Crestfallen Liberals Failed to Take Constitution Seriously

Conservatives should not be lulled into a false sense of security by the questions asked during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over the Affordable Care Act. But we can savor the shock and horror spreading through the ranks of the bill’s supporters, can’t we?

Let’s start of the immortal words of the famously filter-less former Speaker Nancy Pelosi when asked if the Congress had the constitutional authority to change our government and the way we live our lives in one fell swoop known as the individual mandate. She replied with a taunting "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

But last week it began to dawn deliciously on Pelosi & Co. and their associates in the mainstream media that we were indeed serious and that their pet law might be in jeopardy. Aghast constitutional scholar Chris Matthews admitted he had never before dreamed of a scenario that featured “[President Obama’s] major achievement just ripped off the books.”

The Boston Globe cited a survey of Supreme Court lawyers and former clerks taken before the debate began that gave only a 35 percent probability that the mandate forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) would be struck down. “The provocative view in Washington when oral arguments began on Monday was that the vote to uphold could be lopsided,” the newspaper noted. By Tuesday afternoon, however, this view had been supplanted by gloom.

When CNN’s senior legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin—described by Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan as appearing “increasingly depressed”—emerged from the courtroom to say, “This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama administration and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble," the Newsroom anchor back in the studio gasped, “Oh, my goodness.”

Unable to accept that it’s the arguments, Stupid, the left is piling on unfortunate Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. who had the unenviable task of arguing the government’s case. Not a good career move.

“Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism’s biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy,” Mother Jones, the leftwing magazine, wrote.

In what must be a low point in Mr. Verrilli’s career, the White House felt it necessary to issue a pathetic statement of support Wednesday, describing the Solicitor General as “an extraordinarily talented advocate who possesses a sharp mind, keen judgment, and unquestionable integrity.” As we used to say in high school, “She’s really sweet, and she makes her own clothes.”

As the week progressed, Obamacare supporters moved from surprise and despair to developing a new meme. Nowhere was the new meme more revealingly or cynically expounded than in a column in the Washington Post by former Hillary Clinton adviser, Mark Penn, headlined “Could Defeat for Obamacare Mean Victory for Obama?”

“In the face of a Supreme Court ruling against the law, a defiant president may seek to make an even more strident case for his vision for health care in America,” Penn wrote. “Already, the talking points for a war on the high court are being put in place by organizations such as the Center for American Progress.” According to Penn, the “story line is simple” and it is that “the Supreme Court puts politics above the people in the name of the Constitution.”

Although Penn says that this argument “could play among an electorate predisposed to suspect the worst,” he ultimately rejects this as the way to go. Not because it is cynical and would tear the country apart. But merely because this tactic only gets the president his base, which he already has. Something tells me, however, that this talking point is not dead.

Despite the responses being developed in the media and places like the Center for American Progress, supporters of this law have to know that the Supreme Court’s overturning of Obamacare would be bad for the president. Or maybe not.

Regardless of the political implications, Americans have reason to be heartened by the events of this week. Perhaps only those of us inside-the-beltway types take guilty pleasure in the site of crestfallen liberal elites, but all Americans should appreciate that we have a Supreme Court that still takes the Constitution seriously.

Here's what I know, your answer is a blueprint for disaster.

What answer have I posited? None... I merely raised a question, one that really needs to be examined.

The question is, "Given Romney's track record of judicial appointments while governor of Massachusetts, and the equally well-known fact that Senate Republicans have been essentially rubber-stamping SCOTUS picks which are questionable at best believing that the POTUS should have who he/she wants regardless of what it would mean for the posterity of the nation, how can we be so dead certain that what he would do, and what the Senate would subsequently rubber-stamp, would in any measure be superior?" I don't have an answer to that, do you?

As for anything else, you are making assumptions which are not necessarily valid. I've never stated here, or elsewhere, that I would not vote for Romney under any circumstances, and challenge you to demonstrate that I have done so, if you believe it. I'm not pouting, I'm asking legitimate questions, and I deeply resent your attitude, and crude attempts to manipulate, and herd me. I may well end up voting for Romney, and man I feel I can in no manner trust, but one thing you *can* be sure of, it won't be because of your pathetic tantrum here...

the infowarrior

well the only thing I can say is GWB was set to give us harriet meyers and we changed his mind.

There's the rub. "WE", meaning conservatives in the rank and file changed his mind, well before it got to the 'advise and consent' of the Senate. Had she actually gotten before the Senate we would be looking at Associate Justice Harriet Myers, and I don't think anyone on this forum doubts that.

the infowarrior

Thank you for stating what should be obvious to Conservatives but I am afraid that from many comments here doesn't sink in to some people.

If trends continue, the Supreme Court is going to issue some rulings which are so patently illegitimate that it will be necessary for people and state governments to openly denounce them as such and call upon people to ignore them. While it would be better for the Supreme Court to reverse direction rather than issuing such rulings, if that's not going to happen I'd rather a ruling come down as "4 conservative, 3 'legitimate' liberals, and 2 radicalist bozos who overtly denounce the Constitution", than "4 conservatives, 3 liberals, and 2 RINO appointees who back the liberals".

“We have a SCOTUS which takes the Constitution seriously by a 1 vote margin, which is why I will be forced to vote for Romney in November instead of sitting out the election. I’m afraid the next POTUS may be able to nominate judges to SCOTUS and I sure as hell don’t want that POTUS to be the kenyan.”

