Left Shocked by Court Developments

RUSH: Grab sound bite two before we get to sound bites 23 and 24. This is last night. We'll do a little timeline here involving Jeff Toobin. Last night on Charlie Rose, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin -- who, by the way, for those of you old enough to remember, is the son of former NBC News reporter Marlene Sanders. He wrote a big book after the O.J. trial, and he's been at CNN for quite a while. And Charlie Rose said, Jeffrey Toobin, "How big a deal is this Obamacare case at the Supreme Court?"

TOOBIN: This is the biggest case involving the power of the federal government since the New Deal. And if this law is struck down, the federal government is gonna look very different the next day. And lots of plans and lots existing programs are in jeopardy. So, I mean, as big as you think this case is, it's actually bigger.

RUSH: Last night, Jeffrey Toobin accurately describes the size and scope of Obamacare. Today, it's Politico "breaking news," but we've got sound bites from CNN. Toobin, quote: "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... [I]f I had to bet today, Wolf, I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate." Tom Goldstein, attorney and cofounder, center-left SCOTUS blog: "The individual mandate is in trouble, significant trouble." Los Angeles Times' Noam Levey: "Tuesday's arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law's program for achieving universal health care coverage for the first time in the nation's history."

Politico breaking news: "The conservative justices and potential swing vote Anthony Kennedy raised concerns Tuesday that forcing Americans to buy health insurance would open the door to other intrusive requirements from the federal government..." What was so hard to predict about this? This goes right to my point. What's so hard to predict that this thing is unconstitutional? It is unconstitutional. And a Civics 101 student in junior high, after having the Constitution explained to them, would know this. And here come these legal experts: "There's no way that justices are gonna strike this down! There ain't no way," and then after one day of oral arguments, these same experts (probably just as qualified as the economic experts at the Associated Press) say: My God, these justices, they don't like the individual mandate! We're in big trouble.

Here's Jeff Toobin. He's on CNN this afternoon. The coanchor, Ashleigh Banfield, said, "Tell me everything, Jeff. What happened today?"

TOOBIN: This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's gonna be struck down. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. Every comment Kennedy made -- uh, at least that I heard -- was skeptical of the law. The wild card in this argument was, uh, Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts actually asked a lot of hard questions. Roberts seemed like a much more likely vote to uphold the law than Kennedy was.

RUSH: See, he had to find something positive after saying today "was a train wreck for the Obama administration." And again he said, "I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... this court is going to strike down the individual mandate." Wolf Blitzer then weighed in...

BLITZER: This is really huge! Uh, uh, uh, what you're saying -- and you're an authority on the US Supreme Court. You've written the major book on the current Supreme Court -- uh, The Nine. So you fully understand. But just because a justice is asking tough questions, let's say of the government lawyer -- Mr. Verrilli in this case -- that doesn't necessarily mean that that justice is gonna come down on the other side. Isn't that right?

TOOBIN: It's true, but it's not very true, Wolf. Yes, it is true that sometimes we're surprised by the justices' votes after hearing their comments at oral argument. Most of the time -- and it's not all the time, but most of the time -- the questions that the justices ask at oral argument are very good predictors of how they're gonna vote.

RUSH: So the left is in panic! Wolf Blitzer is in panic, looking for a life preserver from Jeff Toobin, who didn't give him one. And they're shocked! This is what's funny. They are shocked. We aren't. Well, we might be because we're surprised that the Constitution is actually being adhered to here, or appears to be.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to temper your expectations on this. This is just oral argument, and we're nowhere near the vote on this thing and we really don't know how this is gonna go. All we have right now is palpable fear on the left. ... This fascinates me, all of this shock and surprise on the left. The media, court watchers, leftist legal beagles. They are in a state of shock, a legitimate state of shock, folks. They really believed this was gonna sail through. And we have to always keep in mind how relatively young most of these people are, and thus how they've been educated. They didn't get Constitution 101 like I did. They have been taught that the Constitution's a flawed document that needs to be changed whenever it can be.

