Update: Recusal is a red herring indeed. Neither Thomas nor Kagen are going to recuse themselves from this case. This fight will be fought by all sides without restraint.
Obama Dimocrats are biting dirty fingernails:
“Democrats on Capitol Hill are worried that the Supreme Court will rule against President Obama’s healthcare reform law.
Over the last couple weeks, congressional Democrats have told The Hill that the law faces danger in the hands of the Supreme Court, which The New York Times editorial page recently labeled the most conservative high court since the 1950s.
While the lawmakers are not second-guessing the administration’s legal strategy, some are clearly bracing for defeat.”
Four more wasted years when this health scam turkey gets shot down by the high court. We have been proven right when we declared Obama a colossal Mistake In ’08.
Have you ever witnessed such treacherous boobery hit the brick wall of Karma with such a bang?
In 2007 and 2008 treacherous boob Barack Obama attacked Hillary Clinton on the issue of mandates. Hillary Clinton made a case on the need for a health care mandate. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan was based on actually improving health care, expanding accessibility, and bringing down the cost of health care. Barack Obama savaged Hillary.
Enter reality. No sooner was the monumental boob in the White House than he incompetently flipped – and flopped. Obama embraced a boobish and likely unconstitutional mandate plan, grabbed hundreds of millions in ad money from Big PhaRma while trading away any possibility of lower health costs via bulk purchasing power of drugs, as well as a fake accessibility plan too expensive and useless for many to afford.
Barack Obama embraced a health scam that Hillary Clinton rejected decades ago. Obama thought passing his health scam would ensure his place in the history books for doing something no other president was able to do. Enter Karma.
Obama’s health scam is hated by majorities of Americans. Now the Supreme Court will rule on the Obama health scam several months from the November general election. Obama will enter the history books as the treacherous boob he is.
None of this really had to happen if there was a president with half a brain and at least one functioning testicle or a big batch of ovaries. As Hillary Clinton pointed out to the boob when she was attacked on the mandates, the entire Commerce Clause constitutional issues could be mooted with point of contact registration for health care and her proposed regional health boards.
Republicans were honest and open as to how they would attack the Obama health plan. Left Talkers laughed and said that argument would not work. We warned that the argument Republicans made was a potent one and that the Supreme Court could upend the entire silly project.
Whatever happens next year at the Supreme Court, Obama will come out a bloody boob. We’ve made that case before, others have made the case before, and today the Professor at Legal Insurrection makes the case again (we provide the emphasis):
“From a purely political viewpoint, it is more important that the Supreme Court hear and decide the case prior to the 2012 election than it is which way the Court rules.
While of course throwing the mandate out is my strong (overwhelming) preference, politically for Republicans I don’t think it makes a huge difference which way the Court decides the case, as long as it decides the case prior to the 2012 election.
If the Supreme Court finds the mandate to be unconstitutional, it will deflate Obama’s presidency. In one fell swoop, the entirety of Obama’s agenda will come crashing down. It will be a political and personal humiliation.
If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, Obama will be able to crow a little, but such a decision will leave the majority of people who hate the law with but one alternative: Throw Obama and Senate Democrats out in November 2012.“
If the Supreme Court puts a pillow to the face of the Obama health scam it will mean that Obama boobishly wasted years in passing this stink, ignored the voters’ message when Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, and ignored the need to focus on the economy and JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Obamination health scam Americans who hate the plan will realize that the only way to get rid of the scam is to get rid of the scammer and his party enablers. The few Senate and House Obama Dimocrats not yet imperiled will be run out.
But… if Republicans nominate Willard Mitt Romney Obama will attempt to muddy the waters and say that Romney gave birth to Obama’s health scam. Some Republicans know this and that is why Newt Gingrich in a PPP Poll leads Romney and is only two point behind Romney in a CNN poll. We don’t think Newt Gingrich is the solution for Republicans for reasons we have discussed before but the reason polls show Romney and Newt at least tied for the lead is because Romney endangers Republicans on the 1a issue of 2012 – the economy, jobs and the impact of Obama’s health scam.
If Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts was not enough empirical evidence in the political argument of who benefits and who loses when it comes to health care, does anyone remember this November’s election results in Ohio? Anyone?
Obama’s health scam has already caused a lot of troubles for the Obama enablers in the Obama Dimocratic Party:
“House Democrats face their first test of unity over a key provision of their healthcare reform law next week when legislation to repeal the long-term care CLASS Act comes up for a vote.
