Breaking: SCOTUS to review ObamaCare, individual mandate this term; Update: The three questions

posted at 10:27 am on November 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The Republican debates probably won’t have as much impact on the 2012 presidential race as the debates between the Supreme Court’s conservative and liberal wings, presumably moderated by — and conducted on behalf of — Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The nation’s highest court has decided to tackle ObamaCare in this term, which means that they will drop a decision on Barack Obama and the nation just as the two parties prepare for their national conventions.

Thus far, all we know is that the court will hear arguments in the early spring of late March.  What happens with the decision will rest in large part on which case leads the appeal they will decide.  ObamaCare foes would probably prefer the devastating decision from the Florida court that threw out the entire law, rather than the DC Appellate Court decision by “conservative judicial icon” Laurence Silberman that upheld it.  Most likely this cert came from the June filing that challenged the 11th Circuit’s ruling that upheld the Florida decision, a request that the Obama DoJ might be regretting after winning the last round in the DC appellate circuit.  It probably doesn’t make too much difference, anyway, as the court will probably move to consolidate the various appeals.

The timing is highly consequential.  It means that Obama almost certainly won’t get a chance to name a new court member before the Supremes decide whether the Commerce Clause is an opening through which Congress can force any kind of regulation and mandate.  If they end up supporting ObamaCare, Barack Obama will claim vindication for the next few months of the campaign for his re-election bid.  If they strike it down, Obama loses his signature achievement and has to explain that for the next few months leading up to the election — and explaining is not winning.

Update: National Journal reports that the Supreme Court has requested that both sides address three questions in their submissions: the individual mandate, severability, and jurisdiction.  This looks promising for opponents on first blush, as it focuses on just how much of the law a negative ruling would invalidate, and under what circumstances.  The 11th Circuit ruled that the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law.  Jurisdiction refers to standing in a suit against a law that has yet to take effect.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Ooooh I hope so JE

cmsinaz on November 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM

i’m in the crowd that the thing will be upheld. Congress is a very powerful branch of the government. They can clearly regulate the hell out of everything and everyone…and thru the history of the 20th century have done so with gusto.

The quaint notion that a farmer can grow crops for his own family can be regulated because it impacts commerce (i.e., he’s not buying apples from someone else)

So the odds are that it will be upheld. The precedents are there, the arc of FDR continues

but, i could be wrong, maybe the court looking at the implications of where this leaves us will be too stark…do we really want for barry to mandate a Volt in every driveway

r keller on November 14, 2011 at 1:54 PM

On the jurisdiction question…
If there was a law passed saying your first born had to be sacrificed, would we have to wait for an actual sacrifice to decide jurisdiction?
Just asking.

wb-33777 on November 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

On the jurisdiction question…
If there was a law passed saying your first born had to be sacrificed, would we have to wait for an actual sacrifice to decide jurisdiction?
Just asking.

wb-33777 on November 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

I suppose you could seek an injuction against the sacrifice until the matter was settled in the courts.

NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Thomas is a strong censervative and more than intellectually competent to justify his conservative views.

Ginsberg is his opposite.

Roberts and Alito are to the right but haven’t been justices long enough to competently read them. I would say they would be against the individual mandate.

Kagan and Sotomeyer are their opposites.

Breyer is a preening fop that loves attention. I actually love to listen to interviews of him and lectures by him even though I do not agree with him on much He believes the Constitution is a living document and should change with the times.

Scalia is an intelletual giant and knows it. He likes attention as well, not as much as Breyer, and is a conservative who would most definately rule against the mandate but perhaps not the law itself.

Kennedy is a worker bee and is nearing the end of his time as a Justice. I do believe that he is tired of the back and forth and manipulations that go on. I do believe he is honest in his feelings and tries to intereperet the law according to the comstitution. I don’t think he will uphold the mandate.

5-4 against Obamacare. Severability decides it.

