Robert Barnes:
"The Supreme Court will conclude one of its most significant and controversial terms in decades by taking on one more issue that has divided the nation: Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.
The court’s final oral argument on Wednesday — Arizona v. United States — provides yet another chance for the justices to confront fundamental questions about the power of the federal government. And the rulings the court will issue between now and the end of June could dramatically alter the nation’s election-year landscape...." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
April 23, 2012
April 18, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Glenwood Springs Post Independent "The Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare"
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."
"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."
April 4, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Newsmax "Appeals Court Calls President's Bluff on Obamacare"
David A. Patten:
"President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.
On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.
He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.
“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.” (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.
On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.
He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.
“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.” (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
March 30, 2012
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."
March 28, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Newsmax "Scalia Upbraids Obamacare Defender: 'We're Not Stupid'"
"Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who made the Obama administration’s case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the healthcare law Tuesday, was upbraided by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia after he flubbed an exchange with Justice Elena Kagan.
Scalin interrupted Verrilli, tersely telling him, “We’re not stupid.”
At the time, Kagan, a former solicitor general whom President Barack Obama appointed to the high court, was agreeing that young people should be required by the federal government to buy health insurance because eventually, others will subsidize their healthcare in the future.
But Scalia shot back, arguing that young people will make the decision to buy health insurance eventually and do not need the federal government forcing them to engage in commerce...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Scalin interrupted Verrilli, tersely telling him, “We’re not stupid.”
At the time, Kagan, a former solicitor general whom President Barack Obama appointed to the high court, was agreeing that young people should be required by the federal government to buy health insurance because eventually, others will subsidize their healthcare in the future.
But Scalia shot back, arguing that young people will make the decision to buy health insurance eventually and do not need the federal government forcing them to engage in commerce...."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
March 27, 2012
SandBoxBlogs: Iowa Republican "How the Supreme Court Rules on Obamacare May Impact the General Election"
Craig Robinson:
"Regardless of who the Republican nominee is, the Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have a significant effect on the general election campaign. In a press conference last week, Iowa Congressman Steve King said, “If the Supreme Court should find this unconstitutional, which I believe is the appropriate decision, … there is more risk that President Obama will be reelected because people will think they are protected from this egregious reach into our freedom. If the Supreme Court finds it constitutional, then I believe Barack Obama will not be reelected because they will understand that they need to vote him out of office to repeal it.”..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"Regardless of who the Republican nominee is, the Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have a significant effect on the general election campaign. In a press conference last week, Iowa Congressman Steve King said, “If the Supreme Court should find this unconstitutional, which I believe is the appropriate decision, … there is more risk that President Obama will be reelected because people will think they are protected from this egregious reach into our freedom. If the Supreme Court finds it constitutional, then I believe Barack Obama will not be reelected because they will understand that they need to vote him out of office to repeal it.”..." (Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
SandBoxBlogs: Summit Daily News "Liddick: Obamacare case: An ominous shift"
Morgan Liddick:
"If these arguments prevail, the nature of our government will be altered out of all recognition. The federal government, envisioned by those who created it as a single element in a network of governments; as limited to a few specific activities and constrained by Constitutional limits, will become what the anti-Federalists predicted and feared: a consolidated, national government, without restraint or counter, able to reach into the minutest part of individual citizens' lives to regulate; to demand; to control. State laws on marijuana use? How droll …
Yes, you will have buy a Chevy Volt. The economy and the environment demand it. Yes, you will have to eat broccoli. You have to be healthy, because that effects the economy. No, you can't have heart surgery. You're too old and it's too expensive. Take two aspirin and call us if you live.
Cross your fingers. After 224 years of success, we're about to learn if we're going to throw it all away..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
"If these arguments prevail, the nature of our government will be altered out of all recognition. The federal government, envisioned by those who created it as a single element in a network of governments; as limited to a few specific activities and constrained by Constitutional limits, will become what the anti-Federalists predicted and feared: a consolidated, national government, without restraint or counter, able to reach into the minutest part of individual citizens' lives to regulate; to demand; to control. State laws on marijuana use? How droll …
Yes, you will have buy a Chevy Volt. The economy and the environment demand it. Yes, you will have to eat broccoli. You have to be healthy, because that effects the economy. No, you can't have heart surgery. You're too old and it's too expensive. Take two aspirin and call us if you live.
Cross your fingers. After 224 years of success, we're about to learn if we're going to throw it all away..."
(Read more? Click title)
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)