The Hot Theory on How the Supreme Court Gets to a 6-3 Vote to Uphold Obamacare

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 30, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Eldon Tyrell]

As noted previously -

Kagan is ALREADY sitting on the case. the court is in desperate need for credibility.

If they find it Constitutional - with Kagan involved - the game is over. There is no Constitution, and we live in a slowly evolving anarchy of “might makes right”.

Their only hope for credibility - of any sort - is to find it un-constitutional. Which of course, it is.

Finding it Constitutional - means we don’t have a Constitution. No need for credibility. We either have a Constituion - or we don’t. There is no choice of “maintaining credibility - and finding it Constitutional.” - there - just isn’t.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

He already explicitly said months ago that he would not ask Kagan to recuse.

I don't believe that the Chief Justice has the ability to deny any SC justice the ability to hear and rule on a case for any reason. Such power would effectively give the Chief Justice the ability to select which justices would get to decide every case.

[Labyrinthos]

Unlikely scenario. The more likely possibility is that Roberts has already promised Kennedy that he gets to write the opinion if he sides in favor of striking the individual mandate. A hint of this appears at page 67:24 - 68:4 of the transcript of the hearing during the morning session on March 28, 2012 concerning severability:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So do you want us to write an opinion saying we have concluded that there is an insignificant risk of a substantial adverse effect on the insurance companies, that's our economic conclusion, and therefore not severable? That's what you want me to say?

Notice how he starts out talking about “us” writing an opinion, but ends with “me” writing the opinion.

My prediction — and please write this down:

Anti-Injunction Act; 5 to 4 — Obamacare not subject to Anti-Injunction act.

Individual Mandate: 5 to 4 — Unconstitutional

Severability: 6 to 3 — Individual mandate is not severable (Kagan jumps ship and joins the majority)

Medicaid: 7 to 2 — Constitutional, but moot because the entire law will be stricken due to the inability to sever the individual mandate. (Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy will join the libs, but there will be a number of concur in part, dissent in part opinions.)

[redgolum]

They are human, and the justices go to the same parties and were made by the same system that produced most politicians. They will be very, very, wary of destroying the signature accomplishment of the first black president.

The worldview that made them will view that as a bigger crime than going against the US Constitution, or all the issues it will cause.

[Lou L]

Do we really think that Chief Justice Roberts would allow Kagan to sit in on the hearings if he didn’t know how Kennedy was going to vote?

This is an interesting answer, but it assumes that Roberts only wants to overthrow the law. If Kennedy votes to uphold, it doesn't matter whether Kagan abstains or not--I believe a 4-4 tie would uphold the law. And wouldn't that make this even more of a mess, an unpopular law being upheld by a 4-4 tie?

And, if the Court is so interested in their power and reputation, you would think they owe the current President a smackdown for his berating them in the 2011 SOTU address.

I'm reading the Toobin book on the Supremes now. In it, he claims the Justices have very little interaction with one another...at least, they aren't chummy within their offices. There aren't many casual strolls from office to office, not a lot of mundane small talk--"who do you like on American Idol? Oh, really? Which way you gonna vote on the ACA? Want to do Chili's for lunch?"

[onyx]

I said “retiring”. Kennedy said he’s retiring after the 2012 election.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Like Rush says, it’s one or two people in the U.S. that currently have the power to make us a slave state or a free state. Sad, it’s come to this, anyway!

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Do we really think that Chief Justice Roberts would allow Kagan to sit in on the hearings if he didn’t know how Kennedy was going to vote?

A very fair point to make!

Hey, young lady! Do you ever read your emails? Luv ya!

[ml/nj]

I have to admit I’m not current with Sheriff Joe’s news?

You're kidding, right!!

He had an hour and a half press conference detailing fraud on behalf of Obozo back on March 1. (Same date we learned that Breitbart "died"* and there was a "bombscare" at Rush Limbaugh's compound in Palm Beach.) I'm not going to give you a link to an hour and a half video but I suggest you get started with this three and a half MINUTE video. If you care you will follow its links.

ML/NJ

* How's that autopsy going BTW?

[loveliberty2]

"Blumenthal said, '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.'"

Question for Blumenthal:

1. You say, 'The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the Court risks grave damage if it strikes down . . . .' Were you as concerned by the President's blatant and unprecedented words against the Court in a State of the Union address? Or, are your remarks just a continuation of this Administration's intended challenge to the authority of Court whenever it rules in favor of individual freedom and against intrusive and coercive power concentrated in government?

Note to Blumenthal:

Might it occur to you and your fellow so-called "progressives" that Supreme Court Justices might be more concerned about how generations of Americans yet unborn may consider their decision and individual written opinions than they are about how a few truly insignificant human beings of 2010-2012, ignorant of America's 200-year heritage of liberty and hungry for power for themselves and their cronies, felt about their decision?

Civilization's long struggle for individual liberty and against concentrated power in other arrogant and imperfect individuals, or collections of individuals, is well documented.

Only in America, in one little spot on the globe, and in one little sliver of time, did a group of individuals come together, organizing themselves around a concept of Creator-endowed life, liberty, rights and laws to protect each individual, agree to a form of self-government whose written Constitution's provisions placed "People" over "government."

Future generations will read about this little sliver of time in America's history too, and they will know whether this Court upheld the Founders' vision or reversed the course and unleashed oppressive powers from which previous generations had fled.

[onyx]

Does Toobin mention that Ginsburg and Scalia play contract bridge together? I’d call that chummy even though they’re polar opposites on the bench.

I don’t think the Court will be interested in political reputation or a black president. I think this decision will be purely Constitutional.

Maybe I’m dreaming, but I sure hope not.

This is a huge attempt at a power grab by the Marxists.

[onyx]

Thanks very much. Nope, not kidding!

[jiggyboy]

Public opinion doesn’t follow the same traditions of Christian theology or The Empire Strikes Back — he voted against Kelo, and voting against Obamacare doesn’t cancel that out when it’s time to consider his service.

[aheckle]

By making the argument that they are human you could also argue that they are paying attention to the polls that a majority of Amercians do not want this, the Congress that put this bill together was voted out, and several moderate senators had to be bribed to get this bill passed

[aheckle]

By making the argument that they are human you could also argue that they are paying attention to the polls that a majority of Amercians do not want this, the Congress that put this bill together was voted out, and several moderate senators had to be bribed to get this bill passed

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Kennedy said he’s retiring after the 2012 election.”

---

When, pray tell, did Kennedy say that? Please provide a link as to Kennedy saying that he would retire following the 2012 elections. (And don’t just post something about Kennedy saying that he wouldn’t retire before the 2012 elections.)

[jiggyboy]

That’s right, even if he would “ask” her about it, he can’t dismiss her.

[fortheDeclaration]

The fact is that the individual mandate won't be upheld, so it is only an issue of how much of the law will be struck down.

If the individual mandate is struck down, the entire law is mute.

[AFPhys]

There is no way that the Chief Justice would make any demands at all that Kagan recuse herself. She would be counted on for the integrity that it takes to make that decision herself. In the long run, if a single justice had begged out, it would not make any difference at all as to the fate of the bill since a 4-4 decision would leave it totally in place.

[redgolum]

I am making the argument they belong to the same elite as the rest of the politicians. They don't respect the “lower” classes, and don't’ care much about pols.

The worldview is more important. Look at the fiasco and sheer madness of the war on terror.