Tag Archive | "Obamacare"

The REAL Problem with Romney


RomneyCare.

He cannot escape it.  He signed it.

And now we have this: Mass. Healthcare Premiums Down 5%

While healthcare insurance premiums have gone up in other states, those  participating in the state’s Health Connector Commonwealth Care program are  enjoying a second year of reduced premium payments courtesy of the healthcare  reform act signed into law by then Gov. Mitt Romney, Forbes.com  reported.

President Barack  Obama‘s Affordable Care Act was patterned under Romney’s program in  Massachusetts and  designed to lower the amount of “free riders,” people who  don’t buy or can’t afford healthcare insurance but cannot by law, be turned away at a hospital emergency room if they have a  life-threatening illness, by mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/04/14/Mass-healthcare-premiums-down-5/UPI-83201334422081/#ixzz1s51Ydrol

How can he escape it? The media wants ObamaCare.  Romney supporters, please tell me how Romney is going to survive through the election process without reversing course on his current stated position on ObamaCare.  OCare and RCare are so close to the same thing that it is embarrassing.

Look, I do not want ObamaCare. You don’t either.  But we are not going to have a choice come November.

The “best” Romney is going to be able to do, after August 30th, will be to claim that OCare is flawed in a way that RCare isn’t, or that insurance should be left to the states.  Both are extremely weak arguments.

My point is that nominating Romney is a cataclismic mistake.    The media will put out crap like the article linked above and force Romney to  embrace his legacy in Mass. once he is our nominee.  Then we will be stuck with it forever.

If you want Romney/ObamaCare, then by all means, nominate Romney.  There is still time to turn this around.

As Alan Stang used to say “Think about it!”

 

 

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

White House has diverted $500M to IRS to implement healthcare law


The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS

Posted in Daily Caller, News, PoliticsComments Off

Liz Cheney: Obama trying to ‘bully’ Supreme Court with ‘shameful’ rhetoric [VIDEO]


'The notion that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws passed by the legislature is crazy'

Posted in Daily Caller, Fox News, News, PoliticsComments Off

Why I’m voting for Rick Santorum here in PA on April 24


I don’t dislike Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich and if either of them were the GOP nominee I would happily vote for him against Barack Obama.  And there’s no question that either of them argue splendidly for so many of the mainstream conservative positions on a wide range of issues we care about.

I’m voting for Rick Santorum for President here in Pennsylvania on April 24 because he best articulates our issues and isn’t afraid to speak to the forgotten values voters of the GOP who have been the so often forgotten group yet who vote, work for and donate for every candidate we put up against leftists for the past generation.

I’m for Rick Santorum because above any other issue or quality people in America vote by wide margins for the people they think are good men and women, who live by the principles they espouse, and who are guided by their faith and who, however they stumble and sin, always return to the course set by their moral compass.

I’m for Rick Santorum, not because he merely speaks to the issues but has lived his life in accordance with those principles.

I’m for Santorum not because he has the best voting or track record but because on the issues we conservatives have cared about the most while he was a U.S. Senator, everyone active in our cause knew he was the “go to” guy who could be counted on not just to vote right but to do the behind the scenes work that helps you win.

I’m not “against” Romney or Gingrich.  I am sick and tired of hearing those candidates or their supporters get excessively zealous in extolling the negatives of their competitors.

Yes I already know that Obama can claim some of his ObamaCare ideas – particularly the idea of a “mandate” – came from Romneycare.  And I don’t like it.   I know that Romney has done very little to make the leadership of the conservative cause – national security and economics conservatives but most especially the values voters who he feels don’t trust him – feel comfortable with him.  I know he hasn’t reached out as he should have.

Yes I already know about Newt Gingrich’s indiscretions in his life – what he and Catholics call sin – and also that this is his past, not his present.  More important, I already know that Newt as House Speaker actually cut down some conservative movement initiatives and had the mentality that we could fund activities from the federal government that would get our majority reelected.

I know Gingrich made many of our most important conservative leaders very angry and frustrated to the point that when he stumbled, they deserted him and forced him to resign.

And yes, I already know that Rick Santorum’s labor record wasn’t perfect – even though big labor in Pennsylvania always vigorously opposed him in every election.   And I know that you should never speak about your faith or your belief in Jesus Christ, or refer to the “centrality of faith in your life.”

