Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Hot Theory on How the Supreme Court Gets to a 6-3 Vote to Uphold Obamacare
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 30, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/30/2012 11:47:10 AM PDT by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let's talk about the Supreme Court. I am fascinated to watch the media, folks. What is happening today at the United States Supreme Court is what has happened for 222 years. There's nothing special about today. There's nothing unique. The court is doing nothing today that it hasn't done since its inception. But if you read the media you would think that the vote the court's taking today is unprecedented. Also, various stories, media obviously begging for a leak on the vote. There hasn't ever been one that anybody could recall. Even Roe v. Wade didn't leak, and that decision wasn't announced for months after it was reached.

But the media, here's a story, this is Associated Press: "Justices Meet Friday to Vote on Health Care Case -- While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend." Well, of course. They're voting on it. Is it unfair that the justices know and we don't know? "While rest of us have to wait until June, the justices will know the likely outcome." Well, of course, duh. They are the likely outcome.

"After months of anticipation, thousands of pages of briefs and more than six hours of arguments, the justices will vote on the fate of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in under an hour Friday morning. They will meet in a wood-paneled conference room on the court's main floor. No one else will be present." You know, folks, it is hilarious and it's pathetic how the media are all aflutter about how the court is gonna vote on Obamacare today and then not announce their ruling 'til the end of June. It's not fair. It just isn't right. They know and we don't. We have to wait until June.

So they're hunting around here, they're hoping and praying for leaks. If you know how to read between the lines of these liberal media news stories, as I do, you can see that they're mining for leaks here. They're asking clerks to let them know how it turns out. Here's what's going on today. This is the procedure, as it has been for 222 years. The nine justices will gather in this room and they will vote, and it's only them. There is nobody else in the room. There are no clerks. There are no secretaries. The most junior justice, who is Elena Kagan, takes the notes of the meeting. She is the note taker. She records what happens here. There's no secretaries; no executive assistants. There's no iPhone in there with Siri. There are no clerks. If somebody wants a cup of coffee, Elena Kagan goes and gets it. That's common, too. The most junior justice does the grunt work like that. It's traditional, and it's always happened.

They will vote. Opinions will be assigned. There might be a little discussion going around the room as the justices explain things that are important to them, noteworthy, but there's very little persuasion, if any, that goes on here. It remains entirely civil and collegial. Do not erupt in arguments. The arguments and the dissents and the disagreements occur in writing. The vote that is held today is not final because, after the opinions have been assigned and written, it's not likely, but it has happened -- in fact, it happened with Justice Kennedy in a fairly recent case, changed his original vote after reading opinions from the other justices. That could happen here.

So the vote today is subject to change, and the really fascinating thing about what's going on today is the vote itself and what happens as a result of it. And there is a theory that is floating around out there that I want to share with you. I'm gonna take the break here and I'm gonna share with you this theory, and as a little bit of a tease, I'll tell you this about it. The theory is how the vote gets to 6-3 for total constitutionality. That's the theory. How they get there is what's fascinating.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm not saying this is going to happen, by the way. The fact that it's so widely being predicted now, if it becomes conventional wisdom it could very well be like most conventional wisdom, and that is wrong. There's a very, very left-wing blog called the SCOTUS blog, and the guy there is predicting 6-3 for the whole thing being found constitutional, 6-3. A lot of others have looked at his reasoning, "Yeah, you know what, I like that reasoning, it makes perfect sense to me. I think I'll sign on to that." If it happens, and if it happens the way the theory explains it, we don't have a court looking at the law anymore. We have a fully politicized third branch of government.

Now, I know that the liberal judges don't look at the law; they look at ways to rewrite it. I know that the left has politicized the courts for years. Books have been written about it. I'm not trying to sound naive here. I'm talking about the entire institution, if it goes this way. The only way you can get to 6-3 -- well, not the only way, but this theory's way, requires that the judges look at things that they consider more important than the law. Such as the reputation of the court. Such as desire for there not to be so many 5-4 decisions, particularly on matters of such great importance.

So here goes. The chief justice, John Roberts, gets to decide who should write the opinion when he is in the majority. He assigns it. This theory holds that he'll write it himself. But before we get there, let's review where we are. Anthony Kennedy made it clear for all this talk about a plane wreck and a train wreck, if you read the transcripts all the way through, and we played the sound bites of Kennedy on both sides of this, Anthony Kennedy was open, made it very clear, he was open to the idea that the mandate is constitutional. Remember his phrase, "You have a heavy burden to prove here."