Vince on November 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM

5-4 against Obamacare. Severability decides it.
Vince on November 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I hope (and pray) you are right, Vince…

TeresainFortWorth on November 14, 2011 at 2:12 PM

If it gets overturned Obama will probably win reelection. A little humble pie in his speeches and acknowledgement of overreach will pull the Hillary Dems and some indies back into the fold.

If it gets upheld he loses.

Bradky on November 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM

I’d agree too that if it’s upheld, the majority that oppose it will realize the only way to get rid of it now is to get him out of office. If it’s overturned and he wins, the most frightening thing about another 4 years (assuming we get the Senate too) is another SCOTUS pick. Scalia and Kennedy are in the their 70s. Ginsberg would be a wash. I don’t know if we can keep the 4-4-1 split until 2016. I prefer that it’s overturned and he still loses.

TxAnn56 on November 14, 2011 at 2:13 PM

In any case, I’m not sure why it’s important to tie Nazis to socialism. Both the Nazi and socialist governments were terrible, and though there is a connection, the Nazi government would have been terrible even if it hadn’t been socialist at all.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Those on the Left are terrified that the Nazis might have in fact be Socialists, because it shoots to hell their assumptions that All Socialism is Good. Therefore, they are against all attempts to link the two together.

Likewise, in their parallel universe, al Qaeda could operate in every single country on the planet except for one (Iraq).

You might find this of interest:

http://mises.org/daily/1937

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

You’ll have to pardon my disagreement on the “All Socialism is Good” thing – the socialism of the progressive soviet union was equally horrific, causing the deaths of millions just as it did in the third Reich.

[I don’t think you meant it to come out that way, but I just wanted to point that out]

The sad fact is that Left has a very bad historic legacy it has to bear – hence the reason they attempt to distance themselves from Socialist tyrannies of the past and they’re attempt at blaming Nazism on others.

And they’re incessant attempts to shutter debate on the subject.

(Thank you for that link, BTW)

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Kennedy is a worker bee and is nearing the end of his time as a Justice. I do believe that he is tired of the back and forth and manipulations that go on. I do believe he is honest in his feelings and tries to intereperet the law according to the comstitution. I don’t think he will uphold the mandate.

Vince on November 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Unfortunately, one of Kennedy’s former chief law clerks says otherwise. He is currently a professor at GW law school, and he says Kennedy will likely vote to uphold it.

AZCoyote on November 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

You’ll have to pardon my disagreement on the “All Socialism is Good” thing – the socialism of the progressive soviet union was equally horrific, causing the deaths of millions just as it did in the third Reich.

[I don’t think you meant it to come out that way, but I just wanted to point that out]

The sad fact is that Left has a very bad historic legacy it has to bear – hence the reason they attempt to distance themselves from Socialist tyrannies of the past and they’re attempt at blaming Nazism on others.

And they’re incessant attempts to shutter debate on the subject.

(Thank you for that link, BTW)

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM

You’re right, Socialism in Russia killed millions too. As did Socialism in China and Southeast Asia.

I was thinking more on the lines of the Left’s defense of Socialists like Castro and Chavez. Remember, Cuba has a great Health Care System, because Leftist Mikey Moore told us so!

Of course, that Cuban Health Care System didn’t help Leftist Icon Phillip Agee, who died in Cuba in 2008 of perforated ulcers. They couldn’t save him.

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Ask me the questions, bridgekeeper! I’m not afraid!

hawksruleva on November 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM

The sad fact is that Left has a very bad historic legacy it has to bear – hence the reason they attempt to distance themselves from Socialist tyrannies of the past and they’re attempt at blaming Nazism on others.

And they’re incessant attempts to shutter debate on the subject.