And this represents the greatest opportunity to do that that they have all ever had. The very fact that Obamacare became law against the objection of a majority of the American people -- and the way it became law, basically under cover of darkness with every legislative trick under the sun being tried -- didn't matter. It didn't matter that it might be illegal. It didn't matter that it might be unconstitutional, because that's precisely what this was about: Making it constitutional by virtue of changing the Constitution and using this law to do it. Then all of a sudden the oral arguments come up today, and the four conservative justices and the so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, all have problems with the mandate.

And they're literally shocked, A, that everybody doesn't have the same worldview of this that they do; and, B, that there is any objection to it at all. Remember for these people the government is the end. It's the be-all, end-all. Government is the final authority. Government is where everything important happens and every important decision happens for everybody. But it didn't go that way today in the case of oral arguments and so now they're scratching their heads and they're genuinely surprised. Jeffrey Toobin is genuinely surprised. The CNN legal guy predicted this would sail through, and they probably were looking at this court's actions on campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold. "Well, if that sailed through, this will."

So where we are with this is the left now blogging incessantly their fears and their hopes at the same time. There is a left-wing blog called SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States. And this is a very relevant post on that blog: "Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions, Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment."

So they take all of Kennedy's questioning here, which indicated to Toobin: This thing's dead, this thing is a "train wreck." One question by Kennedy at the end is now given them hope that he might see this as so unique that he would vote for the mandate. A reporter at the Huffing and Puffington Post is saying that it's, quote, "almost entirely unequivocal that a majority of the court thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional." They are scared to death. Lyle Denniston used to be the court reporter for the Baltimore Sun. He posts this:

"If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him," and therefore give us a huge winning majority. "But if [Kennedy] does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up -- with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior." A lot of these blogs are being critical of the solicitor general, the government's lawyer, Mr. "Virility."

One blog is saying: "I can't believe how poorly prepared this guy was on the mandate! I can't believe they sent him up there and he had no idea how to answer these very obvious questions on the mandate." So apparently the government's lawyer didn't do a good job. The left can't believe he wasn't prepared any better. Well, how do you defend the indefensible? What is this guy gonna say? When that burial analogy comes up, he's dead. When the broccoli analogy comes up, he's dead. If you're up arguing before the Supreme Court that the government has the right to require us to buy health insurance, then why not burial insurance? Why not broccoli?

This guy had no answer for that other than a bunch of gobbledygook. And all of his supporters watching this know what a poor job he did, and so now they're worried, and they've just go on a little carrot. Anthony Kennedy gave 'em a little carrot dangling there at the far end of the mine. It's right down there next to the canary. He might find a way. This situation is so unique and we're talking about health care, so maybe this could be okay. That's what they're desperately hoping. But their instincts tell them that it was a "train wreck" today. And I must tell you, I still find it... I don't know, I guess I shouldn't, 'cause I know how they were educated (which was poorly). I'm still struck by the fact that they're surprised, that they're shocked.

This could not have been the first day in their lives that they've heard these objections to the mandate. But what if it is? What if they live in such a close-knit circle and they hang around only with each other? What if it actually was the first time they've heard these objections? That can't be! These objections, these arguments, against the mandate have been made throughout the media everywhere. So I guess they just locked in on the idea that it doesn't have a prayer of losing. But like so much of liberalism, and like so many liberals, they live in their cloistered world of the faculty lounge. They sit around and they talk theory all day. They don't understand dynamism. Everything is static to them.

And then they get confronted with reality one day and it's like a cold shower or a slap upside the head and they are bewildered. And it still amazes me that people who are reputed to be so intelligent and so smart can be so surprised when they hear arguments -- logical arguments -- that make it obvious this is unconstitutional. But, again, I fall back on something we must never forget, and that is: This is not about health care and it's not about the mandate per se. It's about changing the Constitution. Not piecemeal with this one. This is huge. If you have it codified as the law of the land that the government can make you buy something? Then, my friends, the Constitution has finally been defeated -- and that's what they can taste. In fact, it's in their grasp, but it's a little slippery and they can't hold onto it.