I know that every one of our three mainstream conservative candidates has issues that conservatives can argue disqualify them.  I don’t buy it.  Any of them would be much better watching on TV, and reading their words in the newspapers, and listening to them on the radio, and seeing and hearing about them every time I connect my computer to the internet for the next four years, than the current occupant of our White House.

It seems every time we hear Barack Obama speak it is some new attack on the free enterprise capitalist system, a new attack on our Constitution, a fresh assault on our institutions, a new justification for socialism.  Or all of the above.

I don’t want to see an entire generation growing up with that kind of influence in their lives so I’m voting for Rick Santorum and whether he wins or loses on April 24 here in Pennsylvania, I’m voting against Barack Obama and for the Republican nominee for President in 2012.

I’m not going to listen to brand new Tea Party activists to tell me who to vote for, to tell me who they think stinks, when they admit they slumbered through the election of Barack Obama and did nothing to stop Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from winning such enormous majorities in the House and Senate and helping Obama begin his work to “transform” America.

I respect the newcomers but so many of them – often the loudest of them – are ignorant of history, need to spend a little more time reading the constitution and learning about the Christian faith of the founding fathers, learn about the giants of the conservative cause upon whose shoulders they are standing and above all, they should stop sounding so danged bitter and angry, smile a little more, and offer constructive alternatives and make a better effort to play nicely with the other kids who were already in the sandbox they are claiming leadership of.  If they make that effort they’ll find they are very welcome, their meetings will stop shrinking and they will have much more influence in America in the future.

And I most certainly am not going to listen to people whose websites and facebook pages constantly remind their followers that we are not conservatives, who constantly  proclaim their hatred of  the establishment, the bankers, the corporations, Wall Street, the Jews, the Zionists, the Republicans, the neocons, the military. They sound like Occupy Wall Street, like the anti-war, pro-drug, hateful leftists of the 1970′s who always complained about “the establishment” and who wanted to “tear it all down.”

They come into our  midst for the sole purpose of proclaiming their hatred of so much that we conservatives believe, and when they do not get their way in the party which is most hospitable to us, they storm out of “our room” and vote for another candidate.  I trust them only when they say they are not of our cause and hate us.

No, I’m not speaking of lower case “L” libertarians who I very much like and listen to carefully – they are people who I do listen to even if I don’t always agree with them.

Whether it is their concerns about the Patriot Act and its setting aside of the 4th amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, or their concerns about setting up a national “E-Verify” system to stop illegal immigration.

They raise valid points worthy of consideration by all of us who love freedom.

And for all the arguments in favor of E-Verify I surely am concerned about any proposal to require the federal government’s “permission” before an employer is allowed to hire me, and worried about allowing police officers to stop people without probable cause, if they are suspicious abut whether or not you have proper insurance (yes that was in legislation in one state).

I do not know how a free people could be willing to tolerate “sobriety checkpoints” to allow police officers to ignore the fourth amendment because nowhere do the Bill of Rights give government the right to exempt themselves from the restraints on their authority to steal our freedoms.

On these and many other issues I’m very much open to considering ideas from “lower case L” libertarians and to working with them on those issues where we agree.

But people who proclaim their hatred of conservatism and conservatives, should not have any influence on you and me, except to note that they hate Rick Santorum more than anyone else running for President including Barack Obama and their reverse endorsement alone should be sufficient argument for us all to vote for Santorum.

I’m not impressed with those who argue that voting for someone other than their Third Party Champion temporarily GOP candidate for President is a sellout to liberal Republicans.

Those who shout at us that we are selling out to liberal Republicans like that are the same people who never walk the precincts for conservative challengers, make the phone calls, write out the donation checks and in between elections stand shoulder to shoulder using the full range of tools available to each and every one of us to influence public policy as American citizens.

They are on the scene for the sole purpose of trying to confuse us, divide us and defeat Republicans – and so they are the ally of liberal Democrats whose hatred of and smears against conservatives they often emulate.

I’m for Rick Santorum because even what so many consider his weakness, is to me, his defining strength, his willingness to defy liberal-left orthodoxy by whatever name it calls itself, and clearly say that the centrality of faith is foremost on his mind and in his heart when he stands up in the public policy process to articulate his views.

