Posted on 06/27/2012 12:01:48 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Many people I know -- and many people I don't know -- are now predicting what the Supreme Court is going to do on Obamacare tomorrow. And I haven't kept a running tally of all the predictions from people I know and people I don't know in the media and outside the media, but it sure seems like most people think that at a minimum, the mandate's gone by 5-4, with Roberts writing the majority opinion and Ginsburg writing the dissent. And these people are offering all kinds of reasons for their predictions. One prediction is, "Look, they gave Obama Arizona to set up taking health care away from him." I don't know if the court works that way, but that's what people think.
Another one is this. This is Ed Whelan at National Review. There's an unwritten rule at the court that justices will read dissents orally from the bench once per term. Dissents. He has found that Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg has read more than one dissent this year from this term from the bench, so he's wondering maybe that rule isn't hard and fast anymore. But he says he thinks a guy like Scalia will probably be duty-bound and honor-bound to respect that tradition of reading one dissent per term, live, from the court. And since Scalia already read his dissent on Arizona, that it's gotta be the mandate's gone, because Scalia would have saved his dissent for the biggie, if there was to be one.
I mean, these predictions are running the gamut. And then, of course, there are predictions predicated on the fact that Obama has already been told and you can tell by his attitude in his public appearances that he's dejected and mad and ticked off about it, betraying the fact that he's been told that the vote goes -- I'm hearing all this stuff, and more.
Hi, folks, boy. You know who this is, most recognizable voice in American media. That would be mine, Rush Limbaugh, here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All kinds of predictions about the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and how he might vote based on his desire for the court to be perceived in certain ways. For me, I have no clue. I don't know what to believe of any of these predictions. All I know is that a lot of people are sticking their necks out a long way with this public prediction that the mandate, at a minimum, is gone, and that the vote is going to be 5-4. I haven't spent a lot of time reading left-wing blogs, but there's a lot of depression out there, primarily for them because of the way the media is covering this. There was a big story over the weekend in the New York Times, for example, and the focus of that story was to sort of berate the smartest people in the history of the Oval Office for not taking care of the fact that they wrote a health care bill that might have an unconstitutional premise in it. They really did.
See, Clinton's people used to be the smartest, but now Obama's people, smartest people that have ever been there. But damn it if they didn't screw something up. They sat there and they put together a health care bill, and they didn't stop to think that the mandate might be unconstitutional. They didn't take care of it. So people are looking at that article and assuming Obama knows, he's been told in violation of court procedure, ethics, tradition, and all that. And then there are people who say, "No, no, Rush, Rush, let me tell you something, Obama's been told, and it's a big win, and he's just acting disappointed. He's just acting depressed to set everybody up for a crushing, shocking defeat when Obamacare is upheld on Thurs." I mean I'm hearing it all.
So I thought what I would do, it's not very often -- 'cause, you know, I am the world's foremost authority. I ask nobody what they think. I'm not big on interviews 'cause I don't care what anybody else thinks. That's why I don't have guests. Really. Why pussyfoot around that. People have asked me oftentimes, "Why don't you have guests on your show?" Well, there's a whole bunch of format programming reasons. One is, everybody else does. There's no way to be different. But, secondly, I'd rather find out myself and become the expert rather than turn it over to people plugging this and plugging that. You know, behave and conduct a program according to formula. And then I finally one day, in a shocking realization, I admitted to myself, I don't care what anybody else thinks. (laughing) It's not gonna change my mind.
It's work to sit here and ask people questions that I don't care about. I'm not gonna subject myself to that. That turns this into a job. But I'm gonna make a departure from that. I'm gonna ask you people as you call in today about whatever it is you want to talk about what you think the court's gonna do tomorrow. So if you're planning on calling the program at 800-282-2882, be prepared to give a short -- and you can say you have no idea. That's fine, too. You can say you don't know. You can say what you hope. No, I know what you hope. So don't give me that. I know what you're saying. I know what you're thinking, "What are you asking us for, Rush? You are the master at reading the tea leaves. You even have a tea company now. You don't even know how the SCOTUS is gonna rule, so how can any of us know?"
