This SCOTUS Decision Most Critical of Out Lifetimes


Recommended Posts

Remember the relevant proverbs.

OK, I'll bite...what are the relevant proverbs?

Never trust left wing Judges?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The one that comes most easily to mind is "don't count your chickens before they hatch." We'll know the outcome when the decision comes down - probably some time this summer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one that comes most easily to mind is "don't count your chickens before they hatch." We'll know the outcome when the decision comes down - probably some time this summer.

Ahh - OK - agreed, estimates are sometime in June.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all the poor little government thugs want:

That is the kind of choice of means that McCulloch says that the Constitution leaves to the democratically accountable branches of government. There is no temporal limitation in the Commerce Clause.
Everyone subject to this regulation is in or will be in the health care market. They are just being regulated in advance. That's exactly the kind of thing that ought to be left to the judgment of Congress and the democratically accountable branches of government.

Fuck em!

Link to post
Share on other sites

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Will the High Court Vindicate Vinson?

Justice Kennedy sounds surprisingly like the judge who struck down ObamaCare in toto.

By JAMES TARANTO

(Note: We'll be on assignment again tomorrow, returning Friday.)

WASHINGTON--"ObamaCare defenders will call him a judicial activist," we wrote in February 2011 about Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Tallahassee, Fla. "That is bunk. His ruling is the very model of judicial restraint."

We dropped in on the Supreme Court this morning and were pleased to learn that Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy appear to agree. +H ++ere's Kennedy, from the transcript, addressing Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler:

When you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the Act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite. We would be exercising the judicial power if one Act was--one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this Court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike--than striking the whole.

And here's Scalia:

Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to--to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

At issue is the question of "severability"--whether a court that strikes down one provision of a law is obliged to toss the rest of the law with it. Vinson thought that he was in this case. The Obama administration, he wrote, had "conceded that the Act's health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself."

As ObamaCare made its way up the federal judiciary, Vinson was the lone jurist to accept the plaintiffs' argument that the individual mandate is not severable. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled him on that point, although it upheld his finding that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. All other judges hearing ObamaCare cases have either held the mandate unconstitutional but severable or held the mandate constitutional, thus rendering the severability question moot.

Oddly, the administration's position on the mandate's severability is one no judge has adopted: that it is partly severable. If it goes, Kneedler was there to argue, two other central provisions of the law--"community rating" and "guaranteed issue," which require insurance companies to issue money-losing policies to people who are already sick--must also fall, but the rest of the law should stand. This appears to have been a too-clever-by-half political calculation, based on the supposition that the justices would be more hesitant to strike down the mandate if it also meant striking down popular freebies.

By our lights, Kneedler was not a compelling advocate for the government's position. We suspect that is because he and his colleagues were still reeling from yesterday's oral arguments, in which Scalia and Kennedy, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, asked a lot of tough questions of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. (We didn't attend yesterday, but having read the full transcript, we agree with CBS's Jan Crawford that "Verrilli did a fine job w a mountainous task." His case, not his legal skills, was weak.)

The justices' evident skepticism about the government's claims took many legal observers (though not this columnist) by surprise. Just last week the likes of Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick were proclaiming the case for ObamaCare a no-brainer, flaunting their own brainlessness as if it proved the point.

We're sure the solicitor general and his team are more circumspect, but we'll bet they were overconfident nonetheless. If the mandate falls--as it suddenly seems much more likely to do--the administration risks compounding its losses by urging the court to strike down more, even if not all, of the law. So Kneedler must have approached his work today with considerable ambivalence.

Scalia also argued that the question of severability is every bit as unprecedented as the constitutional question about the individual mandate:

This is really a case of first impression. I don't know another case where we have been confronted with this--with this decision: Can you take out the heart of the Act and leave everything else in place?

Kneedler was unable to cite a precedent to satisfy Scalia, but earlier Clement had mentioned a case that somewhat fit the bill: Buckley v. Valeo (1976), a free-speech challenge to Watergate-era campaign-finance restrictions:

In
Buckley
this Court looked at a statute that tried to, in a coherent way, strike down [sic; he means impose] limits on contributions and closely related expenditures.

This Court struck down the ban on expenditures, left the contribution ban in place, and for 4 decades Congress has tried to fix what's left of the statute, largely unsuccessfully, whereas it would have I think worked much better from a democratic and separation of powers standpoint if the Court would have said: Look, expenditures are--you can't limit expenditures under the Constitution; the contribution provision is joined at the hip. Give Congress a chance to actually fix the problem.