Republicans are trying to capitalize on the program’s demise after the Obama administration announced last month that it could not find a way to make it work. The House will get that ball rolling on Tuesday when the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee marks up repeal legislation. [snip]
Democrats face a potential lose-lose situation: vote for repeal and implicitly acknowledge that their health law contained a fatally flawed program; vote against, and open up to criticism that they’re in denial.
“It puts the Democrats in a very difficult position,” Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), the bill’s sponsor, told The Hill recently. “They have to decide whether they’re going to do the fiscally responsible thing and repeal the program or support something that is fiscally irresponsible.”
The White House is formally opposed to repeal. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said that the department cannot find a way forward “at this time,” and Congress’ nonpartisan budget scorekeeper has eliminated projected savings from the program as a result.”
No CLASS for the boob means more losses in 2012 for the boob enablers. In 2012 the Obama health scam will be as popular as Sandusky at a Justin Bieber concert.
But what about the constitutional issues? We said the constitutional issues against Obama’s health scam are potent. We scorched the Obama lies of “it’s not a tax.” The New York Times used to mock the legal case from foes of Obama’s scam but now the Times is backtracking and provides a decent overview of the constitutional issues:
“If the federal government can require people to purchase health insurance, what else can it force them to do? More to the point, what can’t the government compel citizens to do? [snip]
“Let’s go right to what is your most difficult problem,” Judge Laurence H. Silberman, who later voted to uphold the law, told a lawyer at an argument in September before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. “What limiting principle do you articulate?” If Congress may require people to purchase health insurance, he asked, what else can it force them to buy? Where do you draw the line?
Would it be unconstitutional, he asked, to require people to buy broccoli? [snip]
Could people making more than $500,000 be required to buy cars from General Motors to keep it in business? [snip]
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who ended up in dissent, then jumped in. “How about mandatory retirement accounts replacing Social Security?” he asked.
“It would depend,” Ms. Brinkmann replied.”
Maybe we will all be forced to eat arugula – buy and hang pictures of Obama and Michelle (“made exclusively for Michelle Obama“) in our living rooms along with requisite incense – all in the service of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Will Roberts turn to Rehnquist?:
“In 1995, when the court struck down a federal law that prohibited people from carrying firearms in school zones, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that “we pause to consider the implications of the government’s arguments” in defending the law — that stopping activities that could lead to violent crime relates to interstate commerce because it affects “national productivity.”
Under that reasoning, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “It is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,” adding that “if we were to accept the government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”
Chief Justice Rehnquist died in 2005, but three of the justices who joined his majority opinion — Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas — are still on the court.”
A recent “victory” in the courts might prove as illusory as this November’s elections for Obama Dimocrats. That “victory” might be as costly as Obama’s slap at the Supreme Court at the State of the Union speech:
“The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life,” Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina and Judge Frank M. Hull wrote.
On Tuesday, on the other hand, a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. Judge Silberman, who had grilled Ms. Brinkmann so aggressively, wrote the majority opinion, and his discussion of the limits of Congressional power may have handed the administration a bigger victory than it wanted, because it presumably did not want to win on the grounds that Congress could do anything at all. [snip]
“That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or services seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power,” Judge Silberman wrote, “surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before — but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations.”
Judge Silberman said there were Supreme Court decisions on issues like regulating the use of medical marijuana that had endorsed broad Congressional power to legislate in the name of commerce.
“It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty,” he wrote of the health care law, “but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.”
In dissent, Judge Kavanaugh praised the majority for its honesty in describing what followed from its ruling.
“The majority opinion here is quite candid — and accurate,” he wrote, adding: “The majority opinion’s holding means, for example, that a law replacing Social Security with a system of mandatory private retirement accounts would be constitutional. So would a law mandating that parents purchase private college savings accounts.”
Within hours of the decision on Tuesday, opponents of the health care law were issuing statements, and their theme was predictable. “Like the government,” said Randy E. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown, “the majority could identify no limit to an unprecedented power of Congress.”
The Supreme Court will focus on the Obama health scam this coming March. Americans too will focus on the Obama health scam and how to defeat it.
As Americans focus, along with SCOTUS on Obama’s Hocus Pocus health scam, it is Obama, not a rabbit from a top hat, that will disappear.