RUSH: Wolf Blitzer was in hysterics moment ago on CNN. He had the congressional correspondent Kate Bolduan on. They had this exchange. We already heard Toobin. Blitzer is beside himself with what happened today on oral arguments.

BLITZER: Kate, you were inside the courtroom! The solicitor general, uh, Donald Verrilli, uh, was he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Uh, did he seem unprepared and overly nervous in responding to the conservative justices' tough questioning?

BOLDUAN: It's hard to get into his mind. But I can say, if you compare it to yesterday, he did appear to stumble more; almost seem apologetic for some of the answers that he was giving.

RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. So now it's time to dump on "Virility" here, the government lawyer. Blitzer: "[W]as he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Did he seen unprepared...?" Wolf, you go defend this law up there and see how you do. There isn't anybody who can! Obama's not even trying to defend it. Pelosi's only defense is, "What do you mean 'unconstitutional'? Don't be silly!" Nobody can defend this. Nobody. It isn't constitutional.

I admire the sentiment, but we are looking at a more serious situation then just one upmanship. They may, and very properly in my view, look at it as a priceless opportunity to knock him down to size by reminding him of that.

Remember, if Barry is (and he has been) allowed to pretty much do away with Congress, what would make the Supreme Court think he can’t get along without them, too?

And what if he lost the case and went ahead with the mandate anyhow claiming that it fell under that recently revised EO. In fact, has any taken a look at that thing close enough to be sure there are no sneaky little clauses that can be twisted to fit?

Congress and the US Supreme Court both need to realize what is at stake here and that their total relevance as institutions in the future may indeed rest with their ability to bring down Obama before he brings down the Constitution completely.

The most important reason that the United States Government has lasted as long as it has is that it is build on checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government. It hasn’t always worked perfectly, but it HAS up to now, worked. That’s vital.

Everybody’s talking about this now. I went to the comic pages today to get some relief from this crazy political crisis and look what I found on Prickly City.

http://www.gocomics.com/comic/explore/1398288/11

Now this is NOT intended to be funny people. The comic artist is using his medium to tell us he sees it too, and he wants other people to wake up and look around them.

We’re getting right up to the edge.

"Unfortunately, there are many on this web site who will willfully indirectly contribute to this country’s demise by refusing to vote AGAINST Obama. The idea that Obama and Romney are essentially equivalent is moronic and ignorant."

I will sleep well at night knowing I didn't contribute to our "country's demise" by voting for obama lite. If you and others want to put such a RINO in the White House, that's your god-damn Constitutional right. When obambi wins against such a poor debater, it's on your shoulders, not mine.

When Bambi wins, and continues his "hopey/changey" thing from a free nation into a socialist nation, and the uprising occurs, I'll be there. You will probably be looking at the next election cycle thinking "We can win this one. Rah, rah, shish boom ba".

Grow up. You're not getting it. It's over whether Bambi or Romney gets in the White House. They are simply different shades of the same political color. Unless conservatives get a super-majority in the Senate (60+), there is NO chance of correcting this course into the failed state of socialism. It's almost a done deal with some 49% of Americans being on the dole.

Arguably, Alexander Tytler said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Even though I'm an aging 62 year old, I will not allow our great experiment to go quietly into the good night. I will stand my ground before I ever vote for a socialist (Romneycare) like Romney! If obambi wins, so be it. He will probably take our country to the brink and the sh*t will definitely hit the fan.

I'm okay with that, because unlike most, I remember my Oath and will do my best to fight against further totalitarian efforts. If I have to lose all to attempt to regain our Constitutional heritage, I will do so. I will die happy knowing I tried and gave a small part of what all our military has done throughout our national history.

God Bless the United States of America and her original principles, values and intent.

The 15 Trillion + are desperate for an opt out, as long as they are EXEMPT. And this extortion attempt Federal Labor Camp is it.

Fed’s Bullard headline. No coming Qe due to oil price shock.

