in bribes to the House to get the House to pass it, even though the taxpayers didn't want it. That was the bill that bailed out Wall Street.

It's all about symbolism over substance!

[DustyMoment]

Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have absolutely no chance of ramming through a similar health care bill without a veto-proof majority in the Senate and with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Don't put words in my mouth. Hairy Reed and the Senate Dems will try to pass another version of ObamaCare just to prove that they can. Symbolism over substance. That doesn't mean that the bill will end back up on zero's desk because, as we both know, the House won't go along, this time.

What the Senate does doesn't necessarily mean that the House will agree - CERTAINLY not with a Republican-controlled House, no matter how many RINOs there are!!

[LibLieSlayer]

Fine... we all have a right to our opinions... Thomas gives his in writing. My opinion matches that of Levin and Limbaugh... each to his own. Sorry.

LLS

[longtermmemmory]

they did not forget it, they removed it intentionally.

[RipSawyer]

If the supreme court upholds this mess we may as well shut it down and burn the constitution! There will no longer even be room for a pretense of upholding the constitution. I said years ago that it is disgusting to see two major party candidates compete for the presidency by each trying to outdo the other in promising to enact programs that violate the constitution and then the winner swears to uphold the same constitution he has promised over and over to violate in order to win the election. Of course they never admit that they are promising to violate the constitution but anyone with an honest eighth grade education can read the document and figure it out.

I still believe the founders were some of the most brilliant people of all time and possessed an understanding of human nature that is almost unknown today. For anyone, supreme court justices included, to pretend that the founders endured all that they went through to create this country and this constitution and then threw in a couple of catch all phrases which amount to, “Oh, what the hey, just do whatever suits you”, is monumental insanity.

[Clump]

I have never had oral argument to an appellate court, but I have done many appeals and made constitutional arguments to the trial court.
You guys speak the truth about using questions to predict outcomes.
As a long time Supreme Court watcher, I want to make this note as well.
The justices on the Supreme court are in a unique position for very obvious reasons, and some of that uniqueness explains why it is not particularly useful to compare questioning by other appellate courts to draw parallels with the Supreme Court.
For instance, SCOTUS does not have to lay out a record to protect their ruling from reversal from a higher court.
The “questions” in oral argument at SCOTUS serve multiple purposes.
You have justices like Scalia and Breyer who wear their emotions and thoughts right on their sleeves. Of course there is Thomas who has his mind made up before the arguments based on the Constitution (God bless him) and the briefs he has reviewed.
Then there is the unique blend of Kennedy and Roberts. I have no proof of this, so I admittedly am speculating here.
Kennedy and Scalia have a strange relationship to say the least. Kennedy is not wowed by Scalia’s arguments and analysis after all these years together on the bench. He knows what Scalia thinks before he opens his mouth. And he is not going to be persuaded by him.
Roberts on the other hand came in knowing full well what kind of court he was dealing with.
He is under no delusions that the 4 lefties are what they are. They won't change. So he has to work the diplomatic angle with Kennedy. My understanding is that Kennedy very much admires and respects Roberts. If the Chief were to come in with both barrels going after the government in Scalia like fashion, Kennedy would likely tune him out.
On the other hand, if Roberts appears “open minded, then Kennedy will listen more carefully to what the chief has to say during oral arguments, and more importantly at lunch one day after oral arguments.
Justices firmly rooted in their judicial philosophy are not worth lobbying. And that leaves Kennedy and his title of “swing voter”.
I believe that Roberts is using his perceived swing vote status in this case to keep Kennedy on the reservation. This diplomatic effort by Roberts is what sets him apart from the beloved late Chief Justice Rehnquist. The late Chief did not give a hoot about lobbying for votes. Scalia tried, but he could often not get a foot in the door.
I say all this to conclude that Roberts is a vote against bozocare, and his questions were designed to show Kennedy that he could be trusted. He and the other conservatives also used their questioning to show that the government's position is truly indefensible.
I feel much better about our chances at SCOTUS on this case then I did a week ago. That is for sure.
The big question is what kind of corruption, arm twisting, blackmail, extortion, etc. will be going on behind the scenes. I have no doubt either Kagan or Sotomayor will leak the vote to the white house. If I were the Chief I would likely vote with the four liberals in conference. That way misinformation gets to the white house. Then I would switch the day before it is released, and join the new 5-4 majority, leaving the former majority opinion as the dissent. Just a thought.

[RipSawyer]

At some point it becomes a matter of interpretation but in my view the vast majority of federal action violates the constitution. I also don’t believe in unlimited amendment power. If the states approved an amendment saying that all babies with type AB negative blood must be aborted would that be constitutional just because the amendment passed? Not in my view. If the supreme court approves the Obamanation now being considered then there is really no point in having a constitution or a supreme court because a positive reading basically means anything goes, there are no limits. We have come close to that point already, before this matter had even come up for review.

It is plain to see that we have supreme court judges now who have ZERO intention of abiding by the document they swore to uphold, in some cases they don’t seem to be capable of even understanding the matter.

[RipSawyer]

That is not exactly what I call optional, it is like having a choice of entrees for dinner but being told that you MUST eat. Optional means you can opt out altogether. I “opted out” of part B because I have a VA clinic within three miles of my house but I had to file papers saying that I had VA coverage or pay for part B. Truly optional would mean that I could take it or leave it without having to file papers showing other coverage.

[RipSawyer]

“If Roberts is incapable of controlling his court... he should resign. I have NO faith in any of those black robes... except Clarence Thomas. I not only respect him, I think that he has the most brilliant mind of any of the other Justices... as a matter of fact... I think that he should be Chief Justice.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Speaking as a milk white po’ Southern boy, descended from confederate veterans on both sides, raised up ten miles from the site of the first secession meeting and baptized in a mill pond by a raging Southern Baptist nutcase of a minister, I agree one hundred percent on everything you said. Of course you realize that is only the opinion of a typical racist who voted for McCain in the vain hope that he would not be quite as bad as what we wound up with.

[GeronL]

Big BUMP!

I agree.