Justice Scalia put the matter this way, addressing H. Barton Farr, the court-appointed lawyer who argued the position that the mandate could be struck down without affecting any other provision of the law:

Mr. Farr, let's--let's consider how--how your approach, severing as little as possible there--thereby increases the deference that we're showing to--to Congress. It seems to me it puts Congress in--in this position: This Act is still in full effect. There is going to be this deficit that used to be made up by the mandatory coverage provision. All that money has to come from somewhere.

You can't repeal the rest of the Act because you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest. It's not a matter of enacting a new act. You've got to get 60 votes to repeal it. So the rest of the Act is going to be the law.

So you're just put to the choice of I guess bankrupting insurance companies and the whole system comes tumbling down, or else enacting a Federal subsidy program to the insurance companies, which is what the insurance companies would like, I'm sure.

Do you really think that that is somehow showing deference to Congress and--and respecting the democratic process?

It seems to me it's a gross distortion of it.

As in yesterday's hearings, the four Democratic appointees ended up advocating for the administration's position more effectively than its own lawyers. Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered a metaphor in the course of questioning former solicitor general Paul Clement, who argued the case for the 26 states challenging ObamaCare:

Mr. Clement, there are so many things in this Act that are unquestionably okay. I think you would concede that reauthorizing what is the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act changes to long benefits, why make Congress redo those? I mean it's a question of whether we say everything you do is no good, now start from scratch, or to say, yes, there are many things in here that have nothing to do frankly with the affordable healthcare and there are some that we think it's better to let Congress to decide whether it wants them in or out.

So why should we say it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.

One problem for Ginsburg is that her views on severability are irrelevant, except in the unlikely event that she votes to strike down the mandate. If the mandate stands, that obviates the need to choose between a wrecking operation and a salvage job.

Anyway, in our view Judge Vinson had a better analogy. Last year he described ObamaCare as being "like a defectively designed watch, [which] needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker." The Supreme Court is competent to throw the watch out, and nothing stops Congress from making a new one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577309641721233690.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a personal note on this.

After going through all the nitpicking PARC discussions, then watching way too much news on TV, then seeing the ridiculous things coming out of the government, and even watching Glenn Beck go off the rails once in a while, I have gotten real tired. Do people in power or authority even communicate anymore? Is it all angles and lies and spin?

So it is an enormous relief to hear authorities--like some of the Supreme Court Justices currently--talking in clear principles. And to top it off, there is a shot at maybe keeping to some founding principles without twisting them all out of reality.

I don't want to get off into wishful thinking because I have been disappointed too much, but I just can't get hope out of my mind this time around.

I dearly hope Obamacare--especially the individual mandate--gets thrown out for the right reasons.

And it bothers me a great deal that some people smart enough to be Supreme Court Justices actually think the Constitution permits the government to make people buy something just because they were born.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should smack down the law entire, not just a part and not punt.

--Brant

Every member of the Court is a Statist of one flavor or another. Do not get your hopes up too high.

I think the U.S Constitution as conceived of by the Founders is long dead and what is left stinks to high heaven.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

Scalia is a remarkable individual. He, Alito and Kennedy have acquitted themselves well in these deliberations. Roberts has been cautious, but solid with his questioning and reasoning. Thomas has not spoken, in session, for at least six (6) years.

Breyer, Sotomayor, Ruth Buzzy and the KaganO'bamanista are just so in the tank it is truly sad to hear them attempt to argue any Constitutional issues.

Brant:

Correct. The entire act is unconstitutional. Additionally, as I mentioned two (2) years ago, when this abortion was passed, it does not contain a severability clause. Therefore, it is all or nothing at all.

Bob's standard commercial announcement not withstanding, the Constitution still exists, it just has to be applied strictly.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob's standard commercial announcement not withstanding, the Constitution still exists, it just has to be applied strictly.

Adam

By whom? The Constitution has been ignored and distorted since the end of the Civil War. The Reconstructed Republic was a National State not a Federation. The United States Are vs. The United States IS.

Ba'al CHatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob's standard commercial announcement not withstanding, the Constitution still exists, it just has to be applied strictly.

Adam

By whom? The Constitution has been ignored and distorted since the end of the Civil War. The Reconstructed Republic was a National State not a Federation. The United States Are vs. The United States IS.

Ba'al CHatzaf

Bob:

I do not believe that is a sustainable proposition. Dred Scott was a horrendous decision pre civil war. We have the Amendments, beginning with the 13th Amendment which have clarified, matured, transformed and expanded the Constitution. There is an amendment process in the original document for a important reason.

