The Supreme Court will rule on Obamacare before the 2012 election
It has just been learned that the Obama regime will not seek an appeal of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional and will ask the Supreme Court to rule on Obamacare during its next session. This means that the Obamacare lawsuit has basically been fast tracked and a decision by the Supreme Court should be handed down before the 2012 election.
While this is great news because this issue needs to be decided one way or the other as soon as possible, this is a bold move by the Obama regime because it was thought that the “Justice” Department would try to stall this challenge until after the election and I think it shows us that the Obama regime is very confident they will win this challenge. They would call it confidence, but I would call it arrogance because I think that no matter how the Supreme Court rules it could backfire on Dear Leader.
The Obamacare law has become even more unpopular than it was on the day it was signed into law–the American people have rejected it. If the law is ruled unconstitutional it will become a huge political issue heading into the presidential election. But maybe it would also take an issue away from the Republican candidate who would otherwise be running on repealing the bill. Even if this is the case I am not sure how a ruling stating that Obamacare was unconstitutional could help the president in his reelection bid. I am sure that his opponent will gleefully remind the American people that Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress passed an unconstitutional, socialistic policy which was rejected by the Supreme Court.
And even if the law is ruled constitutional it still faces mass opposition and this may help to unite people who are against the law and elevate Barack Obama’s eventual opponent into the White House because he would be running on repealing an unpopular piece of legislation.
I don’t know how all of this will play out but one thing is certain; this certainly just became a whole lot more interesting and I will be watching closely to see how the political ramifications of this decision play out over the next few months.
America's Watchtower 
Obama is a narcissist. I also think that this is going to backfire on the administration. I tend to think Kennedy is going to rule against the mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance. His decision will be the deciding vote.
LikeLike
Kennedy is going to be the swing vote, there is no doubt in my mind about that. I think and I hope that he is going to vote the right way, but you just don’t know.
LikeLike
Teresa and Steve, I also think Kennedy will decide it, the others are a given. Just how he sway, I can’t guess, just hope it will be in the peoples favor.
LikeLike
I heard the lawyer who is arguing this case on the radio a couple of months ago and he said that knowing Kennedy’s past decisions he was very confident that he would rule it unconstitutional. I won’t believe it until I see it.
LikeLike
Hmmm. I smell a rat. Obama has something devious in his mind. I wonder if they are planning to create a scandal about Judge Thomas’ wife and try to pressure him to recuse himself? Just thinking…
LikeLike
I don’t trust Obama either and I think he is up to know good. He does nothing without calculating how it will affect him politically and I have to think he did his homework on this but I couldn’t come up with anything that could explain his logic. Maybe you are right and he is going to go after Thomas before the election in order to swing the vote.
LikeLike
Let us not forget that when things get too close for him, we have some sort of major catastrophe that gets focused on. What will it be this time? Then what has been going on will become unimportant and they will try and make it go away. However, with it being Obamacare, will people put up with that this time? Guess we will see. Trust and Obama are not two words that go together. C on F, devious fits Obama rather well.
LikeLike
He may try to deflect the attention away from this when the time comes but I don’t think he will be able to. This is one of those issues that everyone seems to care about and they will be watching closely.
LikeLike
Well, if they go after Thomas then Kagan is fair game as well.
LikeLike
You’ve got that right!
LikeLike
If that happens wouldn’t there most likely be 4 Yea votes against 4 No votes? If Obama tries to force Thomas to recuse himself I can see the GOP pressing real hard to force Kagan to recuse herself. There is a definite conflict of interest with regards to Kagan and Obamacare.
LikeLike
Teresa, the difference will be one is a Republican and one is a Democrat. Need I say more on who will be getting the most heat to recuse him or herself? Let’s just have faith that Kennedy will do the right thing.
LikeLike
Plus–and I know this is hard to believe :)–the regime is stonewalling releasing documents that show how involved Kagan was in crafting the defense of Obamacare.
LikeLike
The good news is that nobody can force a justice to recuse himself, they are beholden only to themselves. In my opinion there is a good argument for Thomas and Kagan to recuse themselves. But Kagan was directly involved in crafting the defense of this legislation whereas the possible conflict of interest in Thomas’ case revolves around his wife.
LikeLike
Elana Kagan needs to first recuse herself. She had a hand in creating a defense for ObamaCare for the Obama administration. The email traffic has already proved this. If she doesn’t recuse herself than any decision that upholds the law will be suspect. I’m glad to see this going to the SCOTUS sooner than later.