If the government, in his mind, has made the case that this law is necessary and proper, he's indicated he could find the whole thing constitutional. He also appears open to the idea that this whole business that the commerce clause says you can't force people to buy something, the way that got dissected and explained in a way to make people think, well, wait a minute here, maybe we could say that it's constitutional to require everybody to buy health insurance because the fact is that the market already exists. People are already buying health insurance. It's not a new market the government's creating. If it were a new market they were creating, that would be a slam-dunk, no way is that constitutional. But the out is, the market's already there. The government's not creating anything.

So the point of these two bits of analysis is to suggest that Roberts and Kennedy could be with the four liberals in finding the whole thing constitutional. The idea that this legislation is so important, so transformative that a 5-4 decision is not desirable by the chief and by a lot of people, that it would roil the country. A 5-4 decision is too narrow if they're gonna find the bill unconstitutional. Because, you see, theoretically the Supreme Court hates -- theoretically -- hates telling Congress that what it's doing is illegal. They hate intruding on this. They are always balanced on the side that whatever happens in Congress is fine and dandy, and it has to be a real breach before they move in and take it away from 'em. And if they're gonna move in and take it away from them and declare what Congress did illegal and against the law and constitutional, they don't want to do that with a 5-4 decision.

That's what this theory holds. I'm not telling you I subscribe to this. But if that part of the theory is accurate, what's that tell us? It tells us that the court's worried about its reputation more than getting the law right. It's worried more about what people are gonna think of 'em. They're worried more about how it might roil the population, 5-4. We need 6-3 and we need 7-2 on this. So how do you get there? The theory is that Kennedy will go ahead and join the libs and make it 5-4 for total constitutionality, because he signaled that. Then Roberts, after having seen that, knows he can't stop it, so he joins the majority to make it 6-3 so that he gets to write the opinion. And in writing the opinion, Roberts will then limit the scope of the Obamacare bill to something like, yes, Congress can force us to buy health insurance, but nothing else.

Now, you might be asking yourself, can the court do that? There's nothing in this legislation about limiting it to just health insurance. The court does it all the time, folks. Try to find a limiting principle in here when there's not one in the bill. This is what frustrates me about this whole theory. There is no limiting principle in the bill. And yet this theory holds that they want a 6-3 or 7-2 decision. That Kennedy's gonna go with the libs. That Roberts will see that, and to protect the court's reputation and to write the opinion and have a limiting principle in there to limit the damage to this, the theory is that Roberts can go either way. Once he sees how it's gonna go, then he'll join the majority and then write the opinion himself to limit the damage, if you will.

Now, this theory also requires that you believe Roberts signaled during oral arguments that he could find a way to find this whole thing constitutional. That he didn't seem anywhere near as opposed to this as Scalia was, for example. So if he crosses over with Kennedy and joins the libs and it's 6-3, he writes the majority opinion, and he makes it as narrow as possible so that, yeah, they can force us to buy health insurance, but they can't make us buy anything else. That won't hold up by the way. Nobody's gonna remember a limiting principle in this. They're gonna remember, if this happens, it was 6-3, or 7-2 for total constitutionality, and that's it. But that's how this theory goes. As I tell you, this requires you believe the court cares not about the law, but rather about other things.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, the theory that I just gave you comes from SCOTUS blog. It's run by a very left-leaning guy. A lot of people who are not liberals have run across this theory and it appeals to them. It's slowly but surely behind the scenes becoming conventional wisdom, and of course the left is glomming onto this, 'cause they love this possibility. They're fantasizing here, almost. I mean they are dreaming of a 6-3 decision where the chief is in the majority and writes the opinion. They can't have a better day than that, other than if it went 7-2. And it could go 7-2.

What this theory relies on is justices, particularly the chief, doing two things: caring more about what is thought of the court at the end of this, in terms of its reputation. The theory relies on the justices being very upset with all these recent 5-4 decisions, that that's too narrow. We have something this momentous, and it is, this will forever -- I forget which justice said it. This forever changes the relationship between citizen and government. This is it. I mean this changes the whole notion of the Constitution, that limits government. This wipes that out.