Distorted? Specifically? I would like to hear precisely what you mean by this "distortion."

As to ignored, I might agree with that term, although, I would, again, prefer concrete examples.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

White House Tries to Rebrand Mandate

Earnest Calls Government Mandate 'Personal Responsibility Clause'

BY: Bill McMorris - March 28, 2012 3:25 pm

The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.

“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

No Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act on final passage. [Vote was 219 - 212 ANOTHER O'BAMA ADMINISTRATION BALD FACED LIE! ]

He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.

“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.

Conservatives have blasted the administration for the individual mandate and only one Republican voted for Obamacare in both houses of the legislature.

Earnest deflected questions about the future of the law and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Many analysts have said that the court is likely to overturn Obama’s signature law after conservative members of the court, as well as Obama appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor, bombarded Verilli with blistering questions over the mandate.

“There have been lower court cases where conservative judges have posed difficult, tough questions to Department of Justice lawyers … and conservative judges, who posed tough questions ended up upholding the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

Some also questioned the Verrilli’s performance, as he stumbled and coughed at times in defending the bill on Tuesday. Earnest defended the attorney.

“He’s one of the brightest legal minds in Washington, D.C.,” he said. “He gave a very solid performance before the Supreme Court, that’s just a fact.”

The spokesman did not know if President Obama had listened to trial transcripts, as he was flying back from Seoul, South Korea. He repeatedly said that the administration is not preparing contingency plans if Obamacare is struck down.

“We are focused on implementing all of the provisions of the law because they are important benefits,” he said, adding “we’re not, no,” when reporters asked again if alternative strategies are being considered.

“If there’s a reason or a need to consider contingencies down the line, then we will.”

The Heritage Foundation has been credited with introducing the concept of the individual mandate during the debate over Hillary Clinton’s healthcare reform almost 20 years ago, but has since come to oppose it. It is not the only group that has changed sides on the issue: Obama slammed then-rival

Hillary Clinton over the mandate on the campaign trail.

“We still don’t know how Sen. Clinton intends to enforce a mandate … you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can’t afford it, even with the subsidies,” Obama said. “They are then worse off: They then have no health care, and are paying a fine above and beyond that.”

The mandate helped Obama win favor among the healthcare industry, which donated $2.3 million to his 2008 campaign. His fundraising among the healthcare industry has not slowed in 2012, with Obama raking in more than $360,000 from drug makers.

The Supreme Court finished its final day of hearings concerning Obamacare today, with arguments focused on whether a rejection of the individual mandate would invalidate the entire law.

The court is expected to issue a ruling in June.

http://freebeacon.com/white-house-tries-to-rebrand-mandate/

====================================

O'Biwan's Administration knows it is in deep trouble on this! If I were one of the five (5) [Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy], I would start to get real careful about my surroundings and I would increase my security detail, if I have one.

If I don't, I would get one real fast. i might even write out a short version of my decision on this case and get it too a whole bunch of safe and trusted people.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

AND HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON TO PUT A SILVER BULLET, A STAKE THROUGH THE HEART AND BURN THE BODY OF THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT AND SCATTER THOSE ASHES TO THE FOUR (4) WINDS:

The Internal Revenue Service wants to add about 4,000 agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend
$303 million building a system to oversee Obamacare even though its future looks bleak in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A new Government Accountability Office review of the IRS 2012 tax return season and the taxman’s fiscal 2013
budget request also found that the agency’s customer service rating has slipped and 5.5 million returns were
delayed a week because of a computer programming glitch.

The news isn’t all bad though. A March 20 GAO performance audit found that the agency has seen a steady increase
n e-filing and had processed 68 million returns so far, a 3 percent bump. What’s more, IRS Commissioner Douglas
Shulman said that the American Customer Satisfaction Index for his team has jumped to 73 percent and he added
that for every $1 spent on enforcement, the agency collects a return of $4.30.

The audit looked at everything from customer service to pending budget issues. It found that the agency’s “level of
service” via phone calls dropped from 70 percent last year to 61 percent currently, and that the number of “abandoned
(calls,) busies and disconnects” jumped 41 percent this year and almost 150 percent since 2009. The average wait
time for IRS help also surged 48 percent to 16.6 minutes.
As for the new workers sought, the GAO said the total will
be about 4,500 with nearly 4,000 slated for enforcement. The IRS, however, argues that past budget cuts have forced
the agency to cut jobs and set a hiring freeze. On the $303 million for Obamacare, the GAO said it will “continue the
development of new systems and modifications of existing systems required to support new tax credits.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/03/irs-seeks-4000-agents-303-million-obamacare/416051

Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Distorted? Specifically? I would like to hear precisely what you mean by this "distortion."