(Thank you for that link, BTW)

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Their legacy goes back even further. Liberalism’s roots go back to the French Revolution, which gave us most of the tired, failed ideas we see in liberalism today. Centralised planning of everything, down to a new, “improved” calendar and measurement system. Use of peer pressure and mob tactics to shape policy. Using deception of the masses to achieve objectives. Selfish groups banding together to strip wealth and power from average people.

hawksruleva on November 14, 2011 at 2:46 PM

You’re right, Socialism in Russia killed millions too. As did Socialism in China and Southeast Asia.

I was thinking more on the lines of the Left’s defense of Socialists like Castro and Chavez. Remember, Cuba has a great Health Care System, because Leftist Mikey Moore told us so!

Of course, that Cuban Health Care System didn’t help Leftist Icon Phillip Agee, who died in Cuba in 2008 of perforated ulcers. They couldn’t save him.

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM

As yet we don’t know the death toll has been in Socialist ‘Paradises’ like North Korea, Cuba, etc.

Funny we don’t find out how they were truly He.. holes until after their tyrannies end.

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Those bodies and the evidence of the massacres are all planted by ebil corporations after they have successfully destroyed these glorious and utopist regimes.

NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 2:54 PM

The sad fact is that Left has a very bad historic legacy it has to bear – hence the reason they attempt to distance themselves from Socialist tyrannies of the past and they’re attempt at blaming Nazism on others.

And they’re incessant attempts to shutter debate on the subject.

(Thank you for that link, BTW)

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Their legacy goes back even further. Liberalism’s roots go back to the French Revolution, which gave us most of the tired, failed ideas we see in liberalism today. Centralised planning of everything, down to a new, “improved” calendar and measurement system. Use of peer pressure and mob tactics to shape policy. Using deception of the masses to achieve objectives. Selfish groups banding together to strip wealth and power from average people.

hawksruleva on November 14, 2011 at 2:46 PM

If I could have but one wish, it would be that people could learn the mistakes of the past and not have to re-live and re-learn them.

How many times do we have to repeat the same lessons of history?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 2:58 PM

There’s no way it gets overturned. And Obama will pretty much be handed the election when it is upheld, because so many folks are going to come to the conclusion that there’s simply no longer any hope left for saving this country, and will sit home in 2012. And then the final phase for putting this country on the road to fundamental transformation will be complete.

But hey, look on the bright side, folks….at least John McCain lost. We showed him, didn’t we, lol?

xblade on November 14, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Unfortunately, one of Kennedy’s former chief law clerks says otherwise. He is currently a professor at GW law school, and he says Kennedy will likely vote to uphold it.

AZCoyote on November 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Maybe that’s why he’s a former law clerk of Kennedy’s.

Did he say uphold the with the mandate or without?

Vince on November 14, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Did he say uphold the with the mandate or without?

Vince on November 14, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Liberalism’s roots go back to the French Revolution, which gave us most of the tired, failed ideas we see in liberalism today. Centralised planning of everything, down to a new, “improved” calendar and measurement system. Use of peer pressure and mob tactics to shape policy. Using deception of the masses to achieve objectives. Selfish groups banding together to strip wealth and power from average people.

hawksruleva on November 14, 2011 at 2:46 PM

The French also invented Auto Racing, but according to the Left it was invented by brain-dead Republican Rednecks in the southern United States.

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Of course SCOTUS will rule the mandate Constitutional. It was a mistake to take Barry’s Big Fascist Medical System to our black-robed Statist overlords, but it’s likely part of TEAM RED’s plan anyway, since it’s the “conservatives” job to “conserve” all of TEAM BLUE’s “accomplishments.”

The Bush GOP could have prevented it when they had the majority for six years, but they were too busy expanding the Welfare State to an extent not seen since LBJ, going on endless, idiotic Islamic theocracy-building misadventures, building this sickening Police State we live under and, of course, bailing out banksters after Bush’s glorious Ownership Society collapsed.

Go Team!

Rae on November 14, 2011 at 3:23 PM

What isn’t even tangentially related to economic activity?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Carrying a gun in a school zone was ruled by the Supreme Court to not even be tangentially related to commerce. So there does exist a limiting principle, even if it’s not particularly limiting.

