James Kellogg
"With his signature legislation in jeopardy, President Obama fired a cannon shot across the bow of the Supreme Court in a news conference on April 2. He declared that an “unelected group of people” should not turn to “judicial activism” with the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Who is he trying to kid?
Disregard for a moment, the plethora of unelected “czars” the president has empowered over nearly every facet of our lives. Set aside the fact that striking down unconstitutional legislation is the court's duty and the antipathy of judicial activism. And never mind that the health care legislation squeaked through the House of Representatives by a margin of 219 to 212, despite a huge Democrat majority and a flagrant disregard for Congressional rules.
Let's focus on the one pertinent issue; Obamacare is a repudiation of the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act centers on the unprecedented use of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) of the U.S. Constitution to force Americans and legal residents to purchase health care coverage or pay a tax penalty.
In effect, Obamacare attempts to use the Commerce Clause to grant police power (i.e., the power to compel individuals to take specific action for the “public good”) to the federal government. That's a big problem....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Showing posts with label Scalia's epic takedown of Obamacare attorneys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scalia's epic takedown of Obamacare attorneys. Show all posts
April 18, 2012
April 8, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Glenwood Springs Post Independent/Charles Krauthammer "
Charles Krauthammer:
"Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”
Really? The administration's case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.”
It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That's not partisanship. That's logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lockstep support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.
Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn't even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what's happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they've grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare's constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.
As was Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill. As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don't worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for re-election by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”
Really? The administration's case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.”
It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That's not partisanship. That's logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lockstep support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.
Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn't even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what's happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they've grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare's constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.
As was Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill. As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don't worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for re-election by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 5, 2012
April 4, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: The Atlantic "Why Obamacare Is Going to Stay Unpopular Even If Upheld by the Court"
Will Kryder:
"The politics of hedging have officially begun. With the Supreme Court not set to deliver its ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) until June, pundits and politicians on both sides have worked furiously to square any potential result against the political impact it could have in November. Legal guru Jeffrey Toobin kicked things up roughly one million notches last week when he declared the constitutionality of the individual mandate DOA, with the forthcoming decision by the court a veritable "train wreck" for the Obama Administration.
But what if -- as predicted by a recent survey of Supreme Court clerks -- the ACA ends up being ruled constitutional, in whole or in part? Everything we've seen about the law so far suggest it would still be unpopular...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"The politics of hedging have officially begun. With the Supreme Court not set to deliver its ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) until June, pundits and politicians on both sides have worked furiously to square any potential result against the political impact it could have in November. Legal guru Jeffrey Toobin kicked things up roughly one million notches last week when he declared the constitutionality of the individual mandate DOA, with the forthcoming decision by the court a veritable "train wreck" for the Obama Administration.
But what if -- as predicted by a recent survey of Supreme Court clerks -- the ACA ends up being ruled constitutional, in whole or in part? Everything we've seen about the law so far suggest it would still be unpopular...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
April 1, 2012
March 30, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Hot Air Blog "Chris Matthews: I’m pretty surprised to learn that the mandate might be unconstitutional"
'Allahpundit':
"Via Newsbusters and Ace, who points to Karl’s piece in the Greenroom as a reminder that our very open-minded friends on the left have a little echo-chamber problem of their own. Says Jay Cost:
"The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.
I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.
Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagan’s attitude: it’s a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Via Newsbusters and Ace, who points to Karl’s piece in the Greenroom as a reminder that our very open-minded friends on the left have a little echo-chamber problem of their own. Says Jay Cost:
"The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.
I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.
Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagan’s attitude: it’s a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?....." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
SandBoxBlogs: The Hill/Healthwatch "Dems fume over Justice Scalia’s comments during healthcare case"
Alexander Bolton:
"Democrats are fuming over Justice Antonin Scalia’s conduct during this week’s Supreme Court deliberations on President Obama’s healthcare law.
While several of the high court’s liberal justices seemed to cheerlead for its defense, Scalia appeared hostile to the law, an attitude that rubbed some Democrats the wrong way.
Scalia mocked the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” without seeming to know that provision was stripped out of the law two years ago.
Scalia also joked that the task of having to review the complex bill violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
“You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he quipped. “Is this not totally unrealistic, that we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Democrats are fuming over Justice Antonin Scalia’s conduct during this week’s Supreme Court deliberations on President Obama’s healthcare law.
While several of the high court’s liberal justices seemed to cheerlead for its defense, Scalia appeared hostile to the law, an attitude that rubbed some Democrats the wrong way.
Scalia mocked the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” without seeming to know that provision was stripped out of the law two years ago.
Scalia also joked that the task of having to review the complex bill violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
“You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he quipped. “Is this not totally unrealistic, that we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)