As to ignored, I might agree with that term, although, I would, again, prefer concrete examples.

Adam

Two major distortions: A perverse interpretation of regulating interstate commerce and the decline of the tenth amendment.

Under the the original Constitution (pre-civil war) and abomination such as the Wichardt case could not have happened.

States are no longer sovereign entities. They are now departments, as in France.

The Constitution as the Founders wrote it is dead and dust.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justices meet Friday to vote on health care case

Mar 30, 3:14 AM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

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.

In the weeks after this meeting, individual votes can change. Even who wins can change, as the justices read each other's draft opinions and dissents.

But Friday's vote, which each justice probably will record and many will keep for posterity, will be followed soon after by the assignment of a single justice to write a majority opinion, or in a case this complex, perhaps two or more justices to tackle different issues. That's where the hard work begins, with the clock ticking toward the end of the court's work in early summer.

The late William Rehnquist, who was chief justice for nearly 19 years, has written that the court's conference "is not a bull session in which off-the-cuff reactions are traded." Instead, he said, votes are cast, one by one in order of seniority.

The Friday conference also is not a debate, says Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University law professor who worked for Justice Antonin Scalia 10 years ago. There will be plenty of time for the back-and-forth in dueling opinions that could follow.

"There's not a whole lot of give and take at the conference. They say, 'This is how I'm going to vote' and give a few sentences," Fitzpatrick said.

It will be the first time the justices gather as a group to discuss the case. Even they do not always know what the others are thinking when they enter the conference room adjacent to Chief Justice John Roberts' office.

By custom, they shake hands. Then Roberts will take his seat at the head of a rectangular table. Scalia, the longest serving among them, will be at the other end. The other seven justices also sit according to seniority, the four most junior on one side across from the other three.

"They generally find out how the votes line up at the conference," said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who worked for Justice Anthony Kennedy nine years ago.

The uncertainty may be especially pronounced in this case, where the views of Roberts and Kennedy are likely to decide the outcome, Kerr said in an interview Thursday. "I don't think anyone knows. I'm not sure Justice Kennedy knows."

No one's vote counts more than the others', but because they speak in order of seniority, it will become clear fairly quickly what will become of the health care overhaul.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120330/D9TQLQDO0.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justices meet Friday to vote on health care case

Mar 30, 3:14 AM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

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.

In the weeks after this meeting, individual votes can change. Even who wins can change, as the justices read each other's draft opinions and dissents.

But Friday's vote, which each justice probably will record and many will keep for posterity, will be followed soon after by the assignment of a single justice to write a majority opinion, or in a case this complex, perhaps two or more justices to tackle different issues. That's where the hard work begins, with the clock ticking toward the end of the court's work in early summer.

The late William Rehnquist, who was chief justice for nearly 19 years, has written that the court's conference "is not a bull session in which off-the-cuff reactions are traded." Instead, he said, votes are cast, one by one in order of seniority.

The Friday conference also is not a debate, says Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University law professor who worked for Justice Antonin Scalia 10 years ago. There will be plenty of time for the back-and-forth in dueling opinions that could follow.

"There's not a whole lot of give and take at the conference. They say, 'This is how I'm going to vote' and give a few sentences," Fitzpatrick said.

It will be the first time the justices gather as a group to discuss the case. Even they do not always know what the others are thinking when they enter the conference room adjacent to Chief Justice John Roberts' office.

By custom, they shake hands. Then Roberts will take his seat at the head of a rectangular table. Scalia, the longest serving among them, will be at the other end. The other seven justices also sit according to seniority, the four most junior on one side across from the other three.

"They generally find out how the votes line up at the conference," said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who worked for Justice Anthony Kennedy nine years ago.

The uncertainty may be especially pronounced in this case, where the views of Roberts and Kennedy are likely to decide the outcome, Kerr said in an interview Thursday. "I don't think anyone knows. I'm not sure Justice Kennedy knows."

No one's vote counts more than the others', but because they speak in order of seniority, it will become clear fairly quickly what will become of the health care overhaul.

http://apnews.myway..../D9TQLQDO0.html

I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nope. But the best part is that fat toad KaganHealthcareMoney.jpgKagan has to take the notes and get the coffee because she is the newest Justice.

