Posted on 03/29/2012 1:50:01 PM PDT by Sybeck1
A handful of Senate Democrats sought to assure doubtful liberals that the Supreme Court justices aren’t ready to strike down their crowning achievement, standing before cameras and mics Wednesday in front of the court. One warned that doing so would ruin the court’s credibility.
“This court would not only have to stretch, it would have to abandon and completely overrule a lot of modern precedent, which would do grave damage to this court, in its credibility and power,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “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.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted.
“As a senior member of the Finance Committee,” he said, “I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress. We worked with some of the brightest, most thoughtful and experienced constitutional lawyers in order to make sure that the law was constitutional.”
Kerry said the assumptions that tough questions from the justices will amount to striking down some or all of the Affordable Care Act are a fallacy — he predicted, as the final oral arguments were transpiring inside, that it would be upheld.
“Now I am glad — as I think any of us who’ve practiced law are — to see the intense questions from the justices. They’re engaged, and they are thoughtfully working through these issues,” Kerry said. “But questions are a legitimate way of probing the basis of their own thinking. They are not an indication of a judgment made, or a vote ready to be cast. They’re working through this process as they ought to, mindful of the fact that 30 courts below them have already made a judgment upholding it.”
Blumenthal and Kerry — who were joined by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) — called the press conference one day after liberals and other court watchers expressed serious doubts that the justices would uphold the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to purchase insurance, a central pillar of the law. The firestorm was ignited by legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who called Tuesday’s arguments a “train wreck” for the White House and predicted that “Obamacare” would be struck down.
Pushing back, Blumenthal said that there’s a “heavy burden” on the challengers.
“Everybody learns in the first year of law school that the law that’s challenged is presumed to be constitutional,” Blumenthal said. “That is a heavy burden for anyone challenging the constitutionality of a law to overcome. When in doubt, uphold the law. There is a lot of room for doubt here, and there is a lot of clear precedent that requires this court to uphold this law.”
The Democrats’ level of confidence has diminished since the days when they dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act as frivolous. Indeed, the tough questioning from swing Justices John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy about the limits of federal power at least rattled liberals enough to require the nerve-soothing press conference. But Democrats are seeking to quell liberal fears that the game is already over.
Experts say it’s too difficult to predict how the court will rule.
Affordable Care Act, HCR/SCOTUS, Supreme Court
About as likely as snow on the Fourth of July in Honolulu.
Why wait to push back? I call my congress people regularly. You may have ones that will not listen, I don't know.
the 'we have to pass it to find out whats in it' thing, and the whole consideration of simply 'deeming' it passed w/o a vote shouldve been enuff to stampede the sheep...but alas, the full on graze mentality is entrenched
No single payer scheme to pay for the whole damn obamacare beast is going to pass the House unless Dems gain a lot of seats in November. When they passed "pass it to find out whats in it" Dems had unstoppable majorities, and now many of them are voted out. But some congresscritters will get squishy unless they hear from the people.
Yes indeed, Romney is a major concern. But the other 3 GOP candidates have their own problems.
B U M P
*IF* it mattered, the recent 'defunding' by the House [or lack of *allocations*] to major parts of it wouldve stopped it dead already...but the monster is still rollin along, with cash being diverted to it in God knows how many ways to implement it...the train is outta the station, frankenstein is in the countryside, horse out the barn etc...
a bare few CONgresscritters give two $h!tz about the will of the constituents...its all about the 'greater good' if they even consider the people at all, beyond their next election cycle...even at that, *if* they get voted out, they usually have their own backup plans, or perks for life anyways...
so far the commie plan has been pretty well thought out, and implemented in such a way as to keep the sheep grazing, even across the span of decades...sure we appear to win a few battles here and there, but i believe the war was lost, so to speak, long ago...at least the stealth theatre of ops...
its coming down to the 'make it or break it' phase of their plan...bambam was the perfect vehicle to mash the throttle...
to me, the only variable to this contest will be how many 'loose ends' and unlocked shackles remained to guarentee their takeover...the inability to secure all the personal weapons seems to be a glaring miscalculation on their part...or was it a lil false sense of security for the final solution ???
That's an understatement but if they cant beat Romney then their problems are not directly our problems. We have two main problems, the two that end up in the race, just like 2008.
Does the country rest on Sheriff Joe’s shoulders?
I have felt that way for a very, very long time.
Yes, Obama, in his State of the Union address in 2010, urged Congress to pass legislation that would in effect reinstate the McCain-Feingold provision that the SCOTUS had declared unconstitutional in Citizens United.
And he had the gall to do it in the presence of six SCOTUS justices who were plainly visible in the audience! That's called in-your-face politics.
Like a well stuffed large intestine sectioned longitudinally.
How many GOP votes did the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" get in the House?
If the SCOTUS throws out obamacare, or the mandate, it will be more difficult for Obama to continue. I don't say it is impossible for them to win back the House, but if Obama conjures up an EO to nullify the SCOTUS ruling, that would be very interesting. In fact, I don't think he would even try it, although he will try to expand medicare, medicaid, etc.
All of this is moot if Kennedy votes with the left though.
5/4 all gets tossed.
That won’t stop Obama though, as the GOP appears to be working for him. No fear of retribution.
As I said, it's political war. They would use any defeat of O-C to to hurt Republicans in the longer run by blaming them for rising prices just like we blame O-C for them now, and then slowly get the votes they need. Short term a defeat would hurt Obama very badly.
But if Romney beats him in November we are screwed anyway. Watching him in action lie has not improved my opinion of him, although watching him and Obama have a lie-fight-contest would be funny till someone won.
” But if Romney beats him in November we are screwed anyway.”
Obama gets back in, it is CW2, or the country is finished.
We need to lo get rid of these people. All they do is make threats and accuse others of what they do.
A ruling against obamacare is a double-edged sword, and the ultimate result would (note that I am not counting on Kennedy) depend on the political skill and determination of both sides, as well as what happens in the world beyond the control of both parties. The GOP can say that Obama should have worked on the economy instead of healthcare, but they clearly can't expect their argument to speak for itself.
WHAT GOP ?
That would sound better if we had a real alternative.
I obviously cant predict exactly what a liberal Romney POTUS would be like, but rather than go through 4 years like the last two of GWB, as he sold us out to Dems on issue after issue making Republicans own those liberal positions he took, all while becoming more and more un-popular with EVERYONE dragging down all Republicans with him,and making Dems like Pelosi poll higher than them on EVERY issue including taxes and WOT, I would rather have Obama than that especially if he is blocked in congress.
That type of presidency above would give us another 2009 and 2010 (in 2017) and Dems will really get things done the second time.
Gilbo will defend me here, I hope :)
Looks to me like Obama is NOT blocked in congress WRT spending, but Romney certainly could turn out to be a very compassionate "conservative," or whatever he is.
Scalia and Kennedy will be 76 YO, Thomas 64 this year. The former 2 might stay healthy 4 more years (that would make them 80 by the end of Obama's 2nd term). But I have absolutely NO confidence that the GOP would block an Obama SCOTUS nomination. Romney might appoint decent justices, but he might not.
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.