Posted on 04/03/2012 3:39:33 AM PDT by servo1969
The Talking Points Memo headline reads: “Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut, pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court would damage itself if it did something so ridiculous as find Obamacare unconstitutional:
"The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it."
Blumenthal was clearly engaged in “begging the question”:
"A type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion."
By saying Obamacare is so self-evidently wonderful and legitimate that only someone crazy would disagree with it, Blumenthal makes you wonder why this matter is even before the Court in the first place. For the answer to that question, see “begging the question.”
What is less clear is whether Blumenthal, in reminding the court that the executive branch had the monopoly on physical power, was not engaged in a kind of subtle menace. After all, the Court’s power is not based on “credibility.” It is based on power vested in it by the Constitution. What would the administration say if someone argued that the president’s authority was based on “credibility” rather than his legal power as chief executive?
By saying Obamacare is so self-evidently wonderful and legitimate that only someone crazy would disagree with it, Blumenthal makes you wonder why this matter is even before the Court in the first place. For the answer to that question, see “begging the question.”
What is less clear is whether Blumenthal, in reminding the court that the executive branch had the monopoly on physical power, was not engaged in a kind of subtle menace. After all, the Court’s power is not based on “credibility.” It is based on power vested in it by the Constitution. What would the administration say if someone argued that the president’s authority was based on “credibility” rather than his legal power as chief executive?
So unworthy a sentiment as intimidation would not occur to Blumenthal any more than it would to Winston Churchill, who when speaking to Stalin in 1944, trying to persuade the Generalissimo to give Poland a break after the war, drew from him one of the bon mots of the 20th century.
Churchill was telling Stalin:
"That is why I attach such paramount importance to good neighborly relations between a restored Poland and the Soviet Union. It was for the freedom and independence of Poland that Britain went into this war. The British feel a sense of moral responsibility to the Polish people, to their spiritual values. It is also important that Poland is a Catholic country. We cannot allow internal developments there to complicate our relations with the Vatican …"
Then:
"“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill’s line of reasoning.
Churchill stopped short. He had not expected such a question. After all, he was speaking about the moral influence of the Pope, not only in Poland, but, also, throughout the world. Once again, Stalin reaffirmed that he only respected force, and brought Churchill back down to Earth from the nebulous heavens."
You had to hand it to old Uncle Joe: cut to the chase. All business, all the time. But maybe the real question the Obama administration is asking itself now is not: “How many divisions has the Supreme Court?” Rather, it could be: “How much of this Obamacare money have we already promised to the boys? And what the hell are we going to do if it doesn’t go through?”
Administrations which are not very particular about spending money from the future in the today are probably the improvident sorts who hire people in advance.
Perhaps one answer to Blumenthal’s observation is to flip the statement:
"An administration that can’t come up with the vig can lose an awful lot of support from the base real quick. The only reason people obey it is because they get a check in a brown envelope. And the administration risks grave damage if a promise of that magnitude and importance doesn’t come off, because people have already made down payments on cars and vacations in expectation of that commitment."
And by the way, the Soviet Union is gone, but there’s still a Poland. And last I heard, there was still a pope.
“If Beck could handle Blumethal that easily, he should have never made it to the senate.”
It must be understood that we are referring to the CT electorate.
The difference between this “putsch” and those in pre Hitler Germany and pre Lenin Russia is the tyrant is already at the helm.
It’s ironic but go back about 8 years to 2004 and you see Republicans talking and writing about how the courts power can be limited and would hear Democrats and the MSM claiming that any criticism of the courts decisions is bad for the country. I read a few books on it at the time : Levin and Schlafly being the most obvious. Remember the talk about ending the filibuster for judges? Remember that there will always be a day when power flips.
Heck Newt recently said that congress should force the justices to answer their questions about their decisions under oath. He obviously hasnt flipped his calender for a few years.
Republicans should play this up as Obama threatening the courts pointing out his arrogance, but Newt’s crazy comments were not helpful.
Obamacare is too big to fail. Q.E.D.
The Supreme Court has had no credibility since FDR’s court packing scheme cave-in. Federal marshals is what it’s got.
The military and police swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
The Constitution has many, many divisions! And the tens of millions of us who took the oath might remind these would-be tyrants that our oath did not come with an expiration date.
Let the Revolution begin.
I couldn’t agree more.
Good point.
FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act obviously was, also. Not realizing this, the Supremes bucked FDR and his NIRA.
But that was a long time ago, when the SC didn't know its place.
And the Constitution was a little newer and hadn't developed all these convenient shadows and penumbras and predominant Commerce Clause. /s
The danger may be greater after the election, if Obama wins--if there was a vacancy before November the Republicans in the Senate might be able to delay a vote (unless they caved).
But Guys,,
If the supremes approve this abomination, won’t Newt be proven to be correct????
There does seem to be a ‘quickening,’ lately. A buildup to some sudden crisis which would utterly destabilize the status quo. It’s coming from the highest levels, thinly veiled, a full-on push (or putsch) for blatant takeover. I hope that I am wrong, but the signs are obvious at this point.
well bambam did warn em at the SOTU a couple yrs ago...they must not have gotten that first message...
Leni
The course this Country is on is unsustainable. When governments grow this much, they invariably start enacting policies that make things worse.
We could nip this in the butt, right now. Radical action would need to be taken.
Ain't gonna happen. Amerikan Idle is on...
I hope you are kidding...Obama has already created a new precedent: the POTUS publicly demonizing the court for decisions he disagrees with. He doesn't need any more bad ideas that he can credit Republicans for.
Newt's crazy idea makes Obama’s bad behavior look moderate.
I am reminded of a scene from BattleStar Gallactica....
Roslin: You have committed me to holding elections within the year.
Apollo: Madam President, with respect. You are serving out the remainder of President Adar's term. When that term is up, in seven months, the law says, there is an election. I only committed you to obeying the law.
Adama: You sound like some kind of lawyer.
Roslin: This is unacceptable.
Apollo: I swore an oath. To defend the articles. The articles say there is an election in seven months. Now, if you are telling me we are throwing out the law, then I am not a captain, you are not a commander, and you are not the president. And I don't owe either of you a damned explanation for anything.
-—It’s breath-taking that Obama and the left are actually engaged in threatening the Supreme Court of the United States.——
Why wouldn’t they? The Constitution is of no interest to them, just as communism is of no interest to us.
Pray that five Supremes stay healthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.