LikeLike
I agree John, she appears to be directly involved in crafting the defense to legislation which she will now be judging. If this isn’t a conflict of interest I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
Teresa, John and Steve, she won’t do it in my opinion. That will be a bold move, but I think she will say no and no one will push her on it. They will come up with some bogus reason for her not to and no one will want to go up against her. Race can’t be it, but gender sure can be. Remember when Hillary was being picked on??? Well, maybe that will be it. I am glad to see it going to the Supremes, as well, the longer we wait the longer they have to do their damage. Enough of that has been done already. This will probably be our last chance of getting out from under Obamacare, I hope Kennedy weighs the odds here and does the right thing. We know that it is unconstitutional, hopefully he will see that, also.
LikeLike
I am not sure that she won’t recuse herself, but I am not expecting her to. I also am happy that this will get to the SC sooner rather than later because it has to be stopped before it gets to far along.
LikeLike
I am wondering if Ginsberg and her Pancreatic cancer may be a concern. The only thing I can think of other than his arrogance. He is desparate. Maybe he thinks it will tool up the base if it gets shot down. They will get out of their slippers and march.!!
LikeLike
B, that might be a problem in only that if she steps down, there will be a younger person put in her place. She is as liberal as they come, so replacing her is not the issue, you would just be exchanging one liberal for another. The age difference does matter,however.
LikeLike
True, but there may be a period when no one is confirmed. If the Senate stalls out, it could happen.
LikeLike
Unless Obama fears losing the election and leaving her replacement in the hands of the Republican victor; perhaps that is what he is thinking.
LikeLike
Unless her replacement came after 2012 and the Republicans win the presidency that won’t be an issue in the outcome of the election but perhaps Obama realizes he won’t be reelected and is afraid to let this be decided after he is gone.
LikeLike
I believe I read that she was not ready to step down and I think that she will be the one making the decision. I can’t see her letting him make the decision for the “good of the country”. She is a pretty strong willed lady.
LikeLike
Ultimately there is nobody that can force a justice to recuse from a case, it is up to the individual. I don’t think she will bow to the pressure, but maybe she has a conscience and knows this is wrong. Yeah right…..
LikeLike
John has a good point regarding Kagan. As an architect of the argument she has no business being in on the decision. At the same time agree with Steve and others that Obama may have something up his sleeve. His minions worked overtime on his signature legacy and being the ‘malignant narcissist’ as well as hard core leftist ideologue I can’t see him letting his pet project , the cornerstone of his arrogant legacy,go down the tubes….WM
LikeLike
WM, he has too many things going on at once. Even the best juggler will mess up and I am so hoping he messes up, horribly. I also think that his arrogance may be his downfall. Sometimes when you become over-confident you stop paying close attention and that is when you screw up. Can we hope for this?
LikeLike
I certainly am hoping for it Lou and I do think it may lead to his downfall.
LikeLike
Both she and Thomas have issues which could cause a conflict of interest in this case but in my opinion Kagan crafting the defense of the legislation is a clear conflict of interest.
LikeLike
She was personally involved and it is his wife and not him. The two are very different. He should be professional enough to keep his personal life from interferring in his decisions. She on the other hand was personally involved in the defense of Obamacare. If it was the other way around, we know that they would be spinning it differently.
LikeLike
I agree, Thomas was not directly involved in any conflict of interest but Kagan was. If either justice should recuse it should be Kagan and I can’t see how she can jusify not doing so.
LikeLike
Lou you also have a good point. However, he has so many little mice running around propping him up that quite possibly he thinks he has it all handled. Greater men then he have fallen from lesser heights due to their own arrogance – and he is anything but a great man….WM
LikeLike
Agreed!
LikeLike
True, William. At what price are those little mice willing to sell out? I imagine alot of them are wondering how to bail out and still save face. I think they see with the drop in poll numbers across the board, that he is tanking. Unless they come up with another candidate I am not sure he has much of a chance. AND if Ralph Nader gets in the race that will split the dems votes. We also have to watch on the conservative side IF someone like Donald Trump runs on a libertarian ticket it will split the votes. There are so many variables that it will not be an easy race this time. I think at this point, anything goes. I am not sure we have seen a race in the past like this one is going to be. It will be dirty and underhanded, I am sure of it. At least on one side of the ticket.