The 15 trillion + pensions and retirements flooding the economy already have oil SUSTAINED (and food/commodities/essentials) above 105. Gas near or above 4.00.

I repeat, this is an attempt at a real forced Federal Labor Camp bailout (which never happened in 2008 due to deflation.) The “bailout” was a government pension-retirement give-away propagandized as “stimulus.”

I stated years ago, that their refusal to back off and cut down with the rest, will lead to an attempted forced U.S. work camp. And that’s what their attempting to pull.

“Ask a liberal: If the government can force you to buy health insurance, can the government force you to buy a firearm?”

I’m afraid that is not the question to ask a liberal, as firearms would be found under the militia clause, specifically the part where man of military age is regarded as part of the militia.

The question is whether or not the governmental can force you to buy into a contract agreeing to be institutionalized if you happen to hold believes your “desinated party” finds insane. That is all part of forcing you into a government approved contract.

Ask a Liberal if they feel comfortable with the idea of Republicans taking the presidency then using their new founded power over health insurance to prohibit contraception, abortions, and various other “services” used primarily by leftist?

I think Obama may not want to win this, because if they do their dead.

On our conservative radio today according to one authority who is covering the proceedings very thoroughly, said, near the end of the day, Kennedy said, something close to, “well, maybe healthcare is different”...point is this isn’t a slam dunk as the early arguments as reported by our side and even the Left think...she predicts 5-4 and whatever Kennedy does will redefine or keep intact the government’s relationship to the people. Either we are free or we become subjects of the government.

BEWARE reading ANYTHING into questions by the Justices. I’ve argued before SCOTUS, the VA Sup Ct and several appellate courts and questions don’t mean a whole lot. In fact, Justices will frequently ask questions the opposite of what they are inclined to do to force you to make their argument.

Judicial questions are for one purpose ... to spur discussion. Many times a Judge would grill me on an issue as though he didn’t buy it only to rule in my favor.

Anyone who tells you they can read the tea leaves on this one, or that there are even tea leaves to read, have know idea about what they speak.

I agree. Lots of glad handing by conservatives after yesterday, but what happened yesterday means squat. About the only thing thats a sure bet is that the 4 most liberal justices will give it their stamp of approval. Their minds were already made up before the arguments even began. As for Kennedy and the others? There is a lot of time between now and June. Lots of time for arm twisting. Our only real hope is that they realize that if they ok this, they will be voting to give unlimited power to the other branches of govt. and making their own branch obsolete.

**** Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment.” ****

That’s all you need to know. Slam dunk, done. They are going to tie themselves in knots to uphold this law.

Yup. Right then and there my gut sank.

-—, near the end of the day, Kennedy said, something close to, “well, maybe healthcare is different”...point is this isn’t a slam dunk as the early arguments as reported by our side and even the Left think...she predicts 5-4 and whatever Kennedy does will redefine or keep intact the government’s relationship to the people. Either we are free or we become subjects of the government.-—

That’s frightening. I’ve felt all along that the opportunity to “do something historic” will be too tempting for the majority to resist.

I pray that I’m wrong.

If Obamacare is shot down...all the Dems will go "whew"...now folks can't hold that against us.

If it doesn't, the President and every damn politician who voted for this should be voted OUT !!!!!

Trust me. Obama will be the happiest person in the room if it gets shot down.

Why....He's already in the midst of trying a different course....via the activist Fluck....regulate the insurance policies!!!

Ok, I’m no lawyer. Just a mom in IL trying to wrap my brain around all this idiocy but can someone please explain to me this “unique” argument that you all are talking about?

What does being “unique” have to do with it? I don’t give a rip if it is, still doesn’t mean I should have to buy something I don’t want. An energy with bull piss in it is unique and I may or may not want to buy it.

Your brilliant, incisive legal analysis proves once again why 99 times out of a hundred I would much rather listen to regular folks concerning law and constitutionality than any lawyer.

"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them, the people adopt them, the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common-sense, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.

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.