That's not the point. I want to know what your thinking is, what your prediction is. (interruption) Well, are you basing that on oral arguments? Ah, you gotta throw that out. Snerdley's sending me a note here that says that the wise Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, agreed during oral arguments the mandate was unconstitutional and was doing her best to guide these pathetic government lawyers who had no case to defend through their own oral argument. She's trying to help 'em out. So you're predicting 6-3 on the mandate? All right, well, let's talk, 6-3 on the mandate. Snerdley says 6-3 mandate gone. Whatever the vote is, 6-3, 5-4. Oh, and that's another thing. These predictions, a lot of people say, "Rush, on a momentous case like this, the chief justice is not going to permit 5-4. It's got to be at least 6-3 for the reputation of the court to avoid the charges of partisan --" Folks, that is so much bohunk. It's gonna vote the way it comes out.
Now, Snerdley says 6-3 'cause he thinks the wise Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, is going to join the wise majority and bump the mandate. If it's 5-4, 6-3, if the mandate goes, my friends, that's the primary funding mechanism for Obamacare. Why do you think the mandate is in there? The mandate, if you've forgotten, the requirement that we all buy a policy or pay a fine, it's the way on paper, the way this thing was the submitted to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, it's the way it is paid for. The mandate is how the regime kept the so-called costs under a trillion dollars. That's the cost of the Iraq war; it had to come in cheaper than that. And is how Obama was allowed to say via scoring, talking about the CBO, that it was gonna reduce the deficit and it was gonna lower premiums and all this magic stuff.
The mandate is the brain and the heart of this organism. It's the primary funding mechanism. If the mandate goes, there's no way to pay for anything else in this. Not as written. And another question then arises. What are the Republicans gonna do in whatever scenario? Are the Republicans gonna sit around and do nothing if it's torpedoed? Or are they going to say, you know what, people like insurance for preexisting conditions. We better keep that in there. People like being able to keep their kids who are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from school on their policies. I know. This is the problem. I know a couple of conservative parents -- just as conservative as you or me -- well, maybe not as conservative as I am. They're a little kookier. Well, they're much kookier, 'cause I'm not kooky at all. But when it comes to the kids staying on the policy, to hell with conservatism, they want it. This is illustrative of one of the primary problems we've got.
When you get down to the bare bones personal of this, ideology goes out the window, big government goes out the window 'cause we're talking about "my children, my son, my daughter, who can't find work, and I need my child to stay on my policy." So all the big government stuff, all the limited government goes out the window with these people. If nothing else is kept, keeping the kid on the policy is a big deal. I'm just mentioning this, because what were the Republicans gonna do? Now, I gotta call from Speaker Boehner last Friday. I mean, he's calling a lot of people. Yeah, he called me first, Snerdley, yes, yes, but he's calling a lot of people, and he was telling us what the Republican plan is. And it was repeal, repeal, repeal, regardless what happens. The mandate's thrown out, repeal the rest of it. If the whole thing is upheld, repeal it. If the whole thing's deemed unconstitutional, repeal that. (laughing)
He made it clear that "repeal" and not "repeal and replace" but "repeal" was gonna be the focal point for the House Republicans. So a lot here on the line. And then you realize the election is in four-and-a-half months. So if the mandate's thrown out, if the whole thing's torpedoed -- and the mandate being thrown out, being the primary funding mechanism, there really isn't a whole lot of left. If that happens, then it becomes a campaign issue for the next four months and Obama is running around out there saying four white guys and an Uncle Tom, four rich white guys, Uncle Tom, just took your health care away. I was the first one to give it to you in a hundred years, they just took it away, they still have theirs. These four white guys and an Uncle Tom took your health care. That will become a campaign platform plank for them.
