Get the feeling the Dems aren’t that confident about a SCOTUS win for Øbamacare?

If you were watching CBS This Morning, as I was, you know the hot topic is that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has Øbamacare as the topic of the week, and you were “treated” to interviews with Democrats Howard Dean and Sen. Gillibrand.  You also know that the damage control is beginning in anticipation of a loss.

Both were asked if the offending individual mandate provision of Øbamacare would be deemed unconstitutional and if it could survive if that ruling came down.  Both said unhesitatingly that it could survive, mostly because of all the “good” provisions in it.   Dean (and here) did not think the individual mandate provision would survive, and Gillibrand (go to the 3 minute mark) was doubtful as well, but they both seemed to think that the law could survive without it.  They were certainly trying to put a good spin on it, but this sounds like they aren’t too confident.

Others are trying to make the case that ruling Øbamacare would have “grave” and “profound” ramifications for the country (as if its passage wouldn’t!):

David Boies (of Gore v. Bush fame) is of the opinion that this ruling could determine the reach of gov’t well beyond this case extending back to the New Deal, and that this would a bad thing.   He argues that the car insurance mandate comparisons are not relevant as they are state based and the states have the power to do things like this while the fed does not.   Where was this guy two years ago?

Neal Katyal, who, as acting US Solicitor General, defended the constitutionality of Øbamacare in lower courts, warned of “grave” and “profound” consequences if the Supreme Court accepts a challenge to the law.   His argument basically came down to “cut the mandate and you cut all the supposedly good provisions of the law”.

So we appear to have a two pronged spin approach by the Democrat mouthpieces: Øbamacare can withstand the loss of the mandate, and/or it can’t.   They are covering all the bases as much as possible, i.e. make it a political win regardless of the outcome, despite the majority of those recently polled saying they disapprove of the law, and 67% saying it should be repealed all or in part.

On the same topic, Gillibrand went on to call for the televising of the SCOTUS proceedings, saying “this decision fundamentally affects every single American and that they should be part of the discussion, asking the questions and being engaged” and “transparency and accountablilty in this branch of government would also benefit”.  I don’t recall her speaking out for the closed door, partisan planning and writing of this bill two years ago.  Where was the call for transparency then?   Where was the call for us to be engaged in the process?  Where was she when Pelosi said “you will have to pass the bill to see what is in it”??

Hey Senator: we have seen the bill and the majority of people are against it.  In light of the aforementioned polls, all this proves is that the Democrats will ignore you if you go against their grandiose plans and power grabs.

Let the games begin…

Justice Stevens retires – decision partially political, tied to mid-term elections

US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens may be retiring for many reasons, but in his resignation letter, he implies the the 2010 mid-term elections were a factor.

Read more

Supreme Court nominations – Capturing majority in Senate … GOP priority?

Although gaining GOP seats in the United States House of Representatives would be great, conservatives may be more interested in gaining seats in the Senate at the next election cycle in 2010. It’s time to again start thinking what President Obama could do to the Supreme Court.

Read more

Kelo v. New London, Part II – Eminent domain for Atlantic Yards in New York

Few decisions of the United States Supreme Court stirred more controversy in recent years than Kelo. Government has always been able to take private property for a public purpose, but in 2005 SCOTUS defined “public purpose” to include taking property so a private developer could redevelop the property. A similar situation is unfolding in New York.

Read more

Gibbs and Obama now speaking for Sotomayor

When you see the Drudge headline, you’ll probably assume that Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter, was interviewed and said that she chose her words poorly. The current Drudge headline, which includes a prominant picture of Sotomayor reads CHOSE WORDS POORLY.

Follow to the Associated Press story and you quickly find out that Sotomayor has been quiet since the nomination announcement, and Obama and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs are now officially speaking for her. My emphasis added.

… “I’m sure she would have restated it,” [President] Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that. …

“I think that when she’s appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is,” Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate.

The president’s damage control underscored how the White House is eager to stay on message as the battle to publicly define Sotomayor picks up.

Obama’s top spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters about Sotomayor: “I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.”

Gibbs, however, said he did not hear that from Sotomayor directly. He said he learned it from people who had talked to her, and he did not identify who those people were. Sotomayor herself has made no public statements since her nomination became official Tuesday and was not reachable for comment.

Look, she’s going to get in unless some early summer surprise comes around, but that does not mean conservatives should shut up about her judicial record and her feelings about the Constitution.

For those of you who state we need to shut up or the Republican Party is going to loose Hispanic votes, what did Bush’s outreach to Hispanics during his administration “buy” the GOP? It’s not about race at all, it’s about political (socialist/liberal/conservative/libertarian) principles.

Sotomayor first hispanic Supreme Court justice… well, maybe not

The nomination of Justice Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court has been heralded in many circles. If confirmed, it is said that she will be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. That is, unless you discount (or count) Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Read more

The Supreme Court: a trial lawyer’s perspective

If you have never had the opportunity to be present during an oral argument before the Supreme Court, I should explain that it is one of the more awe inspiring things you will ever experience. Read more

Half of Obama supporters think SCOTUS rulings should not follow Constitution

This is a brutal assessment on how liberals think the Judicial Branch should make decisions. For conservatives, this is beyond the tipping point and concerns me more than any political or economic subject. Almost half of Obama supporters think that judges should base decisions on what they think is right or fair.

That’s right, almost half of those who will be voting for Obama in November think it is perfectly fine for judges to make rulings without concern to the Constitution and current law.

Read more

Supreme Court Affirms Heller – There is an Individual Right

Normally, this site does not cover breaking news, but for the DC v Heller case, we’re making an editorial decision to post information as soon as it is released. We’ll provide the full PDF of the decision – and the dissenting opinion if there is one – here on the site.

SCOTUSblog has the Cover it Live feed going right now. Best bet might be to click here to catch it.

9:58 a.m. Three opinions set for today, and Heller will not be first. We should know the decision right away, but the particulars will take a few minutes.
10:05 a.m. Per SCOTUSblog, Heller will be last.
10:12 a.m. Heller affirmed. Vote was 5-4, Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

As we wait for the actual opinion in PDF format, one comment. I expected 6-3 or even 7-2, but 5-4 really bugs me.

Opinion is here – this is a link on the site just in case other news sites are overwhelmed. It is 157 pages.

Reorganize, Rethink, Get Fired Up

With Romney effectively out, most true conservatives feel lost and disappointed. Now is not the time to give up, but we must look at our priorities and how conservatives approach appreciation of their ideas.

Today, prior to Romney’s speech at CPAC, Michelle Malkin wrote a good piece.

On Wednesday, wielding his olive branch like a schoolmarm’s ruler, Sen. McCain told conservatives to “calm down.” My advice is exactly the opposite: Get fired up.

She’s right on target. Read more