Skip to comments.Pelosi: Dems ready to accept Supreme Court verdict on healthcare law
Posted on 03/28/2012 11:44:00 AM PDT by jazusamo
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) said Wednesday that Democrats will accept the Supreme Court's ruling on her party's healthcare law whatever it is.
The California liberal a champion of the bill who was crucial to its passage said Democrats "were careful to honor the Constitution" in drafting the bill, but would respect the high-court's verdict, however it falls.
"Democrats in the Congress have long-believed in judicial review," Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol. "We respect the third branch of government and the role that they play under our Constitution, and that is a role to have the opportunity to review laws passed by Congress.
"This is part of our constitutional process, and we respect it," she added.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard its third day of arguments on the Democrats' healthcare law, which critics have blasted as unconstitutional since the early stages of the reform debate three years ago. The court is examining the legality of the law's individual insurance mandate, its broad Medicaid expansion and whether one element of the legislation can be repealed without eliminating the entire sweeping statute.
Based on Tuesday's arguments, which focused on the insurance mandate, a number of legal experts have predicted the conservative-leaning court will rule against that central element of the bill.
Pelosi on Wednesday said she feels "pretty good about the merits of the case," but was quick to add that any speculation is just that.
Asked to predict the outcome, she said, "I have no idea none of us does."
"We are all now talking about something of which we have no knowledge because we're not members of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said. "We have knowledge of the legislation, we have knowledge of the arguments, but we have no rule what the outcome will be."
Breaking with Pelosi, Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, stuck his neck out to predict the high court would come down 5 to 4 in favor of the insurance mandate at the heart of the controversy.
Addressing a reporter who suggested otherwise, Conyers said, "I'll be checking with you in June to see which one of us were correct."
“. . . will accept the Supreme Court’s ruling”
Isn’t that nice . . . Ms. Peolosi - and exactly what other options did you have available?
Okay. But what else are they going to do, declare war on the supreme court if things don't go their way?
The audacity of that mendacity is breathtaking.
Even though she passed it, she still does not know what’s in it
Correct, and she never will.
Oh PLEASE Nan! You thought it absolutely Constitutional when you passed it!! Remember the “are you serious” comment to the reporter?
This statement has one of 2 possible meanings. Either leftists are preparing the troops for a defeat by the Court, of she is playing the phony role of “respectful court watcher,” all along KNOWING that Justice Roberts will rule in favor of ObamaCare due to some blackmail scheme against him.
Don’t be surprised if this is exactly what happens and for the reason stated. It was Roberts who allowed Hussein to muff the oath of office and take it elsewhere, before no witnesses. Was he forced to do that because the Regime has something on him? Wait for the ruling and we’ll all know.
That was my exact same thought. Pretty arrogant of her.
Well, it’s not like they can run away to another state & hide out like the brave state senators from Wisconsin did last year.
Of course she will accept it. She knows they are not about to repeal Ocommmie Care.
That she is lying is even more telling.
—Okay. But what else are they going to do, declare war on the supreme court if things don’t go their way?—
Their constituency might. I expected riots in November of 2008, but it is because I expected obama to lose.
If the supremes shut this thing down in the middle of this Trayvon Martin fiasco, we could see it sooner rather than later. The rioting, I mean. If those in the burbs don’t have pistols and ammo, I suggest they do it while they can.
Pelosi: Dems ready to accept Supreme Court verdict on healthcare law
Yeah Right. I’m betting the expression on her face won’t change a bit.
Maybe that’s because the botoxed expression on her face CAN’T change a bit.
None of us “DO,” Nanzi. Learn the language.
As one commenter posted at Ulsterman, “It all comes down to one man in a black robe.”
She’s preparing for the worst case scenario for a DemoRAT so heavily involved in trying to ram what they well knew was unconstitutional.
They tried, and hopefully they will fail when the verdict is read.
So much we know about, and discuss today rides on the failure of the act as well so much we don’t know for the future should they win.
The lot of them have to be turned out, and wherever is possible the criminal elements have to be addressed, and justice served.
You're joking right? The truth is she doesn't care if it's constitutional. She said as much when she was asked what part of the Constitution authorized a healthcare mandate.
Like you have a choice, woman.
