Posted on 04/02/2012 8:33:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week, liberals were blindsided by the Supreme Court's thoughtful and serious consideration of the constitutional objections to Obamacare --- and conservatives were taught to hope as they've never hoped before that the Supremes might toss the entirety of the monstrosity.
Immediately, though, conservative Eeyores warned that the elimination of Obamacare might work to Barack Obama’s advantage in the general election because he would no longer have to defend the overwhelmingly unpopular law. While I never skewed to that view, I offer to conservative pessimists this hopeful thought: Maybe Barack Obama would be just stupid enough to take the advice of South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn and make an issue of Obamacare anyway …
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said President Obama should campaign against the Supreme Court, painting it as a conservative, activist institution if it rules that the administration’s healthcare law is unconstitutional.
“In terms of the Congress, I believe that it would be off-base for us to do that, but for the president, I don’t think it is,” Clyburn said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday. “I think the president ought to take a look at what happened in years before, we’ve seen presidents run against Congress and we’ve seen presidents run against the Supreme Court. Franklin Roosevelt did it to the Supreme Court, [Harry] Truman did it to the Congress.” …
“I think the president will take a look at exactly what he needs to do to connect with the American people, let them know that he’s done everything he can possible do and ask them to give him a mandate for the years going forward,” Clyburn continued.
It’s true that a president can – and, in the case of FDR, did – campaign against the Supreme Court, but it truly would be a dumb decision to revive the issue of Obamacare when the American people are so solidly against the fourth entitlement program. It would merely call to mind that Obama — a legal scholar — forced through a massive health care overhaul that couldn’t pass constitutional muster. That’s a failure the president would surely prefer the American people to forget.
Until the Supreme Court issues its decision in June, though, this sort of speculation isn’t particularly fruitful. The Supremes might yet rule the individual mandate is constitutional. They might rule the mandate is unconstitutional, but decide that the mandate is severable and leave it to Congress to sort out how to render the rest of it workable. At this point, anxious opponents (or, for that matter, supporters) of Obamacare have nothing to do but wait.
Marxist a-hole! I, for one will NOT be surprised when Obama calls them a bunch of racists. Especially the “oreo cookie”, “Uncle Tom” on the court.
yes!! he should!!
tell the american people that he can implement a marxist utopia ONLY if they let him appoint some new judges-for-life
I think Ibama should fall on the floor and have a hissy tantrum and say, “I hate you ..I hate you..I hate you..” Then he should hold his breath and when that doesn’t work he should threaten to run away!
We will know the decision ahead of the official announcement by what the Dems and their propaganda arm (the media) do.
If the decision was against Obamacare, the Dems and media will bash the Court. We will see hit pieces on the Court itself and the individual (Conservative) justices.
If the decision was made for Obamacare we will know which "Conservative Justices" voted for support because we will begin to see puff pieces on the individual justices who crossed the line.
Oh, please! God, grant Clyburn’s wish on this one!
I can hear Obama’s stump speeches and TV-ads, “We need to end this nine-person, Supreme Court tyranny and implement a single-person dictatorship - it would be so much better!”
Are these people REALLY this stupid?!?! If they are this stupid, then HOW STUPID are the Republicans who keep losing to this idiot?!?!
IIRC, Clyburn’s the congresscritter that got a set-aside for a library in a town in his district. However, they used the wrong zip code, so some town in CA, rather than SC, got the money.
What the hell. He’s already suing The State of Arizona.
The insurance could include children.
If the person dies a few years after winning the health insurance lottery, his family would still receive the insurance until, say, the winner's last child died.
Just some food for thought.
Good article. I think it would help the cause to have Obama attacking the court as extremist. Kagen, Ginsburg, etc. might get vetted in this case.
I put nothing past this idiot. I wouldn’t be suprised if he campaigned against Santa Claus being able to break into peoples houses every year without prosecution. It would certainly win him some votes with his base and get the media talking about something other than the economy. Afterall, that’s what he needs.
RE: Post #6
I have thought about and expected the same. The justices can change their mind before June. Nothing is certain. If the initial vote is leaked and a campaign is mounted to affect the outcome in the media...and the vote is swayed one way or another...wow.
I don't understand how that would work. He still tried to implement it. He still wants something worse. Only the court would have stopped him. Why should the public forget, or be allowed to forget, this??
I think it’s looking like the Supremes in their vote Friday voted against Obamacare and this was leaked by Captain Kagan Kangaroo to Obama and he has informed all his fellow Commies. So, they are waging war against the decision in hopes of changing a vote, probably Kennedy’s.
Ya. That’s the ticket.
A bit conspiratorial but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the hints you suggest.
Just some food for thought.
It'd *really* be interesting if one or more of the justices anticipate this move and engage in a bit of subterfuge with their initial vote. Kagan wouldn't be smart enough to detect it.
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.