LikeLike
I read that again and it didn’t come out right. I mean that unless the Dems come up with another candidate that they might not have much of a chance of winning, not “he”.
LikeLike
Read your post and comments and enjoyed all of the insight. I thought I would add a tid bit to chew on that is slightly broader in scope.
My con law professor is obsessed with discussing obamacare. He went so far as to make arguments that it is constitutional under congress’s war powers. Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138 (1948) (sustaining rent control legislation years after the war ended as necessary to remedy poor market conditions created by returning troops). The professor basically argues national healthcare is necessary (and constitutional under war powers–since we are in like 50 wars costing trillions) as VA has failed and troops have right to care.
My point being is that liberty requires eternal vigilance; even if the court strikes down the obamacare under the commerce clause, and it attempts to limit commerce clause based legislation (as the Reinquist Court attempted (and ultimately failed)), our work will still be cut out for us.
There are other constitutional areas/clauses for liberals to exploit (by broad interpretation) and impose centralized control/planning and socialism. Somehow we must limit the power of the supreme court–relying on the supreme court is a dangerous proposition of praying we have the 5 man oligarchy on our side. That said, we must also limit the power of congress to be able to pass such legislation in the first place.
I am not sure how to do this, but I think anything we do and advocate for needs to have those two long term goals in mind. Grass root efforts and building up state resistance–reinvigorating federalism would be one route I support.
I will tell you that one effective route I have found with classmates is making the argument that the supreme court has given itself illegitimate powers; the powers to amend the constitution by simply rubber stamping unconstitutional legislation or by effectively rewriting the clauses of the constitution in their opinion. My classmates read a lot of case law–and they know if they argued on a school exam the same type of ridiculous arguments and stretches of logic/reasoning that supreme court justices have made in regards to the commerce clause–on any other subject other than con law–they would have failed out of school! My classmates see how the opinions amount to constitutional amendments–not legislative or constitutional interpretations. They just need to told it’s okay to say that is wrong and stand up to those (professors, political class, etc) who try to shout them down.
If we can make it mainstream opinion that the court and congress just can’t do these things; the congress can’t amend the constitution via statute and the court can’t rubber stamp or rewrite a clause in the constitution then we have a shot. The constitution was shredded over night and won’t be restored over night either. (perhaps you can argue FDR did it over night).
I think you all are on the right track from what I have read above. I would like to add my own thoughts because you all got me fired up and this con law book I am reading is so damn painful I need a break:
Specific economic arguments against unconstitutional legislation like obamacare are not the best because people’s eye roll back in their head and the socialists have economists on their side (hacks like Krugman come to mind). Instead, the argument I think that will hold up over time is that every citizen has a right to accountable, local, limited (small “r” republican) self-government (as in federalism not national democracy) and that obamacare simply violates those constitutional principals. There is a reason the word democracy is never once used in the constitution… The framers feared a national democracy. So do I. Democracy amounts to mob rule and trampling of individual rights (specifically the plunder of the few by the many). At least with federalism you can vote with your feet if your state gets out of line. That vertical check on government needs to be emphasized.
Additionally, make the moral argument against the welfare state and progressive tax rates; we have a right to keep our wealth and that no matter the economics–it is simply wrong to hire thugs in washington to use the force of government to take from some to give to others. That all citizens–rich and poor should bare the burden of paying taxes and the government does not exist to be the worlds worst charity. It exists to keep us free. Laws that take away individual property rights and freedom are illegitimate. Those arguments resonate more than other arguments by countering the immoral premise that stealing is okay.
Lastly, we cannot cheer lead for the supreme court. Don’t rely on it. It was never designed to have as much power as does now and we give it more power by placing our all hopes on these few oligarchs. Power is what they crave. Their job is to protect the constitution and nothing else. Praise them when they make a right decision; however, more importantly when they make an unconstitutional ruling–criticize the very legitimacy of their power to rule unconstitutionally. Don’t just say they made a bad decision. Say they constitutionally must make the constitutional decision and failed to do so–that they should be impeached and given no respect. That is a fine distinction but an important one.
The court and justices live off their legitimate power–threaten to remove even a fraction of that legitimacy and you will get them to go back to their duty of protecting the constitution. Make them think their bogus rulings will be treated like a speed limit on the highway! Just words that no one takes seriously. I will tell you when I question the courts legitimacy and intelligently mock its reasoning in class–nothing is more effective to bring people on to my side. We need to do that on grand scale.