“Addressing a reporter who suggested otherwise, Conyers said, “I’ll be checking with you in June to see which one of us were correct.”
Is that when the ruling comes down, June?
She said it so it MUST be true. Right? /s
Something doesn’t smell right here. There are too many Rats saying that it’s no big deal if it is overturned or that it would be a good thing if it were overturned. They’ve got something very nasty up their sleeve and it ain’t potchouli.
Accept it or choke on it?....You’ll just have to wait for the supreme court to throw it out so you can read what’s in it...right, stupid?
I guess her other option would be to hold her breath until she turns blue.
Honestly, this woman is beyond belief.
Remember John Conyers and the “good and welfare clause”?
There's always the Andrew Jackson option, just ignore it.
The want to replace it with a single payer system. Thats what they wanted anyway. Medicare for all and they run it all.
Danger is ahead.
I agree...She’s only attempting to soften the blow for herself and the RATS if it’s declared unconstitutional.
She has to accept the Supreme Court verdict before she understands it.
“It was Roberts who allowed Hussein to muff the oath of office and take it elsewhere, before no witnesses. “
Here’s the problem I have the the Oath conspiracy theories...
Obama would have no problem just flat out lying and taking the oath word for word - or even signing it on a Bible in his fricking blood with a picture of his dead mother pressed to his heart!
Oaths, promises, allegiance - all of that stuff means absolutely NOTHING to him and his Marxist coterie.
That's a "laugh"! Republicans, in particular, were warning about the constitionality of the individual mandate from the beginning. But they were essentially not consulted in the crafting of the Law. Even Nancy said, "We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it." That doesn't sound like "great care" to me.
“Something doesnt smell right here. There are too many Rats saying that its no big deal “
It’s just simply damage control.
Their spinning “its not big deal” because they know it’s a BFD - to quote “Plugs” Biden.
And common to dictators, the sheep followed....Constitution be damned.
Just like Global warming and all the mandates they have created to save the world...then there's the dumb owl, the hopping frog, the darting fish....
And at what price?? Millions are out of work....MILLIONS....They caused a depression!!!!
They’ve already decided. Obamacare kept getting less popular and they were running out of time. Time to cut the cord on the albatross. Looks like Verilli was sent in to take a dive.
That’s hilarious. The “good and welfare clause and a couple others.”
Your vid link was cut off for me, here’s another that showed all of it.
Every word of that bill was written with the Constitution right next to it. After we passed it we read both of them. We had no idea some of the things that were in that Constitution.
You could put her gray matter into the navel of a flea and still have room for a Cadillac!
“Is she serious? She thought it was constitutional.”
She feels the Government’s discretion not the Constitution is the only limit to its power. This is why she did not attempt to defend its constitutionality.
First Carville, then Dingy and Peloony. This is a good sign.
Since Napolitano and Kagan were dining together the other night, maybe she has inside info on the direction the court is leaning.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe......race riots? The SC would HAVE to be raaaaaaciiiit to reject our first black president's signature piece of cr.., I mean, legislation. What other reason could there be?
“Since Napolitano and Kagan were dining together the other night”
What a sight that would have been! They’re both uglier than most middle aged men I know.
Meaning the fix is in.
“Half of the SC are flaming hard core anti Constitutionalists and are extremely dense.”
Leftist care not for the limits of consent of the Governed. Like King George 233+ years ago they seem to think they have the right to do whatever they want to to us.
I must admit to a yern with in my heart for the chance to do to them what our forefathers did to preceding boundless tyrants like King George.
Liberty or Death!
the Dems may be ready to accept the courts decision, but conservatives will not accept it being upheld. It is clearly unconstitutional and and any twisting and turning to declare it constitutional is also declaring the whole Constitution null and void and the Contract with the people will be broken...
Amen, along with a lot of other RATS.
Dialectical progress takes place in a certain pattern. The Communist slogan is: "Nature acts dialectically." Wishing to advance dialectically in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintances, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrupt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forward-backward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically.
Really Pelosi? You have to vote on the ruling before you know what’s in it.
I think all this “train wreck” crap is an attempt to stand people down. I think they rule for it.
Just like Pelosi said they didn’t have the votes for it—weeks later magically they did. In the mean time, most stood down upon that lie.
Well said. I believe the conservatives on the court and Justice Kennedy know that too.