I imagine this will be how Nasty Pelozi looks the day the Supreme Court tells her, "Game Over. Your piece of crap law is dead."
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
That sounds like the Dems. are making threats to the safety of the members of the court.
you can’t eliminate lawsuits. Hospitals already kill people via incompetence. CYA medicine is not bad because it actually works. Items that are missed are caught,etc.
In states where caps have been imposed, hospitals know they can outspend and out last any poor patient and burry the rest of their mistakes.
It certainly is a threat on the order of "nice little supreme court you have there, pity if anything were to happen to it." These dreadful people are nothing but common thugs.
Is that a threat? (it probably is)
Well, $700 millon$$++ was enought to purchase an illegal alien and a criminal Chicago thug to fraudulent occupy the W.H.!!!
I suspect sKerry’s mental disability is self-inflicted too.
yep its a veiled threat....God willing the Kenyan regime gets ousted in November and these arrogant “Senators” can go pond sand
Absolutely. One of the worst decisions I can remember. I have little faith in USSC to follow the Constitution as what their job is to do.
FMCDH(BITS)
THE SAME WAY THAT kerry CAN “Sear” A MEMORY INTO HIS BRAIN... A MEMORY THAT NEVER HAPPENED... OF A PLACE HE HAS NEVER BEEN... AND ORDERED BY A PRESIDENT THAT WAS NOT PRESIDENT AT THE TIME AND IS WHO HE CLAIMS TO HAVE ISSUED HIS ORDERS.
Sorry... I had to shout that from the rooftops!
LLS
Kelo, R. v. Wade, CFR, etc etc etc
Good frickin’ grief. as my Father used to say “quit blowing smoke up my rear end!” I really never understood that but it sounds like a good response to this article.
so now precedent is the guideline for legislation, not the constitution? Sure, the multitude of precedent legislation is why this country has a bunch of empty suits in DC.
Rush mentioned this today....That it has to do with this ObamaCare case in front of the Supreme Court.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
|
Contents
[hide] |
Dred Scott
“The court commands no armies”
Hitler made a similar comment when he asked (rhetorically) how many divisions the Pope commands.
So what are the Democrats planning? Maybe simply ignore what the court rules? If they do, I can’t say that I would complain all that much - given the Court thinks they run the country, well ahead of the other branches.
I figure Kagan or that other idiot Sotomayor will tip them off and they’ll start attacking and impugning the integrity of the court.
With Ginsberg retiring during a Republican administration, we can only hope for a young appointee that will be able to stand against the hoards along side Roberts and Alito for the next generation.
Most people used to learn in junior high that Article III of the Constitution creates a Supreme Court, too, Blumie.
By the way, Blumie wasn't even around to vote on this turd law, was he? He was still skunking the people of Connecticut.
By the way, the voters of Connecticut must have declared war on women because they voted for Blumie and rejected a female candidate. Mysogyny lives in Connecticut.
Did John Semmens write this?
Actually, I wouldn't put it past the Left to physically threaten the Justices, and for Obama to threaten to withdraw their security.
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.