Posted on 06/27/2012 12:01:48 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Many people I know -- and many people I don't know -- are now predicting what the Supreme Court is going to do on Obamacare tomorrow. And I haven't kept a running tally of all the predictions from people I know and people I don't know in the media and outside the media, but it sure seems like most people think that at a minimum, the mandate's gone by 5-4, with Roberts writing the majority opinion and Ginsburg writing the dissent. And these people are offering all kinds of reasons for their predictions. One prediction is, "Look, they gave Obama Arizona to set up taking health care away from him." I don't know if the court works that way, but that's what people think.
Another one is this. This is Ed Whelan at National Review. There's an unwritten rule at the court that justices will read dissents orally from the bench once per term. Dissents. He has found that Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg has read more than one dissent this year from this term from the bench, so he's wondering maybe that rule isn't hard and fast anymore. But he says he thinks a guy like Scalia will probably be duty-bound and honor-bound to respect that tradition of reading one dissent per term, live, from the court. And since Scalia already read his dissent on Arizona, that it's gotta be the mandate's gone, because Scalia would have saved his dissent for the biggie, if there was to be one.
I mean, these predictions are running the gamut. And then, of course, there are predictions predicated on the fact that Obama has already been told and you can tell by his attitude in his public appearances that he's dejected and mad and ticked off about it, betraying the fact that he's been told that the vote goes -- I'm hearing all this stuff, and more.
Hi, folks, boy. You know who this is, most recognizable voice in American media. That would be mine, Rush Limbaugh, here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All kinds of predictions about the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and how he might vote based on his desire for the court to be perceived in certain ways. For me, I have no clue. I don't know what to believe of any of these predictions. All I know is that a lot of people are sticking their necks out a long way with this public prediction that the mandate, at a minimum, is gone, and that the vote is going to be 5-4. I haven't spent a lot of time reading left-wing blogs, but there's a lot of depression out there, primarily for them because of the way the media is covering this. There was a big story over the weekend in the New York Times, for example, and the focus of that story was to sort of berate the smartest people in the history of the Oval Office for not taking care of the fact that they wrote a health care bill that might have an unconstitutional premise in it. They really did.
See, Clinton's people used to be the smartest, but now Obama's people, smartest people that have ever been there. But damn it if they didn't screw something up. They sat there and they put together a health care bill, and they didn't stop to think that the mandate might be unconstitutional. They didn't take care of it. So people are looking at that article and assuming Obama knows, he's been told in violation of court procedure, ethics, tradition, and all that. And then there are people who say, "No, no, Rush, Rush, let me tell you something, Obama's been told, and it's a big win, and he's just acting disappointed. He's just acting depressed to set everybody up for a crushing, shocking defeat when Obamacare is upheld on Thurs." I mean I'm hearing it all.
So I thought what I would do, it's not very often -- 'cause, you know, I am the world's foremost authority. I ask nobody what they think. I'm not big on interviews 'cause I don't care what anybody else thinks. That's why I don't have guests. Really. Why pussyfoot around that. People have asked me oftentimes, "Why don't you have guests on your show?" Well, there's a whole bunch of format programming reasons. One is, everybody else does. There's no way to be different. But, secondly, I'd rather find out myself and become the expert rather than turn it over to people plugging this and plugging that. You know, behave and conduct a program according to formula. And then I finally one day, in a shocking realization, I admitted to myself, I don't care what anybody else thinks. (laughing) It's not gonna change my mind.
It's work to sit here and ask people questions that I don't care about. I'm not gonna subject myself to that. That turns this into a job. But I'm gonna make a departure from that. I'm gonna ask you people as you call in today about whatever it is you want to talk about what you think the court's gonna do tomorrow. So if you're planning on calling the program at 800-282-2882, be prepared to give a short -- and you can say you have no idea. That's fine, too. You can say you don't know. You can say what you hope. No, I know what you hope. So don't give me that. I know what you're saying. I know what you're thinking, "What are you asking us for, Rush? You are the master at reading the tea leaves. You even have a tea company now. You don't even know how the SCOTUS is gonna rule, so how can any of us know?"