I respect the conservative leaders who counsel us to vote for Romney or Gingrich, and I pray that we will all keep in mind that our minor divisions during this primary – which will soon end – are as nothing compared to the urgent need to remove Barack Obama as President and bring to an end his domination of the Congress and the courts.

I will proudly vote for Rick Santorum just like the Reaganites of old who worked their hearts out for him in 1976 and again in 1980.

They didn’t care so much whether Reagan won or not – it wasn’t what influenced them to make their stand with him.

Those old Reaganites knew that when their children and their children’s children asked, if God forbid today is the high water mark of freedom in the United States, what did you do Grandpa, to stop this from happening, you’ll have an answer to give them that enables you to hold your head up high and not be embarrassed.

If years from now it is but a distant memory what the Constitution actually meant and what freedom actually was, and my kids and grandkids ask me, I’ll tell them there was a fellow who, however imperfect, represented the last best hope for our cause, spoke most clearly to our vision of freedom and right, and your grandpa donated money to him, voted for him in Pennsylvania and took every chance he could find to write to influence others, to join me now in standing with Rick Santorum.

I hope I’ll never have that conversation with my kids or grandkids but instead can tell them, there once was a threat so bad, a darkness so close to extinguishing the light, that it is hard for you kids to imagine it.

And I pray that God willing I will be there to tell them, there we overcame so many who wrote and said that those who know right from wrong, who unashamedly articulate our belief in God, who had true courage, must driven out of public office.  But our people looked at the faith of those who would be their leaders, and chose them and ignored the critics.

I do not know whether I’ll be telling my kids and my grandkids, if God allows me to be here, that this today is the high water mark of freedom and that after 2012 we are in fact transformed as Obama says he will do, or will this be the turnaround that saves the American system that has worked so well these past two centuries.

But the issue is in doubt today, so my vote is for Rick Santorum now that it is my turn to vote here in Pennsylvania.

And when this is over and done, whether Rick Santorum is our champion as the GOP nominee or not, I will cheerfully and gladly keep in mind where our enemy is – there on the left – far far to the left – stands the one who with his allies aims to finish the job he has started, with a wrecking ball to the work of the American founding fathers – and our standing together united and facing towards him, may be what decides the issue.

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Pelosi: Obamacare passage made president happier than his own election


Pelosi: Obamacare passage made president happier than his own election

Posted in Daily Caller, Fox News, News, PoliticsComments Off

The Emperor Needs A New Diaper


Vero Possumus!

I like and appreciate both Moe Lane and Leon Wolf. I’ve been rewarded vastly beyond my limited abilities getting to front page on this blog with them both. However, they’ve each made a serious error in judgment this week which I’ll hopefully rectify in today’s issue of Repair_Man_Jack.

Leon and Moe have both weighed in on Admiral Obama’s reckless sortie athwart the iniquitous US Supreme Court. Leon harkens back to the old USSC decision Marbury v. Madison, and claims our Commander-In-Chef slept through that one in High School Government Class just like the rest of us working stiffs. (Never you naysayers mind that he was snoring away in The Punahou Academy). Or even that he dozed through it a 2nd time in Jolly Old Harvard Law.

Moe then totally over-analyzes the situation. He suggests the President has simply overlooked Federalist #78. Just tell him Alexander “Rip” Hamilton wrote it, and His C-In-Cness will have it knocked out before lunch. Not to disillusion Mr. Lane; but I seriously doubt that our president is aware that the Marbury in Marbury v. Madison, is not the same Marbury that plays Guard for The Beijing Ducks these days.

Athwart Mr. Wolf and Mr. Lane, I posit that Mr. Obama’s reaction to what his attorney Elena Kagan told him yesterday was not a high-minded legal theory session. It was something our president should have gotten spanked out of his system by the time he turned six. It seems he is privy to at least partial information that the highest court in the land does not hold a favorable opinion with respect to the constitutionality of The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. This was not the outcome Mr. Obama had in mind when he acquired the services of Elena Kagan. As a result, he threw a Presidential Temper-tantrum.