All I’m really saying is that proponents of the constitutionality of ObamaCare do have a limiting principle, and one that was explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in the past two decades.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Those on the Left are terrified that the Nazis might have in fact be Socialists, because it shoots to hell their assumptions that All Socialism is Good. Therefore, they are against all attempts to link the two together.

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I know many people on the Left, and none of them thinks that All Socialism is Good. In fact, most of them believe that all applications of socialism have been disastrous. The ones I consider to be most naive believe that socialism *could* work if done right, but that’s a minority among the people I’ve met and talked to.

Most want a system that is mostly capitalist, with a moderate amount of safety nets and welfare for important things like health care, education, and employment. They may be misguided, but I think most people on the left don’t want anything resembling Marxism.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 3:39 PM

What isn’t even tangentially related to economic activity?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Carrying a gun in a school zone was ruled by the Supreme Court to not even be tangentially related to commerce. So there does exist a limiting principle, even if it’s not particularly limiting.

All I’m really saying is that proponents of the constitutionality of ObamaCare do have a limiting principle, and one that was explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in the past two decades.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 3:32 PM

And each and every little step forward witnesses liberty taking a step in retreat.

Putting aside how Controversial and Unconstitutional Obamacare will drive the country over a cliff even faster, are you trying to assert that we’ll have anything left of a free-market after Obama’s variation of socialism is implemented on a national level?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Putting aside how Controversial and Unconstitutional Obamacare will drive the country over a cliff even faster, are you trying to assert that we’ll have anything left of a free-market after Obama’s variation of socialism is implemented on a national level?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM

First, our black-robed statist overlords are the ones who get to decide what is and isn’t Constitutional. Mind your place, mundane.

Second, we don’t have free market capitalism, and haven’t for about a hundred years.

Third, if Obama’s a socialist, then he’s doing it wrong.

And last but not least, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” — H. L. Mencken

Rae on November 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Putting aside how Controversial and Unconstitutional Obamacare will drive the country over a cliff even faster, are you trying to assert that we’ll have anything left of a free-market after Obama’s variation of socialism is implemented on a national level?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 3:40 PM

I think you must be exaggerating if you think that Obama’s policies are going to get rid of the entire free market. I guess it depends what you mean by “Obama’s variation of socialism” and “anything left of a free-market.” Assuming you’re not greatly exaggerating, which is hard to believe, then yes, of course there will be a very free market left even if every one of Obama’s policies are enacted. Specifically, the stock market, international trade, the ability to start and grow a business, freedom of contract, the ability to buy and sell products in a competitive market, etc. will all be left even in the most dramatic version of what you might think Obama’s policies are.

If you’re asking whether Obama wants to increase regulation in certain areas of business, like the power of unions and environmental regulations, and whether he would ultimately prefer a single-payer health system, then yes, I agree that he wants that. But I don’t think it would leave nothing of the free market behind.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Rae on November 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Socialism and Fascism are different sides of the same coin. How about Marxist philosophy since they are both born from that?

NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 4:10 PM

There’s no way it gets overturned. And Obama will pretty much be handed the election when it is upheld, because so many folks are going to come to the conclusion that there’s simply no longer any hope left for saving this country, and will sit home in 2012. And then the final phase for putting this country on the road to fundamental transformation will be complete.

But hey, look on the bright side, folks….at least John McCain lost. We showed him, didn’t we, lol?

xblade on November 14, 2011 at 2:59 PM

I think that you really, really underestimate the American People.

The American People will vote Obama out in 2012. The only way that he can win is if Romney is nominated by the Republicans (which I don’t think will happen) and then somebody comes along to his right (a la H. Ross Perot in 1992) and runs. And even then he might not win.

What’s your beef with McCain anyways? (I didn’t like him- I wanted Thompson, but I voted for him over Obama.)

