Posted on 10/22/2013 6:50:44 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Sen. Marco Rubio says he will introduce a bill to postpone the Obamacare measure a "prudent approach." On "CBS This Morning," he said, "It's unfair to punish people for not purchasing a product that they can't purchase right now because of the technology that's in place, the web site they're supposed to buy it on -- by the president's own admission -- is not working.
He said all he is calling for is a delay on the requirement until the U.S. General Accounting Office certifies the Web site is working and has been functioning for six consecutive months.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Campaign against executive tyranny!
You never know you might get the whole procedure declared unconstitutional or you might actually win an election.
Meanwhile, we have not compromised our position and Obama is no further advanced than he would be if we sold out to him.
An interesting thought occurred to me regarding John Roberts' sudden betrayal.
Many people assume (as I do) that he was coerced into his 11th hour change of opinion.
I've also read stories over the years of how the aging Associate Justices were interested in retiring, but were holding on until an appropriate President was in power to fill the vacancies.
If Obama's thugs were so powerful as to get the Chief Justice to turn, why haven't they compelled Ginsberg or Kennedy to "retire" so Obama can name a few more justices to SCOTUS now, instead of waiting for one to involuntarily vacate?
Regarding "litigate," sure. I'd expect an immediate request to SCOTUS to stay the law while the case makes its way through the courts. What's the good of litigating Obama's waiver of the law for a year, when it will take several years to hear the case?
I don't even know what "stay the law" would mean. Would litigants demand that the waiver be refused and the law as-is be enforced? Or would they ask SCOTUS to stay Obamacare, which is what Obama's waiver would do in the first place?
-PJ
Of course it would likely take years to get to the Supreme Court but the Obama administration runs the risk of encountering an adverse ruling in the court of first impression which could set them back.
There are many potential players in such a lawsuit, the states, the insurance companies, the healthcare providers, the patient's, those who fail to get insurance, etc.
It is very difficult to predict how a justiciable case or controversy might emerge and who the parties might be much less how the courts would rule. My feeling is the rulings can't get any worse, they can only confirm constitutionality, we are already there, we have very little to lose by litigating. Interestingly, there is a very good possibility of a ruling on some arcane area of Obamacare which on its face seems to be unimportant but switch strikes at the very heart of Obamacare and makes the whole system tumble. One never knows.
As to campaigning, we have to have the actuality of Obamacare to campaign against. Campaigning against the prospect of Obamacare availed us nothing in 2012.
By Rubio advancing this legislation Obama is let off the hook. Why? There is a very great danger that Obama will use this year to recast Obamacare so that it might be less of a train wreck, God knows how much he might be able to do with executive orders. It is important to try to take this out of Obama's hands and get him to have a fight not with The Tea Party but with the court system.
Rubio will NEVER get back in my good graces. EVER. Amnesty is unforgivable.
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.