In sum, think hard about when we choose to capitulate to national power because when we do so–we legitimize it. We can’t argue against national legislation like obamacare and then argue for our favorite national subsidy or law that has no constitutional basis. Doing so means big government wins every time–who is in charge just changes. We must re-define the legitimate role of government, be consistent, and speak with one voice.
LikeLike
Great comment! I can’t believe that your teacher is trying to claim that Obamacare is constitutional under war powers, and he is a person in charge of teaching con law?!
And you are right about the founders; they feared democracy almost as much as monarchy because they saw it as just another form of tyranny and they went out of their way to ensure we had a republic. Over the years we have lost our republican roots and have slipped to democracy and the next stop will be socialism and then communism if we let this natural progression to continue.
LikeLike
I agree, alot of good information to think about in your post. Is it any wonder any of us got out of college being anything but liberal? Maybe becoming conservative goes with age, not unlike a fine wine, hmmmm? I am a bit unsettled with The Supremes having the final say in the matter of Obamacare, as well. Let’s hope it doesn’t have that as an outcome, but with the setup they have in numbers, it is iffy at best, whether we can shoot this down. Thanks for the insight, Drew!
LikeLike
There happened to be a great speaker today at school from the “Federalist Society.” His talk prompted me to checkout their website on another break from the agonizing pain and self inflicted torture I call con law (maybe just law school in general). They had a great collection of resources–at least the works I recognized seemed great: http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/page/conservative-libertarian-pre-law-reading-list-2
Thought I would share that and one other resource more on point to the obamacare discussion. I was lucky enough to hear this in person. It’s a presentation outlining constitutional arguments against obamacare given by Robert Levee. He is a large financial backer to the Cato Institute and also the main reason Heller (“The D.C. Gun Ban Case”) was litigated.
[QUICK SIDEBAR: The result in Heller was that the 2nd Amendment was “incorporated” (via the 14th Amendment) to apply to the states.
I mention Heller because it can be reasonably viewed as an example of “cheer leading” for the Supreme Court. Cheer leading to win a short-term battle but perhaps hindering the larger war effort. We need to be careful about these things. This is what I mean:
The Heller result is good–states cannot ban guns; however, I have reservations about the tactic. As originally drafted the 2nd Amendment or any constitutional amendment does not apply to the states. The Heller result expands the power of the federal government and empowers the Supreme Court further, both things I am very concerned about. What happens when conservatives don’t have the five man oligarchy?! Also, the decision means states further loose their ability to govern themselves and act like “laboratories of democracy.”
I don’t like guns being banned–but I don’t live there and never would. My gut reaction is to let like minds live together and prevent expansions in federal power that can (likely will) be turned against us in the future. Let the liberals have their safe-havens in San Fransisco and DC, etc,–because God knows we will need ours! If country turns majority rule and federal government controls all–I think most of the things we believe in are in serious jeopardy. We cannot have that happen–we need local, accountable, government to predominate over one-size-fits-all central planning.
Heller, got a good result but may have (hopefully not) weakened the overall goal of containing federal power and the supreme court influence over our daily lives. Liberals will certainly want to incorporate other Amendments and take other decisions/powers away from the states now–and conservatives look hypocritical for arguing against that–for state’s rights.]
Anyway, back to Obamacare–the presentation is slightly dated as it was given in July before it was sure the Supreme Court would hear the case, but the arguments haven’t changed so it’s worth a listen if you’re into the nuts and bolts of the decision. http://ne.edgecastcdn.net/000873/catoU-2011/cua-07-27-11-LEVY-Obamacare-and-the-Constitution.mp3
LikeLike
I should correct myself for accuracy as I misspoke: McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendment. Heller (2009) simply set the stage for McDonald. The point towards Mr. Levee is the same though–he’s influential and also a talented attorney–worth listening to on the Obamacare for a detailed argument against.
Also to be objective on my comments on the incorporating the 2nd Amendment–here is a persuasive counter-argument: http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/11/the-second-amendment-and-the-s
Again, all just food for thought–within the larger picture of federalism, the supreme court, and attempting to put this country on a better path. Back to the books. urgh.
LikeLike
If Obamacare is ruled constitutional, get ready for a Civil revolt not seen since the revolutionary war. Half the country that has any sense must practice civil disobedience. If we do not stand up to this overreach of power, we will all be slaves!
LikeLike