A big ditto from catnipman on that good buddy! We’re one vote away from total destruction of the Constitution and all personal liberty.

I literally will vote for ANYONE but Obama!

The above paragraph reminds me of the following:

Dr. Sidney Freidman [speaking about Frank Burns, who is being held hostage by guest star John Ritter]:

"One of the best in the business, a terrific doctor, and a great human being ..."

The fact that you answered my post and they way you answered seemed to point that you weren't going to vote for Romeney

But after last night it should be obvious that he will be the nominee, so let me ask you the question

If Romney is the nominee will you vote for him?

I don't like being manipulated, neither by the folks that are constantly pushing this loser down my throat, nor by you. Have a nice life...

the infowarrior

New name for you, minister of disinformation. You don't like being manipulated, but the last response to me was very evasive and when asked point blank about your intentions you bail out.

I am not trying to manipulate you but asking you a direct question is not manipulation.

Your answer though is about what I expected. Just don't post again that you have not said you won't vote for Romney, because your response here makes it perfectly clear.

You might as well send a donation to Obama and work on his committee.

Pathetic

Yeah - what the heck is wrong with you, billva? How dare you bother people on a political forum with minutiae like asking who they would pick to run their country - the gall!!! (Not Charles de Gualle, mind you - he’s foreign born and currently dead)

Good question, especially people who claim they haven't said they wouldn't vote for Romney but when ask if they will make disingenuous claims about being manipulated and continue to avoid.

What I think we should start here is a support Obama topic for all the folks who claim to be concerned about their country but won't vote for the obvious nominee against Obama.

This place is filled with hypocrites.

So you would rather have had the Democrat's original prescription drug bill before Bush gutted it and made it operate thru the private sector instead of government? And you prefer Ted Kennedy's original education bill before Bush changed it to include standards for school achievement and teacher merits?

Just about every major part of the healthcare bill that Obama says "Americans want" (20 somethings on their parent's insurance, pre-conditions) Bush vetoed.

He did as much as he could for as long as he could and deserves more credit than he gets from "conservatives".

I am not trying to manipulate you but asking you a direct question is not manipulation.

Bullsquat! *YOU* never even bothered to answer *my* question at all, so you are being manipulative whether you choose to admit it, or not.

I'll put it to you this way, so you can possibly understand *exactly* where I'm coming from: Elections in this country are held by *secret* ballot, whether you like it, or not. My choice for president is *my* business, and most emphatically not that of K-Rove, Inc's. And, if you don't believe that K-Rove and Co aren't monitoring this forum, to see how their little game is going over, you are incredibly naive, are working for them, and thus no conservative, or both simultaneously. There is absolutely no way in h-ll I'm about to *publicly* commit to Romney where they could see it whether I plan on voting for him, or not.

Now, I've answered *your* question, will you have the common courtesy to answer mine, to wit: Given Romney's track record of judicial appointments as Governor of Massachusetts, and the GOP Senators long tradition of voting to affirm whoever *any* president desires to appoint to SCOTUS, do you really believe that his SCOTUS picks are a reason to discount his other *troublesome* qualities?

Take your time...

the infowarrior

Bullsquat! *YOU* never even bothered to answer *my* question at all, so you are being manipulative whether you choose to admit it, or not.
I'll put it to you this way, so you can possibly understand *exactly* where I'm coming from: Elections in this country are held by *secret* ballot, whether you like it, or not. My choice for president is *my* business, and most emphatically not that of K-Rove, Inc's. And, if you don't believe that K-Rove and Co aren't monitoring this forum, to see how their little game is going over, you are incredibly naive, are working for them, and thus no conservative, or both simultaneously. There is absolutely no way in h-ll I'm about to *publicly* commit to Romney where they could see it whether I plan on voting for him, or not.
Now, I've answered *your* question, will you have the common courtesy to answer mine, to wit: Given Romney's track record of judicial appointments as Governor of Massachusetts, and the GOP Senators long tradition of voting to affirm whoever *any* president desires to appoint to SCOTUS, do you really believe that his SCOTUS picks are a reason to discount his other *troublesome* qualities?
Take your time...

the infowarrior

Misinfo warrior in your own words that is a Bullsquat answer

To the first part of your statement I didn't really expect or care if you answered the question. However from all your posts it seems you will be in the stay home and pout crowd, that includes this one.

Then you made a statement that you seemed to want to say you haven't made up your mind. So I asked you, your response pretty much speaks for it's self.

As to your question in the latter part of your post I will answer with two comments. First Romney's past actions trouble me but I certainly do believe people can evolve in their outlooks and I believe that with a Republican Congress Romney will act in accordance with what he is saying on the campaign trail.

Secondly I believe that when it comes to a choice between Obama and Romney it's a no brainer.

So you would rather have had the Democrat’s original prescription drug bill before Bush gutted it and made it operate thru the private sector instead of government? And you prefer Ted Kennedy’s original education bill before Bush changed it to include standards for school achievement and teacher merits?
Just about every major part of the healthcare bill that Obama says “Americans want” (20 somethings on their parent’s insurance, pre-conditions) Bush vetoed.

He did as much as he could for as long as he could and deserves more credit than he gets from “conservatives”.
______________

Deb, I’d take W. over any democrat, any day. I also stated in my post, that I am thankful for his appointees to the federal bench (Supreme Court and otherwise).

He did some things I didn’t like. Whether this makes me a “conservative” in others’ eyes or not, I really could not care less.

Back to my original point, Romney, in my view would nominate better justices than Obama...by a long shot.

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.