Barack Obama does not have a coherent state of mind about how this entire courtroom drama over his healthcare reform has turned out. It could be the first time in his life that he has ever heard the Deplorable Word “No.” The man is older than 40 and has never been told once that he should like it or lump it. So of course he yells at the Supreme Court. Like every other aspect of the US Government, they exist to keep Barack Obama happy and make him look good.

When President Obama got his healthcare law enacted in 2009, it was supposed to be “settled science.” Emperor Obama had issued his decree. The United States Supreme Court seems perched on the edge of teaching Emperor Obama a very painful lesson in Constitutional law. The lecture could be entitled “Judicial Review and It’s Vital Role In The American Checks-and-Balances System.” Thus, the Emperor needs a new diaper. He is not happy. He is about to learn that the Presidency is not his personal Disneyland.

All of this causes me to pity* President Obama. He is actually making me feel sorry for him. It pretty much no longer matters what he can write on his resume under “Experience.” There is nothing more pathetic in life than an adult who does not know “no.” It’s almost as sad as the sight of an electorate willing to vote this man a 2nd term of office in spite of his grown-up temper-tantrums.

*- When I say pity, I mean all the contempt and disrespect properly implied by the word.

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Obama touts Obamacare, urges judges defer to experts and Congress


'I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,' he says of judicial activism

Posted in Daily Caller, News, PoliticsComments Off

Liberals Angry at Verrilli for Choking in His Defense of the Indefensible


By Matt Rooney | Cross-posted at SaveJersey.com

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had a bad day yesterday, Save Jerseyans. I almost felt for him despite my complete and utter disdain for his cause (and his client, a.k.a. the Obama Administration). Almost.

The veteran litigator stumbled his way through what was likely the most momentous oral argument of our time. And as Politico reports, many Court watchers were horrified by Verrilli’s performance:

“He was passive. He was stumbling. He was nervous,” CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told POLITICO. “I was just shocked.”

His halting delivery was so pronounced that BuzzFeed mercilessly edited together 40 seconds of coughing, throat clearing and water-drinking.

“I’ve seen him argue under pressure,” said Arnold and Porter’s Lisa Blatt, a former assistant to the solicitor general who’s argued 30 cases before the Supreme Court. Blatt, who listened to audio of the argument, said, “That’s not the way he usually sounds.”

Blatt said she was primarily surprised that Verrilli “didn’t seem that excited to be up there.” Given that this is one of the biggest cases in modern history, she said, “I would think it would be a blast to be up there.”

We know why Jeffrey Toobin and his liberal ilk are upset, Save Jerseyans. Paul Clement & Co. kicked the Administration’s butt, so much so that liberal Justices Ginsburg and Breyer had to repeatedly jump in and assist the drowning Verrilli by basically making the Solicitor General’s arguments for him. Obama’s supporters in the media saw their political lives flash before their lives! It’s almost as if they could hear Romney taking the oath of office in each stammer and stutter.

But Lisa Blatt’s reaction was a little more interesting than Toobin’s. As a veteran litigator, she can only imagine how exciting it would be… a “blast,” as she imagined the experience.

Verrilli may’ve felt differently!

As his testimony made painfully clear (click here to read the Day Two transcripts over at Heritage), Verrilli knew the Administration had a remarkably weak argument concerning the Commerce Clause. Case in point: two hours had past, and Verrilli couldn’t once concoct an answer to the seminal issue upon which this entire case will turn: What is the point of having a written constitution of enumerated powers if Congress can use the Commerce Clause to compel private citizens to purchase products from private companies?

Said another way, what CAN’T Congress do to us if the Commerce Clause grants unlimited powers to Congress? And if it can do anything, then what is the point of retaining federalism? Civil liberties? Property rights?

This is still the United States of America, folks, at least until Obama gets reelected and sells us up the river to Mother Russia. For now, trying to rationalize THAT species of anti-liberty, anti-constitution, anti-limited government ridiculousness on the world stage would make me choke, too, so I can’t rightly blame Verrilli for doing it.

At the end of the day, he’s just a lawyer trying to defend an indefensible position. He’s hardly the first and he won’t be the last from municipal court on up.

______________

Matt Rooney is a New Jersey attorney, conservative commentator, and the founder & Blogger-in-Chief of New Jersey’s #1 conservative blog, Save Jersey. You can learn more about Matt and the Christie Revolution by visiting today!

