B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Yeah, can’t say I am surprised. But I do wonder if those who were selling this snake oil are really surprised either.
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
From Hugs to Hand-Wringing: Watching the Legal Left Freak Out at the Supreme Court
breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/01/From-Hugs-to-Hand-Wringing-Watching-the-Elite-Legal-Left-Freak-Out-at-the-Supreme-Court
breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/01/From-Hugs-to-Hand-Wringing-Watching-the-Elite-Legal-Left-Freak-Out-at-the-Supreme-Court
S
sedonaman
Guest
**…It sounds like spin from both of them.
For ObamaCare to be overturned, which was Obama’s signature achievement, and he provide expertise on constitutional law will not look good, no matter how you spin it.
**
If eliminating the mandate would help the Dems, why are they fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it? Doesn’t make sense.
B
Bocephus
Guest
I dunno if I’d call day 2 of the hearings “fighting”.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Because I think Democrats fear the mandate is going to be found constitutional, the Supreme Court arguments did not great for Virelli, and they are trying to spin to sound like it would be a good thing if the mandate was overturned.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
L
Leegal
Guest
Because the Dems and the administration expended two years on this and political capital. If it falls, it looks pretty bad that they spent so much time on this issue, spent their political capital in deals and with the people, and then it fails. Actually, it hurts those coming up for reelection in Congress in November more than it hurts the administration and the President’s changes for reelection.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I don’t know what you are saying her.
S
SamH
Guest
Health care costs are expensive - especially when the government is involved. That’s why Medicare is in a much greater crisis than Social Security.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-medicare-can-be-saved/2011/06/06/AGexjqNH_story.html
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I think she meant found “unconstitutional.” I also heard Democrat operatives jump out and claim that if it is overturned it will be a political boost to Democrats. James Carville was one of the first to put forward that idea but others followed.
The theory seems to be that since everyone loves socialized health care they will elect Democrats to try again and pass a law. Or because everyone hates socialized health care they will not have reason to elect Republicans to get rid of it. Such are the arguments I’ve heard.
The political reprecusions are certainly interesting but getting rid of this bad law is far more important than who will benefit from it being gone.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
If the throw out the individual mandate and keep the pre-existing conditions requirement on insurance companies, it will destroy the insurance industry. I think that this is what the Democrats were hoping for all along, then they can try to put into place their single payer universal healthcare racket.
L
Leegal
Guest
Scalia seemed to indicate that it was not the job of the justices and the law clerks to go through 2,700 pages to see what remains viable if they throw out the individual mandate. Afterall, if you can’t force people to buy the insurance how does the rest stand? The only one that has rolled out and is good is that parents can keep their children on their insurance to age 26. But it’s not the Court’s job to reach issues to come.
On the individual mandate, I think they will not sever, if found Unconstitutional on the misapplication of the commerce clause. Congress made a mistake. They had severability in one draft, and removed it for the final. Bad choice.
Scalia seemed to indicate in his questioning that it’s not for the USSC to fix the law for Congress, but for Congress to pass a new statute that will pass muster.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I have certainly heard variations on that, mostly from the far left who complained that “single payer” was not the mechanism, but also suspicions that Obamacare was never really meant to work in the first place and that fixing it would eventually entail “single payer”.
But this is way too obvious. The SC is well aware of this and it is one reason that we are very likely to see the entire law struck down. If that is what the Democrats were hoping for they are likely to be very disappointed.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I like disappointed Democrats. It usually means good things for the Republic and liberty in general.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The left has taken to mau-mauing the Supreme Court Justices by saying that if they overturn the healthcare mandate they’ll be acting like political partisans - WSJ editorial
Jay Nordlinger at NRO puts him straight: " For years, conservatives have griped about interference by the courts. And now they’re hoping that a handful of unelected, black-robed individuals will do their work for them?” Oh, come on: What we’ve objected to, all these years, is judicial activism — judge-made law. The usurpation of the legislative role by judges. We have not, to my knowledge, objected to the striking down of unconstitutional laws. We are not hostile to a separation of powers. We likes us our checks and balances. Okay?"
The Individual Mandate’s Growth In Unpopularity - NPR
Obamacare and the Supreme Court: What’s at stake
dailycaller.com/2012/04/01/obamacare-and-the-supreme-court-whats-at-stake
New High: 61% See Repeal of Obamacare Law As Likely
lifenews.com/2012/04/02/new-high-61-see-repeal-of-obamacare-law-as-likely/
Code:
If the Court overturns Obamacare, Obama may be tempted to attack the court. He should beware - Michael Barone for [RCP](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/02/americans_are_worrying_about_the_constitution_again_113685.html)
E J Dionne can't believe that conservatives who once complained about judicial over-reach are ready to welcome Supreme Court overturning ObamaCare mandate - [Washington Post
](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rights-stealthy-coup/2012/04/01/gIQAZlBjpS_story.html)The Individual Mandate’s Growth In Unpopularity - NPR
Obamacare and the Supreme Court: What’s at stake
dailycaller.com/2012/04/01/obamacare-and-the-supreme-court-whats-at-stake
New High: 61% See Repeal of Obamacare Law As Likely
lifenews.com/2012/04/02/new-high-61-see-repeal-of-obamacare-law-as-likely/
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Apparently liberals don’t know the difference between judicial activism and strict constructionism.
Activism is when you find a right…say, like abortion, hidden in an Amendment that was written for a completely different purpose.
Constructionism is when you compare a law with the Constitution and find that the law does not pass muster.
Activism is when you find a right…say, like abortion, hidden in an Amendment that was written for a completely different purpose.
Constructionism is when you compare a law with the Constitution and find that the law does not pass muster.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
That’s being charitable. As likely, they know well the difference but find that it serves their purpose to confuse the two.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Not being of either party, I get a kick out of the Democrats coming out and claiming the healthcare bill and mandate were really Republican bills and that it’s the Republican’s fault if it gets struck down. Do they seriously think we are that stupid? For the past 3 years the Dems have been claiming the Republicans had nothing to do with this law, that they were obstructionists when it came to getting it through and if I remember right not one Republican voted for it. Now it’s the Republicans fault that it was enacted into law?
S
scipio337
Guest
Didn’t you get the memo? Those on the left are already whining about a “judicial dictatorship”.
When Constructionist conservatives join a liberal ruling, they’re applauded for rising above their political leanings. When they form a majority in a conservative decision, they’ve stooped to political hackery.
Double standards abound!
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Here is a great summary of the more cogent arguments from “progressives”:
spectator.org/archives/2012/04/02/progressive-puling-about-the-o
- Status