Imagine what is going through her anti-male, gender feminist mind as she fumes with secretarial pad and pen in front of her. I would ask for the most complicated coffee order and hope that she screws it up so that I could just shake my head and send her back to do it right.

Her quote, on day three (3), concerning what the Affordable Health Care Act was about, was truly stunning! She opined:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The exact same argument. So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal Government a matter of coercion? In other words, the Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no -there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

This pig thinks "feels" that "federal money" just appears. This pig thinks "feels" that this is not coercive!

http://www.c-span.or...urts/11-393.pdf

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nope. But the best part is that fat toad KaganHealthcareMoney.jpgKagan has to take the notes and get the coffee because she is the newest Justice.

Imagine what is going through her anti-male, gender feminist mind as she fumes with secretarial pad and pen in front of her. I would ask for the most complicated coffee order and hope that she screws it up so that I could just shake my head and send her back to do it right.

Her quote, on day three (3), concerning what the Affordable Health Care Act was about, was truly stunning! She opined:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The exact same argument. So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal Government a matter of coercion? In other words, the Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no -there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

This pig thinks "feels" that "federal money" just appears. This pig thinks "feels" that this is not coercive!

http://www.c-span.or...urts/11-393.pdf

Adam

Sizeist!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nope. But the best part is that fat toad KaganHealthcareMoney.jpgKagan has to take the notes and get the coffee because she is the newest Justice.

Imagine what is going through her anti-male, gender feminist mind as she fumes with secretarial pad and pen in front of her. I would ask for the most complicated coffee order and hope that she screws it up so that I could just shake my head and send her back to do it right.

Her quote, on day three (3), concerning what the Affordable Health Care Act was about, was truly stunning! She opined:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The exact same argument. So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal Government a matter of coercion? In other words, the Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no -there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

This pig thinks "feels" that "federal money" just appears. This pig thinks "feels" that this is not coercive!

http://www.c-span.or...urts/11-393.pdf

Adam

Sizeist!

I hear she is going to be an obesity float for the Macy's Parade this year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago thug, who, happens to be occupying the White House, as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States

"...dished out an extra helping of irony yesterday when, in speaking at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama
slammed the Supreme Court
as an “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they strike down Obamacare.
The President’s remarks imply that the Court, were it to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, would be acting recklessly in undertaking judicial review of Congress’ unprecedented use of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty. The irony in all this is that this President has presided over an Administration that is the epitome of recklessly abusing power, at times in flagrant violation of the Constitution, and has empowered unelected bureaucrats to write scads of new regulations impacting nearly every corner of American life.
Obamacare, of course, is a prime example of that unchecked and multiplying web of the President’s boundless dictates. The law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (otherwise known as “IPAB”) is packed with unelected bureaucrats who have the power to limit seniors’ treatment options and access to care, essentially ending Medicare as we know it."

http://blog.heritage...=Morning%2BBell

This psycho President is becoming a public thug by threatening the Court, Congress and the electorate with the creation of an extra Constitutional Administrative State [CAS].

In his latest public example of Chicago street thuggery, the Chief Executive Officer of the United States threatened a co-equal branch of this allegedly limited Constitutional structure by claiming, falsely, that they would be engaging in "judicial activism," if, they ruled the Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional, which, of course, it is.

His delusional outburst came at a joint press conference on a completely different matter. This Chicago thug exhibited for all to see, his complete ignorance of the structure of our Constitutional system which specifically has checks and balances clearly established in its document's text.

The thug who occupies the White House, actually advanced the completely specious claim that the Supreme Court of the United States is engaged in judicial activism here in the following quote:

"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial
activism or a lack of judicial restraint.
That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted
and passed law.
Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take
that step," Obama said to the White House press.

Can someone in the alleged Constitutionally protected journalistic media that the "unelected" "group" is a co-equal branch of government specifically empowered to decide on the Constitutionality of a specific piece of legislation and that is not a "somehow," it is a specific power that has developed over the last two hundred and twenty-three or so years in this country.

Additionally, this thug from Chicago, who allegedly taught Constitutional law, uses an unintelligible construct to describe the Affordable Health Care Act when he stated that the Act was a "...duly constituted and passed law."

Mr. Thuggery, what does "duly constituted" mean ...legally, in your perverse statist mind?