What troubles me about the theory is that has to be totally discarded. The law, the Constitution has to be totally discarded all because the court is going to be worried about a margin of defeat. Like if Kennedy goes the other way, 5-4, the same theory holds that Roberts will then join that side to make it 6-3 unconstitutional. So it still is about Kennedy here, in this theory. And that's all this is. Just a theory. But what made me want to explain it to you is that it's out there and that a lot of people on the right find it appealing. Those people, too, who find it appealing are frustrating to me because they are looking at this, like I said earlier this week, this is just another fun intellectual exercise to 'em. We're here in the classroom and we're debating political science. We are trying to be the smartest people in the room, to figure out exactly what the court's gonna do within our own political constraints.

That's what frustrates me about this, the fact that most people talking about this don't get the severity of what we face is. Because in the real world, there's no way this law is constitutional. I don't say that as a partisan. In a just and sane, objective world, this would be slam-dunk struck down nine to nothing. It should at least be 7-2 unconstitutional and throw the whole thing out. But the theory that seems to be the popular one relies on nothing having to do with the law. Nothing. It has to do with positioning, court reputation, not causing riots in the streets at the end of the day when the decision is announced.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, don't worry too much about this theory, folks. The theory is becoming conventional wisdom and that means it's irrelevant and is wrong. It's advanced by the left. And, by the way, here's a quote from Senator Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general Connecticut, now Senator from Connecticut. The left is playing this "you will ruin your reputation" card. That's what this theory is about, the theory that justices will see it. They're trying to intimidate the court into ruling in favor of Obamacare. Blumenthal said, "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."

So you guys on the court, you people on the court, you are going to destroy the court and your credibility and people won't obey if you do the right thing here and find this constitutional. So the effort to intimidate is under full swing.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

1 posted on 03/30/2012 11:47:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What a colossal waste of time

Trying to be the smarest kid in the room so he can play clips later on?

Do we really think that Chief Justice Roberts would allow Kagan to sit in on the hearings if he didn’t know how Kennedy was going to vote?


2 posted on 03/30/2012 11:51:34 AM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

smartest kid


3 posted on 03/30/2012 11:52:37 AM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ve read ScotusBlog before and found the coverage to be objective. I started reading them during the second amendment case.


4 posted on 03/30/2012 11:52:41 AM PDT by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
IRS moving ahead NOW with 4500 new agents to enforce healthcare/tax cheats!!!

Rush mentioned this FOX News article and it probably deserves it's own thread but I have no time right now.

5 posted on 03/30/2012 11:56:04 AM PDT by SierraWasp (Negativity must die because it's self-fulfilling!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
What a colossal waste of time

Wow! You beat me to it. I am so bored of all this coverage of nothing. Nothing happens, including the stupid oral arguments, until they publish a decision.

Next most stupid is the Trevon Martin thing about which few facts are known.

But I guess that's all there is to talk about if one is too afraid to talk about what Joe Arpaio has brought to the table.

ML/NJ

6 posted on 03/30/2012 11:57:44 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onyx
You make an excellent point.

I always knew you were smart, anyway...:-)

7 posted on 03/30/2012 12:00:10 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Onyx, I am ignorant as to the rules / inner workings of the Supreme Court, hence my question:

Can Judge Roberts force Kagan to recuse herself; can he bar her from the hearings???

Thanks


8 posted on 03/30/2012 12:01:23 PM PDT by Peter W. Kessler (Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

if the Libs are so worried about the Court’s “credibility”, nothing could trash it quicker than upholding this piece of crap after the way they tore it to shreds in the hearings.


9 posted on 03/30/2012 12:01:45 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

A waste of time and 4500 soon to unemployed agents.


10 posted on 03/30/2012 12:02:43 PM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; BlackElk
Blumenthal said, "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."

This is the Dick Blumenthal that lied about his military service, lecturing about credibility.
11 posted on 03/30/2012 12:04:21 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (May Mitt Romney be the Paul Tsongas of 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx

OK, if you’re right, you are the smartest kid in the room. On what do you base your knowledge of Roberts’s knowing Kennedy’s vote?


12 posted on 03/30/2012 12:04:42 PM PDT by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peter W. Kessler

I’m not a lawyer, but I think he could have raised a fuss and allowed for or made a case for her recusal since she participated in the writing of some parts of the bill and also was privy to talks about it in the White House.


