I imagine this will be how Nasty Pelozi looks the day the Supreme Court tells her, "Game Over. Your piece of crap law is dead."
Posted on 03/29/2012 1:50:01 PM PDT by Sybeck1
A handful of Senate Democrats sought to assure doubtful liberals that the Supreme Court justices aren’t ready to strike down their crowning achievement, standing before cameras and mics Wednesday in front of the court. One warned that doing so would ruin the court’s credibility.
“This court would not only have to stretch, it would have to abandon and completely overrule a lot of modern precedent, which would do grave damage to this court, in its credibility and power,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted.
“As a senior member of the Finance Committee,” he said, “I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress. We worked with some of the brightest, most thoughtful and experienced constitutional lawyers in order to make sure that the law was constitutional.”
Kerry said the assumptions that tough questions from the justices will amount to striking down some or all of the Affordable Care Act are a fallacy — he predicted, as the final oral arguments were transpiring inside, that it would be upheld.
“Now I am glad — as I think any of us who’ve practiced law are — to see the intense questions from the justices. They’re engaged, and they are thoughtfully working through these issues,” Kerry said. “But questions are a legitimate way of probing the basis of their own thinking. They are not an indication of a judgment made, or a vote ready to be cast. They’re working through this process as they ought to, mindful of the fact that 30 courts below them have already made a judgment upholding it.”
Blumenthal and Kerry — who were joined by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) — called the press conference one day after liberals and other court watchers expressed serious doubts that the justices would uphold the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to purchase insurance, a central pillar of the law. The firestorm was ignited by legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who called Tuesday’s arguments a “train wreck” for the White House and predicted that “Obamacare” would be struck down.
Pushing back, Blumenthal said that there’s a “heavy burden” on the challengers.
“Everybody learns in the first year of law school that the law that’s challenged is presumed to be constitutional,” Blumenthal said. “That is a heavy burden for anyone challenging the constitutionality of a law to overcome. When in doubt, uphold the law. There is a lot of room for doubt here, and there is a lot of clear precedent that requires this court to uphold this law.”
The Democrats’ level of confidence has diminished since the days when they dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act as frivolous. Indeed, the tough questioning from swing Justices John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy about the limits of federal power at least rattled liberals enough to require the nerve-soothing press conference. But Democrats are seeking to quell liberal fears that the game is already over.
Experts say it’s too difficult to predict how the court will rule.
Affordable Care Act, HCR/SCOTUS, Supreme Court
Good frickin’ grief. as my Father used to say “quit blowing smoke up my rear end!” I really never understood that but it sounds like a good response to this article.
so now precedent is the guideline for legislation, not the constitution? Sure, the multitude of precedent legislation is why this country has a bunch of empty suits in DC.
Rush mentioned this today....That it has to do with this ObamaCare case in front of the Supreme Court.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
|
Contents
[hide] |
Dred Scott
“The court commands no armies”
Hitler made a similar comment when he asked (rhetorically) how many divisions the Pope commands.
So what are the Democrats planning? Maybe simply ignore what the court rules? If they do, I can’t say that I would complain all that much - given the Court thinks they run the country, well ahead of the other branches.
I figure Kagan or that other idiot Sotomayor will tip them off and they’ll start attacking and impugning the integrity of the court.
With Ginsberg retiring during a Republican administration, we can only hope for a young appointee that will be able to stand against the hoards along side Roberts and Alito for the next generation.
Most people used to learn in junior high that Article III of the Constitution creates a Supreme Court, too, Blumie.
By the way, Blumie wasn't even around to vote on this turd law, was he? He was still skunking the people of Connecticut.
By the way, the voters of Connecticut must have declared war on women because they voted for Blumie and rejected a female candidate. Mysogyny lives in Connecticut.
Did John Semmens write this?
Actually, I wouldn't put it past the Left to physically threaten the Justices, and for Obama to threaten to withdraw their security.
Well, they did it once before didn't they?
“The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility.”
5.56mm
Blummie is *so* much like Eliot Spitzer in *so* many ways that I've often wondered if he might even be Client #10.
Hmmm. Maybe we should dismantle the Constitutionally appointed USSC and make these RAT senators the new court. Because they are experts and all. We don’t even need a court. Just RAT lawmakers.
I think that was Stalin but what's the difference? The point's been well made.
This is a demonstrable lie, of course, since the Dems had no idea what was in the bill in the first place. Nice of the Dems to make veiled threats to the SC justices, though.
This is a blatant attempt to intimidate The Court by 3 sitting Senators by referencing the Courts reliance on the Senate for funding.
“I think that was Stalin but what’s the difference? The point’s been well made.”