 

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy


“The left is pretty sure if they scream partisanship loudly enough, no Republican will stand up and defend the Court as the left assaults its integrity.

Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o’clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left.

As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly,

the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

It was the quote heard round the world. It is what the tea party movement, libertarians, conservatives, and so many private citizens have been saying. It was an expression of what every legal scholar on television has pooh-poohed as the troglodyte rhetoric of plebeians not educated enough to understand their own founding compact.

That Justice Kennedy expressed something so obvious to so many Americans that so many well educated legal analysts have mocked for two years as an outmoded view of the constitution put forward only by hicks, rubes, and the racist middle class tea partiers not cool enough to defecate on police cars like the Occupy Wall Street hipsters should deeply, deeply trouble every radio station, newspaper, and television news network along with the American people.

Just how out of touch are the people the news media relies on as legal experts used to help form both their and their audiences’ opinions? More so, is it not abundantly obvious that legal experts let their own partisanship shape their opinions?

All of this, however, overshadows a more important issue — how the hell did a constitutional, democratic republic come to depend on the whims of one man in a black robe who nobody ever elected to anything?

Two years ago, Jan Crawford of CBS News noted the President, in his State of the Union, deviating from modern precedent in those speeches to lash out at the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history, took a direct shot at the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, when he slammed the justices for their recent campaign finance reform decision. Six of them looked on — including the author of the opinion, key swing vote Anthony Kennedy — while Democrats jumped up to whoop and holler.

Shortly thereafter the Democrats, without a single Republican vote, passed Obamacare.

That Justice Kennedy yesterday raised a point that has been raised by so many non-lawyers is irrelevant to how the Supreme Court rules. All that is relevant is the President’s insult two years ago. Why?

This morning the New York Times reports that “many legal scholars, including some conservatives, have been predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold the 2010 health care overhaul.” In a profile of Randy Barnett yesterday in the New York Times, the paper reported there as well that “many of his [Randy Barnett's] colleagues, on both the left and the right, dismissed the idea [that Obamacare is unconstitutional] as ridiculous — and still do.” See also this Politico story that it is all partisan. This is precisely the Democratic spin and you can see which outlets are mouthpieces for the Democrats by those so quick to push the partisan line against the Court.

Legal scholars the media pays attention to — who are typically on the left — all thought that, based on their jurisprudential biases, Obamacare would be constitutional. Justice Kennedy, raising the same point raised by so many on the right going back to the 1990′s when Republicans originally suggested the individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare (yes, many conservatives and libertarians opposed it then too), stunned the legal community today because he deviated from a liberal echo chamber.

Consequently, his deviation can only be explained away by partisan politics, not legal jurisprudence. That so many liberal legal scholars disagree with Kennedy is proof he is a partisan. Already the White House and Democratic operatives are screeching that this is just like Bush vs. Gore all over again. They do not presume that the liberal justices are partisan — only the conservatives. On this argument of partisanship, as Steve Hayes notes, it is striking that the presumption in the Obamacare arguments is that one or more conservative justices will bolt left. In other words, the liberal justices are locked in and the conservatives are persuadable. How exactly does that make the conservative justices partisan and the liberal justices pure?

In fact, it is both projection by the left, which makes everything from Trayvon Martin’s tragic death to a Supreme Court oral argument political, and an argument designed by the left to cook the books in their favor, calculating the GOP will not engage in a fight over the partisanship of the Supreme Court because the right does not want to revisit Bush v. Gore. The left is pretty sure if they scream partisanship loudly enough, no Republican will stand up and defend the Court as the left assaults its integrity.

But they miss one thing. A sizable majority of Americans agree with Justice Kennedy. They are also not helped by widespread agreement on the left and right today that the Solicitor General of the United States had an atrocious performance and Paul Clement, arguing for the states, hit every ball out of the park assisted by some terribly insipid questioning from Sonia Sotomayor.

As partisans on the left start screaming that the conservatives have politicized the federal bench in a way they did not by attacking Robert Bork or some such nonsense, they ignore both their partisan attacks on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, etc. and their intellectually dishonest legal progeny derived from Roe vs. Wade. That case, still a source of conflict in America, is no longer even defended as intellectually rigorous by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She may like its holding, but not how that holding was reasoned.