13 posted on 03/30/2012 12:06:03 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If there is a leak, a first as far as I know, it will be Kagan or Sotamayor or their staff that does it.

If it’s a negative, ie, strikes down Obamugabecare, it won’t be leaked.

If it’s a positive, ie, upholding it, it will be all over DC before the day is out.................


14 posted on 03/30/2012 12:07:20 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter W. Kessler

He already explicitly said months ago that he would not ask Kagan to recuse.


15 posted on 03/30/2012 12:08:28 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I have to admit I’m not current with Sheriff Joe’s news?


16 posted on 03/30/2012 12:09:39 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

Smiling! Hey, sweet (and very smart) GF!


17 posted on 03/30/2012 12:10:45 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jobim
Do you think Justice Kennedy wants to retire known as a Justice who believes in the integrity of the Constitution? I do and I believe that Chief Justice Roberts believes the very same of his colleague.
18 posted on 03/30/2012 12:13:16 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Think again — Kennedy voted against Kelo.


19 posted on 03/30/2012 12:15:45 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Obama will get his votes by intimidating at threatening the sitting members of the court.


20 posted on 03/30/2012 12:16:17 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

As noted previously -

Kagan is ALREADY sitting on the case. the court is in desperate need for credibility.

If they find it Constitutional - with Kagan involved - the game is over. There is no Constitution, and we live in a slowly evolving anarchy of “might makes right”.

Their only hope for credibility - of any sort - is to find it un-constitutional. Which of course, it is.

Finding it Constitutional - means we don’t have a Constitution. No need for credibility. We either have a Constituion - or we don’t. There is no choice of “maintaining credibility - and finding it Constitutional.” - there - just isn’t.


21 posted on 03/30/2012 12:22:07 PM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
He already explicitly said months ago that he would not ask Kagan to recuse.

I don't believe that the Chief Justice has the ability to deny any SC justice the ability to hear and rule on a case for any reason. Such power would effectively give the Chief Justice the ability to select which justices would get to decide every case.
22 posted on 03/30/2012 12:22:14 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Unlikely scenario. The more likely possibility is that Roberts has already promised Kennedy that he gets to write the opinion if he sides in favor of striking the individual mandate. A hint of this appears at page 67:24 - 68:4 of the transcript of the hearing during the morning session on March 28, 2012 concerning severability:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So do you want us to write an opinion saying we have concluded that there is an insignificant risk of a substantial adverse effect on the insurance companies, that's our economic conclusion, and therefore not severable? That's what you want me to say?

Notice how he starts out talking about “us” writing an opinion, but ends with “me” writing the opinion.

My prediction — and please write this down:

Anti-Injunction Act; 5 to 4 — Obamacare not subject to Anti-Injunction act.

Individual Mandate: 5 to 4 — Unconstitutional

Severability: 6 to 3 — Individual mandate is not severable (Kagan jumps ship and joins the majority)

Medicaid: 7 to 2 — Constitutional, but moot because the entire law will be stricken due to the inability to sever the individual mandate. (Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy will join the libs, but there will be a number of concur in part, dissent in part opinions.)

23 posted on 03/30/2012 12:23:56 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
They are human, and the justices go to the same parties and were made by the same system that produced most politicians. They will be very, very, wary of destroying the signature accomplishment of the first black president.

The worldview that made them will view that as a bigger crime than going against the US Constitution, or all the issues it will cause.

24 posted on 03/30/2012 12:25:32 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Do we really think that Chief Justice Roberts would allow Kagan to sit in on the hearings if he didn’t know how Kennedy was going to vote?

This is an interesting answer, but it assumes that Roberts only wants to overthrow the law. If Kennedy votes to uphold, it doesn't matter whether Kagan abstains or not--I believe a 4-4 tie would uphold the law. And wouldn't that make this even more of a mess, an unpopular law being upheld by a 4-4 tie?

And, if the Court is so interested in their power and reputation, you would think they owe the current President a smackdown for his berating them in the 2011 SOTU address.

I'm reading the Toobin book on the Supremes now. In it, he claims the Justices have very little interaction with one another...at least, they aren't chummy within their offices. There aren't many casual strolls from office to office, not a lot of mundane small talk--"who do you like on American Idol? Oh, really? Which way you gonna vote on the ACA? Want to do Chili's for lunch?"