That's not the point. I want to know what your thinking is, what your prediction is. (interruption) Well, are you basing that on oral arguments? Ah, you gotta throw that out. Snerdley's sending me a note here that says that the wise Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, agreed during oral arguments the mandate was unconstitutional and was doing her best to guide these pathetic government lawyers who had no case to defend through their own oral argument. She's trying to help 'em out. So you're predicting 6-3 on the mandate? All right, well, let's talk, 6-3 on the mandate. Snerdley says 6-3 mandate gone. Whatever the vote is, 6-3, 5-4. Oh, and that's another thing. These predictions, a lot of people say, "Rush, on a momentous case like this, the chief justice is not going to permit 5-4. It's got to be at least 6-3 for the reputation of the court to avoid the charges of partisan --" Folks, that is so much bohunk. It's gonna vote the way it comes out.
Now, Snerdley says 6-3 'cause he thinks the wise Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, is going to join the wise majority and bump the mandate. If it's 5-4, 6-3, if the mandate goes, my friends, that's the primary funding mechanism for Obamacare. Why do you think the mandate is in there? The mandate, if you've forgotten, the requirement that we all buy a policy or pay a fine, it's the way on paper, the way this thing was the submitted to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, it's the way it is paid for. The mandate is how the regime kept the so-called costs under a trillion dollars. That's the cost of the Iraq war; it had to come in cheaper than that. And is how Obama was allowed to say via scoring, talking about the CBO, that it was gonna reduce the deficit and it was gonna lower premiums and all this magic stuff.
The mandate is the brain and the heart of this organism. It's the primary funding mechanism. If the mandate goes, there's no way to pay for anything else in this. Not as written. And another question then arises. What are the Republicans gonna do in whatever scenario? Are the Republicans gonna sit around and do nothing if it's torpedoed? Or are they going to say, you know what, people like insurance for preexisting conditions. We better keep that in there. People like being able to keep their kids who are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from school on their policies. I know. This is the problem. I know a couple of conservative parents -- just as conservative as you or me -- well, maybe not as conservative as I am. They're a little kookier. Well, they're much kookier, 'cause I'm not kooky at all. But when it comes to the kids staying on the policy, to hell with conservatism, they want it. This is illustrative of one of the primary problems we've got.
When you get down to the bare bones personal of this, ideology goes out the window, big government goes out the window 'cause we're talking about "my children, my son, my daughter, who can't find work, and I need my child to stay on my policy." So all the big government stuff, all the limited government goes out the window with these people. If nothing else is kept, keeping the kid on the policy is a big deal. I'm just mentioning this, because what were the Republicans gonna do? Now, I gotta call from Speaker Boehner last Friday. I mean, he's calling a lot of people. Yeah, he called me first, Snerdley, yes, yes, but he's calling a lot of people, and he was telling us what the Republican plan is. And it was repeal, repeal, repeal, regardless what happens. The mandate's thrown out, repeal the rest of it. If the whole thing is upheld, repeal it. If the whole thing's deemed unconstitutional, repeal that. (laughing)
He made it clear that "repeal" and not "repeal and replace" but "repeal" was gonna be the focal point for the House Republicans. So a lot here on the line. And then you realize the election is in four-and-a-half months. So if the mandate's thrown out, if the whole thing's torpedoed -- and the mandate being thrown out, being the primary funding mechanism, there really isn't a whole lot of left. If that happens, then it becomes a campaign issue for the next four months and Obama is running around out there saying four white guys and an Uncle Tom, four rich white guys, Uncle Tom, just took your health care away. I was the first one to give it to you in a hundred years, they just took it away, they still have theirs. These four white guys and an Uncle Tom took your health care. That will become a campaign platform plank for them.
If it's upheld, then it becomes a campaign thing for the Republicans and for Romney. And then the election in November will have further ramifications on the future of this particular piece of legislation, Obamacare. So tomorrow is really just the first day of a big mess. But it's the kind of mess that we want. It's the kind of mess that we asked for. It's the kind of mess that has to happen if we are gonna get rid of this and try to bring some common-sense reforms. Now, see, Snerdley talked about oral arguments. And there are people on both sides, "Oral arguments? You can't read anything into that." Other people say, "Oh, yes, you can." I got court watchers out there who tell me oral arguments do indicate the way justices gonna vote. Well, Kennedy gave himself leeway to vote any way he wants. The early Kennedy in oral arguments, no doubt totally opposed. But then later on when somebody came up with a compromise idea where it was said that certain aspects could be left in, Kennedy was open to that, too.