If it's upheld, then it becomes a campaign thing for the Republicans and for Romney. And then the election in November will have further ramifications on the future of this particular piece of legislation, Obamacare. So tomorrow is really just the first day of a big mess. But it's the kind of mess that we want. It's the kind of mess that we asked for. It's the kind of mess that has to happen if we are gonna get rid of this and try to bring some common-sense reforms. Now, see, Snerdley talked about oral arguments. And there are people on both sides, "Oral arguments? You can't read anything into that." Other people say, "Oh, yes, you can." I got court watchers out there who tell me oral arguments do indicate the way justices gonna vote. Well, Kennedy gave himself leeway to vote any way he wants. The early Kennedy in oral arguments, no doubt totally opposed. But then later on when somebody came up with a compromise idea where it was said that certain aspects could be left in, Kennedy was open to that, too.
So oral arguments where Justice Kennedy are concerned don't tell us anything. 'Cause he left himself wide latitude to maneuver and negotiate. Now, as far as the wise Latina, Sotomayor, she was pretty rigid. I mean she was in a way kind of mocking Virility, the solicitor general, the government lawyer who was pathetic, but he didn't have a case to defend. Nobody woulda looked good. Perry Mason woulda looked like an idiot trying to defend Obamacare before the Supreme Court.
END TRANSCRIPT
But, all those new hire IRS agents can harass you. If struck down, I hope these guys loose their jobs.
My prediction is if upheld, there is no longer a need for a SC.
The Individual mandate will be struck down and the parts that require insurance companies to take all previous condition enrollees and the part that allows people not to buy insurance until they need it will also be eliminated. Then all the liberals will cry to allah that the Supreme Court is partisan.
Oh I hope so!!
Having heard that Roberts and Kennedy are jointly writing the opinion, I am more convinced than ever that the vote will be 6-3 to uphold. Only Alito, Scalia & Thomas will dissent.
See I was right. they upheld it.
I admire your courage though.
“Sadly, I think it’ll be upheld 5-4, with Roberts again jumping ship on America.
I suggest you let the horses think. They have bigger heads and you know s*it.”
Oh, really?
“Sadly, I think it’ll be upheld 5-4, with Roberts again jumping ship on America.
I suggest you let the horses think. They have bigger heads and you know s*it.”
Oh, really?
I was wrong on Kennedy — but right on Roberts. You heard it here first.
You waited cowardly 18 hours, give or take a couple of minutes to reply to me with your boast. Nice /sarcasm>
Correction: Make that 17 hours, not 18 hours
It wasn’t cowardly - it was quite prudent - and it wasn’t a boast - it was a simple, informed prediction. By waiting, I was hoping that I was wrong and after finding-out this morning’s decision, I’d have gladly come back - with my little plastic Red Lobster bib - to this thread and say so to you, and have gladly/humbly eaten some crow. I’ve eaten crow before and wouldn’t have had a problem doing so, especially in this monumental case, K.
But Roberts has dropped numerous clues for a while now - he’s often voted w/ the libs and is actively “establishing his CJ-legacy on SCOTUS”, and again did so again on Monday, with the AZ Ruling. A little research and simple deduction.; nothing more.
But if it makes you feel better, use the “lucky blind pig” or the “stopped clock” metaphor for my #45 opinion.
It was cowardly of you to wait 17 hours with your reply instead of replying hours earlier with for example Well we shall just see then reply.
If flame wars over who-said-what-and-when between otherwise decent FReepers are any indication of how conservsatives will bite and devour each other over the next 4 months + 8 days MY prediction is that Øbama will win in a landslide.
There: 4 months and 8 days out.
Thank you.
There are several scenarios that he could win. One is if the voters would stay at home which the dems hope we do. Another one is if the voters will vote for some third party candidate who has absolutely no chance of getting elected instead of voting for the nominee, and finally that arrogant, lazy lying pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave stopping the election and make himself president for life. This is something I would not put behind him. We all know how much he hates the constitution.
I read that ince he made it a TAX that it can be repealed with only 51 votes instead of law that would required 61
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.