25 posted on 03/30/2012 12:25:42 PM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a filibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

I said “retiring”. Kennedy said he’s retiring after the 2012 election.


26 posted on 03/30/2012 12:26:19 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Like Rush says, it’s one or two people in the U.S. that currently have the power to make us a slave state or a free state. Sad, it’s come to this, anyway!


27 posted on 03/30/2012 12:27:00 PM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Do we really think that Chief Justice Roberts would allow Kagan to sit in on the hearings if he didn’t know how Kennedy was going to vote?

A very fair point to make!

Hey, young lady! Do you ever read your emails? Luv ya!

28 posted on 03/30/2012 12:29:21 PM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onyx
I have to admit I’m not current with Sheriff Joe’s news?

You're kidding, right!!

He had an hour and a half press conference detailing fraud on behalf of Obozo back on March 1. (Same date we learned that Breitbart "died"* and there was a "bombscare" at Rush Limbaugh's compound in Palm Beach.) I'm not going to give you a link to an hour and a half video but I suggest you get started with this three and a half MINUTE video. If you care you will follow its links.

ML/NJ

* How's that autopsy going BTW?

29 posted on 03/30/2012 12:31:24 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All
"Blumenthal said, '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.'"

Question for Blumenthal:

1. You say, 'The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the Court risks grave damage if it strikes down . . . .' Were you as concerned by the President's blatant and unprecedented words against the Court in a State of the Union address? Or, are your remarks just a continuation of this Administration's intended challenge to the authority of Court whenever it rules in favor of individual freedom and against intrusive and coercive power concentrated in government?


Note to Blumenthal:

Might it occur to you and your fellow so-called "progressives" that Supreme Court Justices might be more concerned about how generations of Americans yet unborn may consider their decision and individual written opinions than they are about how a few truly insignificant human beings of 2010-2012, ignorant of America's 200-year heritage of liberty and hungry for power for themselves and their cronies, felt about their decision?

Civilization's long struggle for individual liberty and against concentrated power in other arrogant and imperfect individuals, or collections of individuals, is well documented.

Only in America, in one little spot on the globe, and in one little sliver of time, did a group of individuals come together, organizing themselves around a concept of Creator-endowed life, liberty, rights and laws to protect each individual, agree to a form of self-government whose written Constitution's provisions placed "People" over "government."

Future generations will read about this little sliver of time in America's history too, and they will know whether this Court upheld the Founders' vision or reversed the course and unleashed oppressive powers from which previous generations had fled.

30 posted on 03/30/2012 12:31:46 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

Does Toobin mention that Ginsburg and Scalia play contract bridge together? I’d call that chummy even though they’re polar opposites on the bench.

I don’t think the Court will be interested in political reputation or a black president. I think this decision will be purely Constitutional.

Maybe I’m dreaming, but I sure hope not.

This is a huge attempt at a power grab by the Marxists.


31 posted on 03/30/2012 12:32:18 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Thanks very much. Nope, not kidding!


32 posted on 03/30/2012 12:35:20 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Public opinion doesn’t follow the same traditions of Christian theology or The Empire Strikes Back — he voted against Kelo, and voting against Obamacare doesn’t cancel that out when it’s time to consider his service.


33 posted on 03/30/2012 12:40:26 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

By making the argument that they are human you could also argue that they are paying attention to the polls that a majority of Amercians do not want this, the Congress that put this bill together was voted out, and several moderate senators had to be bribed to get this bill passed


34 posted on 03/30/2012 12:40:44 PM PDT by aheckle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

By making the argument that they are human you could also argue that they are paying attention to the polls that a majority of Amercians do not want this, the Congress that put this bill together was voted out, and several moderate senators had to be bribed to get this bill passed


35 posted on 03/30/2012 12:40:51 PM PDT by aheckle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: onyx

“Kennedy said he’s retiring after the 2012 election.”


When, pray tell, did Kennedy say that? Please provide a link as to Kennedy saying that he would retire following the 2012 elections. (And don’t just post something about Kennedy saying that he wouldn’t retire before the 2012 elections.)


36 posted on 03/30/2012 12:44:22 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

That’s right, even if he would “ask” her about it, he can’t dismiss her.