So oral arguments where Justice Kennedy are concerned don't tell us anything. 'Cause he left himself wide latitude to maneuver and negotiate. Now, as far as the wise Latina, Sotomayor, she was pretty rigid. I mean she was in a way kind of mocking Virility, the solicitor general, the government lawyer who was pathetic, but he didn't have a case to defend. Nobody woulda looked good. Perry Mason woulda looked like an idiot trying to defend Obamacare before the Supreme Court.
END TRANSCRIPT
This country is going downhill fast.
And at that point I will become a common criminal in the eyes of the court and communist democrats.
I will not pay ANY tax, fee or fine FORCED upon me for a system or program I do not need nor want and am opposed to on so many different levels I can't/won't mention them all.
If that means I am to be arrested then so be it. Bring it on in fact...
So go ahead "Supreme" Court... Try me.
Are you sure that is the name of the case?
Post of the day.
"The largest health insurers in Massachusetts say they plan to keep at least two popular Obamacare programs in place if the Supreme Court ruling expected later this month results in overturning the law."
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/massachusetts-obamacare-health-care/2012/06/18/id/442625
wasn’t you who said that the obama administration ask the court to toss the entire law if it loses on the mandidate?
It all depends on how much dirt the FBI was able to dig up on the Supreme Court justices. Blackmail is a powerful tool.
1. if overturned HR 3200 Sec 164, “Reinsurance Program for Retirees” [labor-unions’ retiree med-benefit bailout clause] will nevertheless be fully subsidized by WH using Stimulus/Slush funds, possibly via the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (taxpayer-subsidized bureaucracy):
http://www.pbgc.gov/
So the taxpayers and the Future Sector (young voters) still get screwed, have their savings & incomes robbed due to insolvent unicorn-like pension/benefits promises.
2. if overturned, all SCOTUS Justices who voted against Obama bill will be called racists.
forgot appropriate graphic:img src=” http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5wkMFMMQMAc/S88hI3GmEtI/AAAAAAAAAgo/vq7Ljjuh2Xg/s640/obama+unicorn.jpg";>
I suggest you let the horses think. They have bigger heads and you know s*it.
For whatever reason, I predict FR is going down tomorrow.
Whatever our Black Robed Autocratic Massahs give us we will beg fo mo!
ditto that. I have always said that if I am ever arrested in my life I hope it would be for standing on a moral prnciple. Not paying taxes for mandatory healthcare would fit that description. In fact I would openly taunt them to arrest me.
I have some questions about congress’ exemption.
Is his staff exempt?
If he’s not re-elected is he exempt?
What about new members of congress?
And I think congress people have to serve 5 years to be vested in the retirement plan. So if a congressman is kicked out after years or less is he exempt?
Just hoping against hope that someone — anyone — will take Obama down.
Overturned.
If they were going to uphold it, they could have released it as soon as the opinions were written.
I think they overturned it, know the results will be very controversial, and want to get out of Dodge before sundown!
Restless natives are... well, restless!
Yes, they made a filing a couple of days after oral arguments saying if the mandate goes they should strike the rest of it too.
The reason is the corrupt deal they cut with the insurance companies. They only went along with Obama because he promised them 30 to 40 million new paying customers at gunpoint. (that’s why there were no Harry and Louise ads like with Hillarycare). They never would have agreed to all of the other regulations without the new customers.
Some conspiracy theorists think that the severability clause was deliberately left out for this reason. On occasion in the past the SCOTUS has created their own severability where none existed. If this happens Obama will have essentially double-crossed the insurance companies on their shady deal, and they will turn on him with a vengeance. They’ll spend everything they’ve got running anti-Obama ads this fall.
That’s why the administration made that request. It’s just like an episode of The Sopranos really. Mutual Assured Destruction.
I can’t believe the ruling of the court has not already been leaked. All other government secrets get leaked, why not this?
I agree. Eight to one, Ginsburg the lone dissent.
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.
![http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5wkMFMMQMAc/S88hI3GmEtI/AAAAAAAAAgo/vq7Ljjuh2Xg/s640/obama+unicorn.jpg"](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5wkMFMMQMAc/S88hI3GmEtI/AAAAAAAAAgo/vq7Ljjuh2Xg/s640/obama+unicorn.jpg"){kind=link}