Every time the left wins an argument expanding the meaning of the constitution, the Court somehow got it right. Every time the left loses an argument over the constitution, the Court somehow became politicized. And while the right says the same on the opposite cases there is a fundamental difference.

The right’s position on constitutional jurisprudence boiled down to its essence is that every man and woman in America should be able to read the constitution and have a fair understanding of it and how government is supposed to work. One cannot read the constitution and legitimately understand exactly how an abortion right is extrapolated out of the Bill of Rights. Likewise, one cannot read the constitution and understand how a Congress of limited powers can compel any person to purchase a product he does not want.

But liberal legal scholars so stunned at Justice Kennedy’s point favor a constitution where the public must hire them and their brethren to bow before men and women in black robes offering up prayers and petitions that our black robed masters divine from the text of the constitution some new right or government power no man on the street can see.

We have complicated our tax code, our regulations, and our legal system. In each we must now pay self-appointed experts trained in the art of gobbledegook to parse words, divine intent, and lobby for exceptions that prove rules.

Our nation is no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of elites who interpret those laws for us. It has all led to a very logical place.

In placing our constitution in the hands of a black robed elite who can divine from thin air powers, rights, and duties neither contemplated nor easily extrapolated from the constitution, our republic has become a kingdom. Our king is Anthony Kennedy. Every argument advanced is advanced with him in mind. On every major issue he is the decisive vote.

Put bluntly, the constitutional integrity of our republic has been ceded to one man in the third branch of our federal government. It makes him more powerful than the democratically elected Congress and President. It is not a sign that our system is too partisan. It is a sign that our system is broken in a fundamental way.

But the dirty little secret is that while legal experts and scholars may agree the system is broken, they only think so when Anthony Kennedy disagrees with them.

Posted in Politics, RedStateComments Off

Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy


“The left is pretty sure if they scream partisanship loudly enough, no Republican will stand up and defend the Court as the left assaults its integrity.

Yesterday the left descended into madness. The madness came early in the day. It happened shortly after 10 o’clock in the morning. Justice Anthony Kennedy opened his mouth and uttered his first question on the issue of the individual mandate. He asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” The question, the second asked yesterday morning, bothered the left.

As the clock approached 11, Kennedy spoke again, sending shockwaves through the legal community. He stated matter of factly,

the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

It was the quote heard round the world. It is what the tea party movement, libertarians, conservatives, and so many private citizens have been saying. It was an expression of what every legal scholar on television has pooh-poohed as the troglodyte rhetoric of plebeians not educated enough to understand their own founding compact.

That Justice Kennedy expressed something so obvious to so many Americans that so many well educated legal analysts have mocked for two years as an outmoded view of the constitution put forward only by hicks, rubes, and the racist middle class tea partiers not cool enough to defecate on police cars like the Occupy Wall Street hipsters should deeply, deeply trouble every radio station, newspaper, and television news network along with the American people.

Just how out of touch are the people the news media relies on as legal experts used to help form both their and their audiences’ opinions? More so, is it not abundantly obvious that legal experts let their own partisanship shape their opinions?

All of this, however, overshadows a more important issue — how the hell did a constitutional, democratic republic come to depend on the whims of one man in a black robe who nobody ever elected to anything?

Two years ago, Jan Crawford of CBS News noted the President, in his State of the Union, deviating from modern precedent in those speeches to lash out at the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history, took a direct shot at the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, when he slammed the justices for their recent campaign finance reform decision. Six of them looked on — including the author of the opinion, key swing vote Anthony Kennedy — while Democrats jumped up to whoop and holler.

Shortly thereafter the Democrats, without a single Republican vote, passed Obamacare.

That Justice Kennedy yesterday raised a point that has been raised by so many non-lawyers is irrelevant to how the Supreme Court rules. All that is relevant is the President’s insult two years ago. Why?

This morning the New York Times reports that “many legal scholars, including some conservatives, have been predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold the 2010 health care overhaul.” In a profile of Randy Barnett yesterday in the New York Times, the paper reported there as well that “many of his [Randy Barnett's] colleagues, on both the left and the right, dismissed the idea [that Obamacare is unconstitutional] as ridiculous — and still do.” See also this Politico story that it is all partisan. This is precisely the Democratic spin and you can see which outlets are mouthpieces for the Democrats by those so quick to push the partisan line against the Court.