37 posted on 03/30/2012 12:45:21 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The fact is that the individual mandate won't be upheld, so it is only an issue of how much of the law will be struck down.

If the individual mandate is struck down, the entire law is mute.

38 posted on 03/30/2012 12:46:31 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter W. Kessler

There is no way that the Chief Justice would make any demands at all that Kagan recuse herself. She would be counted on for the integrity that it takes to make that decision herself. In the long run, if a single justice had begged out, it would not make any difference at all as to the fate of the bill since a 4-4 decision would leave it totally in place.


39 posted on 03/30/2012 12:47:32 PM PDT by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aheckle
I am making the argument they belong to the same elite as the rest of the politicians. They don't respect the “lower” classes, and don't’ care much about pols.

The worldview is more important. Look at the fiasco and sheer madness of the war on terror.

40 posted on 03/30/2012 12:50:31 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

ObamaCare doesn’t CHANGE the relationship between government and citizens..it merely REVERSES it by 236 years or so.

It reintroduces Americans to being SUBJECTS.


41 posted on 03/30/2012 12:56:07 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Exactly what I have been thinking--Kagan will pass the word to the WH. If it favors them, they will leak it to their friends in the media.

Maybe the Chief Justice will make an offer to Scalia--"You can write the majority opinion, but only if you read the entire law."

42 posted on 03/30/2012 12:56:17 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: onyx
This is Kelo, this is campaign finance reform, magnified 1,000 times.

This is so crucial to our future that I agree that it will be decided on a purely Constitutional basis.

If there's any honor left in this world, generations to come will line up to spit on the graves of each justice who upholds this abomination, to grieve for the time when freedom was strangled and the human spirit was forced to endure the new Dark Ages.

The most magnificent document in all humankind, the U. S. Constitution, which even the Founders doubted could endure, will die.

43 posted on 03/30/2012 12:58:54 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1; onyx
The Supreme Court has always had the ability to Enslave people and take away their rights,it is what they do.

The Court better chose wisely, because future generations will say of this moment this when the Federal Government was reigned in, or when America was put on the Path to being Half Slave and Half Free, again, and we all know where THAT lead us the last time.

44 posted on 03/30/2012 1:01:42 PM PDT by KC_Lion (I will NEVER vote for Romney, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs if they nominate him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

I am not really clear on this. I understood your post and just want to be sure. If the Mandate is ruled Unconstitutional and the ruling that it can’t be severed makes all the rest “MOOT”.


45 posted on 03/30/2012 1:03:56 PM PDT by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Peter W. Kessler

“Can Judge Roberts force Kagan to recuse herself; can he bar her from the hearings???”

I think that’s Congress’ job...Congress can impeach her...and IMHO, should. This sort of an issue is PRECISELY why Congress has that power.


46 posted on 03/30/2012 1:04:32 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Does Toobin mention that Ginsburg and Scalia play contract bridge together? I’d call that chummy even though they’re polar opposites on the bench.

I haven't come across that tidbit specifically. He just meant that the Justices typically weren't chummy in their office. And of course, he did allude to the idea that many of them were certainly sociable outside their work on the Court.

I really think you made some great points, and I too agree, that the USSC Justices don't care about their political reputations, that they'd rather get this right.

My worst fear is that they'll try to reach some sort of "compromise" in an election year, out of respect to not influence the outcome. Of course, the timing is not theirs; that was cast two yars ago, when this garbage was passed.

47 posted on 03/30/2012 1:04:42 PM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a filibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
Like Rush says, it’s one or two people in the U.S. that currently have the power to make us a slave state or a free state. Sad, it’s come to this, anyway!

Rush is wrong. There are MILLIONS of people who hold that power. You are right, though, in a sense. What is sad is that as a group very few are concerned about it enough to participate; at this time.

48 posted on 03/30/2012 1:04:46 PM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Eldon Tyrell

If they find it constitutional, it means that the Supreme Court only exists to judge the constitutionality of the actions of the citizen and does not exist to do the same of Congress or the Executive Branch.


49 posted on 03/30/2012 1:07:22 PM PDT by Windy City Conservative (Kyle Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Maybe this will be the scenario:

1. The Supreme Court has its preliminary vote.
2. Kagan tells the White House.
3. The White House leaks the news to the media.
4. The media claims that Scalia leaked the information.

50 posted on 03/30/2012 1:13:17 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson