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the law's individual insurance mandate, its broad Medicaid expansion and whether one element of the legislation can be repealed without eliminating the entire sweeping statute.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."
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.
If it is thrown out they will try something else. You know they will. Just in time for the election, Medicare for everyone.
Kookcinich was smiling this morning. What they want is to replace it with single payer. They will tax the hell out of you and run the whole thing.
This is what they always wanted. I am not sure though that they can do it without Congress rewriting a new bill.
Beware folks, something is up their sleeves.
I’m sure there are other ways to “skin this cat”!
Sounds like she knows what it is... precognition maybe..
-OR- the goons have visited the Supremes with an offer they couldnt refuse..
You know.... A convo about Vince Foster, Hermie Cane, maybe the accident that killed some of the SEALS that killed Bin Laudens look-alike..
I think the fix is in.
“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 didnt have the votes for itweeks later magically they did. In the mean time, most stood down upon that lie.”
You may be right. They don’t want another mob of a million or so like the one that showed up in September ‘09. I’ll always remember the guy with sign “We came unarmed—this time.”
Enough to make one puke, in public?