Yea, not much difference, thanks. It’s scary to hear that from a SENATOR.
>He might want to check that. A whole lot of us have pledged to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...
That does assume that the Supreme Court’s actions are themselves Constitutional. Things like Kelo, Wickard, and Roe v. Wade indicate that it is not; things like the very recent 9-0 smackdown of the EPA’s denyal of due-process do give me some hope for the Court though.
Damn these liars !.......
They only have to “get to” Kennedy and he won’t be that hard to coerce behind the scenes. I’m not at all convinced the court will overturn,
And how many divisions has the Pope? But when 0bamacare knocked down the conscience clause exception to abortion related medical care, the Church found that it had allies all across the religious spectrum.
Reiterating my tagline, the Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.
They don't "think"—they plot.
Playing politics and attacking the court’s credibility seems dangerous. If I was a justice on the fence this may be what pushes me the other way
As we all know, the Dems command legions of gimme entitlement takers for their power and armies of effeminate, idiotic intellectuals for their credibility. Their ranks also include an ever-shrinking corps of union dolts plus 9 or 10 overweight New Black Panthers who are the Dems Special Forces.
Bring 'em on.....
P.S.....you can make book that the Court's decision will reflect payback time for Obama's State of the Union insult.
Leni
It’s just talk, for now. We’ll see if it gets ignored if overturned. If so, that anger in the country is gonna boil over.
Nice!
The court has no armies. Sounds like a threat from the left.
FDR said pretty much the same thing.
Put Reagan on the dime!!!
“Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down”
Nancy Pelosi’s wig will have to work overtime scrambling to come up with an Obamacare II.
How can you have the Speaker of the House at the time say “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it,” and then claim rigorous vetting, constitionality, and transparency.
Once again Senator Kerry reminds the nation of the dodged bullet for not electing his partisan hack brain dead a$$.
B U M P
Go ahead, whizz off the Chief Justice....I double dawg dare ya...
If it is good for everyone than force everyone to pay into it and force them to use it, otherwise kill it.
Yes, I agree with the Dems that “‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down”. I saw Maddow argue this the other night.
At least Kagan is unbiased on this case and has a head start on it too.
This reminds me of something I noticed during Bush’s first term. Back then Republicans were complaining about the SCOTUS decisions so CNN and few others liberal MSM started doing shows and segments on how Republicans questioning the SCOTUS would undermine the ‘rule of law’. Not the decisions themselves, but the criticism.
It’s amazing how tables can turn.
All depends on whose OX is being Algored : )
” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility.”
No, you sick, twisted psycho....people obey it, because it is the L A W
Are these fools threatening the SCOTUS!!???
Dems Warn Of “Grave Damage”....
Obama did promise “shovel ready” jobs ;)
You fat cats need to pay their fair share.
As long as there is a SINGLE poor Hispanic kid in AZ then you are not paying enough $$$ to Obama, and more of them are on the way :)
The Dems don’t want to kick Lucy’s football twice. No tax increases on Big Oil, to pay for another bankrupt green criminal enterprise.
Dems “Go F yourself, Obama!!”
Yes, we need to tax oil to make it cheaper, Obamas experts promise us that it will work at least as good as Obama-care and the stimulus did.
Resist we MUCH !!
al sharpton
I have always believed that liberals are so determined to get their way that they are willing to risk civil war to do so. I don’t know what the issue will be (maybe it’s this one) but one day it will happen. They are NOT going to allow rule of law, the constitution, will of the people, or any of that to keep them from getting what they want.
As far as I’m concerned, they can start now. Let it happen while I’m still young enough to carry a gun and fight. I would hate to see it start when I’m in my late 70s or 80s and unable to do my part.
I honestly think they think we will just lay down and accept it.
However, if it does lead to a war. I agree. Lets get it started. I am young enough to fight and my kids are old enough to be ok with out me. I am raising my kids the right way, outside of the nest of the government. Neither attend government schools (my wife teaches them)
we started deprogramming them 4 months ago. Both are turning in to great little capitalists with the ability to help rebuild our nation once what infects it is rooted out and removed.
With Ginsberg retiring during a Republican administration
I doubt that will happen unless shes passes away.
She’ll stay until a democrat can replace her or she is dead. (of natural causes)
The ones who see others' wealth as their own don't care about govt. boondoggles. Hell, some of them want to govt. to spend as much as possible on Solyndras. But grabbing private citizens' wealth and property via the power of taxation and "redistribution" is the main goal.
But I think you are partly right. Some of them know it would be foolish and wrong.
Logical conclusion from this statement: If Obamacare is struck down, the Supreme Court has no credibility. If the Supreme Court has no credibility, it's ruling can be ignored. Therefore, the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.
What then?
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.