Additionally, Mr. Thuggery, you do understand that a "passed law," is subject to several tests in our Constitutional construct:

1) your veto power;

2) Congressional delegated power to override that veto; and

3) the Supreme Courts evolved power to declare the "passed law" unconstitutional.

Did you actually get paid to teach American Constitutional Law, or, were you paid to teach Progressive Marxist Constitutional Law, or, some other "duly constituted" schema that emerged from your rather unintelligible mind?

Finally, Mr. Thuggery, since you have now, apparently, enunciated, with no Constitutional authority, a new analytical schema which deems decisions by the Supreme Court as decisions by an "unelected" "group," and. apparently, having no authority by your stated pronouncement, does that mean that:

1) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is void?;

2) Roe v. Wade?;

3) Cantwell v. Connecticutt?;

4) all of the decisions upholding the New Deal legislation?;

5) Schenck v. United States?;

6) Marbury v. Madison?;

7) Miranda v. Arizona?; and,

8) a plethora of other legislation going back to

You are, basically, a despicable example of a President as the following Real Politics article shows.

Posted on April 2, 2012

Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism

131364_5_.jpg

|
http://www.realclear...l_activism.html

Resign, or be impeached.

Adam

citizen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marbury vs. Madison is a clear case of usurping a power that the constitution never gave to the Supreme Court in its appellate function. The Founders never granted the Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. In appeals, they could only decide on the case addressed. Justice Marshall overstepped a line and no subsequent court has ever stepped back.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a transcript of the Real Politics clip in the above post:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Outstanding.
All right, I think that we’re going to take a question from each press delegation. So I’ll start with Julianna.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. After last week’s arguments at the Supreme Court,
many experts believe
that there could be a majority, a five-member majority, to strike down the individual mandate. And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who’ve become insured as a result of the law?
And then a President for President Calderón and Prime Minister Harper. Over the weekend, Governor Mitt Romney said that the U.S. used to promote free enterprise around the world, and he said, “Our President doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do, and I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.” My question to the both of you is whether you think that American influence has declined over the last three to four years.
And, President Obama, if you’d like to respond to that, too.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second part of your question, it’s still primary season for the Republican Party. They’re going to make a decision about who their candidate will be.
It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism, and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism. But I will cut folks some slack for now because they’re still trying to get their nomination.
With respect to health care, I’m actually —
continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.
And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.
That’s not just my opinion, by the way;
that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.
I think it’s important — because I watched some of the commentary last week — to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.
The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don’t have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can’t be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That’s part of this law.
Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.
So that’s just the part that’s already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.
And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care.
So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.
Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.
Q You say it’s not an abstract conversation. Do you have contingency plans?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry. As I said, we are confident that this will be over — that this will be upheld. I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And, again, that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.

=============================

1) Notice the use of the "many experts believe" by Julianna, the alleged journalist.

2) O'bama's assinine statement that " in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional." Incredible statement. Utterly meaningless.

3) Notice O'bama sinks into the generic experts usage, "...that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case."

Again, unnamed and a lie...attempting to convince you that almost all the "legal experts" agree with him. The two judges, out of how many? Guess what, another slick employment of deceptive argument.

4) This one just jumps off the page! O'bama actually wants you to believe that:

in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care.

Hmmm, let's see...what if Congress passed a one page law that created an assigned risk health insurance policy that pooled all the folks that had preexisting conditions into a directly subsidized and clearly labeled system, you know like the assigned risk auto insurance, home owners, flood insurance programs that already exist in every state in the union.

Would that maybe accomplish covering the pre existing condition issue without an unconstitutional individual mandate and 2, 699 pages of subversive administrative legislation? Yeah, it would.

Well, in every state in the real union, not including the other seven (7) states that O'biwan thought existed that he was going to campaign in in 2008.

Oops, sorry, I think that has been eliminated by the O'bama speak media.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marbury vs. Madison is a clear case of usurping a power that the constitution never gave to the Supreme Court in its appellate function. The Founders never granted the Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. In appeals, they could only decide on the case addressed. Justice Marshall overstepped a line and no subsequent court has ever stepped back.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes Bob, you have made this point numerous times.

I put that case in there specifically to illustrate the point that we all have to suffer from poor decisions that have existed forever, Constitutionally speaking.

It is called "Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]" and we are currently stuck with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

Plessy was precedent, until it was overturned. Dred Scott. The precedent cases are quite extensive and form the body of a specific developmental law that we function, for better or worse with.

So now you have made your traditional Marbury v. Madison statement for the record.

So noted.

Now, might you comment on the substance of the post?

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now