Legal scholars the media pays attention to — who are typically on the left — all thought that, based on their jurisprudential biases, Obamacare would be constitutional. Justice Kennedy, raising the same point raised by so many on the right going back to the 1990′s when Republicans originally suggested the individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare (yes, many conservatives and libertarians opposed it then too), stunned the legal community today because he deviated from a liberal echo chamber.

Consequently, his deviation can only be explained away by partisan politics, not legal jurisprudence. That so many liberal legal scholars disagree with Kennedy is proof he is a partisan. Already the White House and Democratic operatives are screeching that this is just like Bush vs. Gore all over again. They do not presume that the liberal justices are partisan — only the conservatives. On this argument of partisanship, as Steve Hayes notes, it is striking that the presumption in the Obamacare arguments is that one or more conservative justices will bolt left. In other words, the liberal justices are locked in and the conservatives are persuadable. How exactly does that make the conservative justices partisan and the liberal justices pure?

In fact, it is both projection by the left, which makes everything from Trayvon Martin’s tragic death to a Supreme Court oral argument political, and an argument designed by the left to cook the books in their favor, calculating the GOP will not engage in a fight over the partisanship of the Supreme Court because the right does not want to revisit Bush v. Gore. The left is pretty sure if they scream partisanship loudly enough, no Republican will stand up and defend the Court as the left assaults its integrity.

But they miss one thing. A sizable majority of Americans agree with Justice Kennedy. They are also not helped by widespread agreement on the left and right today that the Solicitor General of the United States had an atrocious performance and Paul Clement, arguing for the states, hit every ball out of the park assisted by some terribly insipid questioning from Sonia Sotomayor.

As partisans on the left start screaming that the conservatives have politicized the federal bench in a way they did not by attacking Robert Bork or some such nonsense, they ignore both their partisan attacks on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, etc. and their intellectually dishonest legal progeny derived from Roe vs. Wade. That case, still a source of conflict in America, is no longer even defended as intellectually rigorous by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She may like its holding, but not how that holding was reasoned.

Every time the left wins an argument expanding the meaning of the constitution, the Court somehow got it right. Every time the left loses an argument over the constitution, the Court somehow became politicized. And while the right says the same on the opposite cases there is a fundamental difference.

The right’s position on constitutional jurisprudence boiled down to its essence is that every man and woman in America should be able to read the constitution and have a fair understanding of it and how government is supposed to work. One cannot read the constitution and legitimately understand exactly how an abortion right is extrapolated out of the Bill of Rights. Likewise, one cannot read the constitution and understand how a Congress of limited powers can compel any person to purchase a product he does not want.

But liberal legal scholars so stunned at Justice Kennedy’s point favor a constitution where the public must hire them and their brethren to bow before men and women in black robes offering up prayers and petitions that our black robed masters divine from the text of the constitution some new right or government power no man on the street can see.

We have complicated our tax code, our regulations, and our legal system. In each we must now pay self-appointed experts trained in the art of gobbledegook to parse words, divine intent, and lobby for exceptions that prove rules.

Our nation is no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of elites who interpret those laws for us. It has all led to a very logical place.

In placing our constitution in the hands of a black robed elite who can divine from thin air powers, rights, and duties neither contemplated nor easily extrapolated from the constitution, our republic has become a kingdom. Our king is Anthony Kennedy. Every argument advanced is advanced with him in mind. On every major issue he is the decisive vote.

Put bluntly, the constitutional integrity of our republic has been ceded to one man in the third branch of our federal government. It makes him more powerful than the democratically elected Congress and President. It is not a sign that our system is too partisan. It is a sign that our system is broken in a fundamental way.

But the dirty little secret is that while legal experts and scholars may agree the system is broken, they only think so when Anthony Kennedy disagrees with them.

Posted in Politics, RedStateComments Off

Sign up for email updates




Markets

INDU0.00  chartN/A
NASDAQ3279.26  chart-10.73
S&P 5001582.24  chart-2.92
GS144.11  chart-0.65
MSFT31.79  chart-0.15
GOOG801.42  chart-7.68
1970-01-01 00:00

Presidential Poll

Do you approve of President Obama?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Congress Poll

Do you approve of Congress?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
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