Posted on 04/06/2012 6:24:41 AM PDT by libstripper
Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
bmfl
They also had contingency plans in place. Remember Lady Louise Slaughter who was all ready to “deem” this thing passed in order to avoid a vote?
I still perplexed why nobody has focused on the “strong majority” part of Obama’s statement.
Obamacare was passed via bribes and legislative trickery, and even then only got through by the skin of its teeth.
Strong majority? Hardly.
That’s how “Democratic Socialists” see things,........The MOB RULES!
so if a majority of congressmen pass a law abolishing elections then Obama was say that is constitutional.
—I wish the Supremes would sink Obamacare, but I have my doubts.—
I’ve read a lot of articles on this, and this is the best one yet. Interestingly, he doesn’t even mention the administration’s argument that it’s a tax and therefore A-OK.
He makes it clear that any other decision to allow the mandate to stand would be ridiculously activist and completely unsupportable while many many precidents have already been established in the last 240 years making this law DOA at the SCOTUS.
The only way they could twist things enough to pass it with even a remnant of a straight face is via the “it’s a tax” argument, which the author oddly doesn’t even address.
The article contains some very pretty, very well-informed reasoning.
Too bad the left-wingers on the Court don’t care a fig for reasoning, no matter how well-informed or elegant. They care for power and payback. Nothing else matters.
I wonder if they’ll even make an effort to explain their votes.
ONE vote is a 'strong majority'?
And they didn't even go through the reconcilliation process between the House and the Senate because it WOULD NOT have made it through
Correct give or take a year, maybe 5.
I am putting the chances at 50/50 on whether they would strike the whole Obamcare down or upheld it. I do not put a lot of trust in what happened during the oral arguments because asking a tough question by a judge regarding Obamacare does not mean that this judge is going to overturn it.
Bingo. Slumbama is doing a preemptive strike.
I can’t help but thing that this whole thing was planned. Ramming the law through in the dead of night, 2700 pages of regulations that nobody even read, and for me the kicker is that things weren’t supposed to really kick in until after the election. To me this doesn’t sound like a “law” this sounds like a charade - pass the thing with one vote in the dead of night, then have the SC strike it down, and then run on the issue in 2012. While convoluted, to me, it’s not *that* convoluted.
“Look we gave you healthcare but the evil SC just took it away. Vote for me”.
Finally, I’ll probably get flamed for this - but - the few provisions of the law that *DID* kick in right away (which I would argue were the only provisions that were really meant for consumption) are not all that bad - like incentivising adoption of electronic medical records, incentivising quality care with ACO’s and reforms that really do make a good deal of sense (at least to me).
Best article I’ve read explaining why it is unconstitutional.
Just because the President of the United States - as a result of his foreign-raised childhood - has absolutely NO idea about America, who are you to point this out? Oh, go back to clinging to your guns and Bible.
Sheesh, just because we are a Constitutional Republic, and NOT a democracy, doesn't mean you know more than the faux former editor of the Harvard Law Review! Why Barack Obama is as American as the neighborhood mosque.
Yeah, been through that argument. I just go with the 1860 elections to keep it simple, but signing date of the tariff law suits me.
The author's still only sure about five of the justices, and if he's wrong about any one of them, then his thesis sinks.
I still don't know why the most powerful argument against Obamacare doesn't rely upon the equal protection statutes. It is clearly not a "mandate" when waivers of all kinds have been provided to both individuals and legal collectives. The issuance of a waiver means that if I don't get a waiver, then I'm being "singled out" in the law, thus violating not only the stated reasoning behind the mandate, but clearly giving me, or anyone not given a waiver, standing to sue under equal protection.
Obamacare's "mandate" implicitly discriminates against persons not provided a waiver.
Anyone out there a constitutional lawyer?
Obama was NOT ever a constitutional law professor. He was a lecturer that was put in that position as a means of providing him with a living stipend while he was being groomed.
The only public picture of him in this capacity shows him in front of a blackboard (is that racist) with a bunch of community activist organizing nonesene on it. The cannard that he was a "professor" keeps getting repeated even by commentators that should know better.
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.