Posts

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outcome, despite the majority of those recently polled saying they disapprove of the law, and 67% saying it should be repealed all or in part.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…

Please explain your decision, Mr. President

On Wednesday, Mr. Justice…er, President Obama declared the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Many on the left have tried to gloss over this decision by telling us that the President has really done nothing at all.
They point to his instructions to all federal agencies that, henceforth, the federal government will continue to enforce the law, but will not defend it. Read more

ObamaCare unconstitutional – Obama demands states follow law anyway

When Democrats “win” and get a judge to toss out legislation or a state referendum because the judge says it is unconstitutional, everything stops. Democrats demand things immediately change and people either stop what they were doing, or they should be allowed to do what they want to do. But when a judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional …

Read more

Health Care Mandate Unconstitutional … Good news? Not so fast.

At least that’s what conservatarian author and  leader of the Tea Party Movement in Connecticut, Bob McGuffie says. Unintended consequences? Read more

Napolitano ups the ante on GM: Unconstitutional!

This guy just may replace Cavuto as my daily video adrenaline rush. After explaining in this post why GM will likely remain in government control for decades  … today he tells Trace how GM and the Feds will game the system (just as they did with AMTRAK) to drive the competition out of business. Taxpayer paid lobbyists lobbying Congress to the advantage of a company controlled by … Congress. Unconstitutional?

Unconstitutional?

Is Obama’s imposed limit on executive pay constitutional. Fox Legal Expert Judge Andrew Nepolitano thinks not. Read more