Theophile on November 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I know many people on the Left, and none of them thinks that All Socialism is Good. In fact, most of them believe that all applications of socialism have been disastrous. The ones I consider to be most naive believe that socialism *could* work if done right, but that’s a minority among the people I’ve met and talked to.

Most want a system that is mostly capitalist, with a moderate amount of safety nets and welfare for important things like health care, education, and employment. They may be misguided, but I think most people on the left don’t want anything resembling Marxism.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 3:39 PM

You need to expand your circle of Leftist acquaintances!

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM

O’bama was endorsed in 2008, and has already been re-endorsed, by both the Democrat Socialists of the US as well as the American Communist Party. O’bama campaigned for Socialist Bernie Sanders, and was himself a member of a Socialist Party back in the 1990s.

In 2008 he was also endorsed by Francis Fox Piven:

But our problems are truly serious, and we need a president to lead in reversing course and setting new directions, a strong president with good sense and democratic inclinations. Even more urgently, we need to get rid of the Bush administration, and as soon as possible before yet more harm is done. But public dismay with current policy directions notwithstanding, I don’t think Obama’s victory is by any means assured. I hope, of course, but I am worried about stolen votes and rigged computers, the right-wing rumor network, the formidable propaganda machine, and also the residual racism and xenophobia of lots of Americans that this apparatus will tap.

If turnout remains high, an Obama victory could mean a realignment of American electoral politics around a majority coalition similar to the one forged in the New Deal era, with African Americans and Latinos replacing the white South as the reliable core of the coalition. The composition of this new coalition would encourage presidential rhetoric that in turn could spur movement activism. It would simultaneously generate the hope that is always the fuel of movements from the bottom of society, and it would put in place a regime that is vulnerable to those movements. If there is political salvation in the American future, it can only be forged through the dynamic interplay between progressive social movements and elected politicians.

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Let’s try it this – how is Obama’s push for Socialism on a national basis Different that what’s in place over in Europe?

And how is he going to avoid the very same pitfall?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Mitt hardest hit…

right2bright on November 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM

How? RomneyCare is constitutional. ObamaCare is NOT constitutional.

Its amazing how people claim to love and support the U.S. Constitution have very little understanding of it.

The truth is…Obama is hardest hit, not Mitt.

Conservative Samizdat on November 14, 2011 at 7:25 PM

It will be 5-4 to uphold. Government can do anything it wants to.

The End.

WisCon on November 14, 2011 at 7:56 PM

I think it will be 5-4 and found unconstitutional.

Conservative Samizdat on November 14, 2011 at 8:12 PM

It is possible the Supremes will make Kagan recuse herself (good grief, if ever there was a time to!) and it’ll be a 4-4 decision, meaning the lower court ruling (which struck down the mandate) will stand.

Rational Thought on November 14, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Let’s try it this – how is Obama’s push for Socialism on a national basis Different that what’s in place over in Europe?

And how is he going to avoid the very same pitfall?

Chip on November 14, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I don’t think Obama’s trying to institute full-scale European socialism, but even if he was, surely you don’t think there’s nothing “left of the free-market” in Europe, as you put it. You might not like it and think it’s way too socialist, but European countries still have plenty of free-market in them.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 10:04 PM

I don’t think Obama’s trying to institute full-scale European socialism, but even if he was, surely you don’t think there’s nothing “left of the free-market” in Europe, as you put it. You might not like it and think it’s way too socialist, but European countries still have plenty of free-market in them.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 10:04 PM

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2011/10/06/only-free-market-can-save-europe

Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 11:19 PM

I think you must be exaggerating if you think that Obama’s policies are going to get rid of the entire free market. I guess it depends what you mean by “Obama’s variation of socialism” and “anything left of a free-market.” Assuming you’re not greatly exaggerating, which is hard to believe, then yes, of course there will be a very free market left even if every one of Obama’s policies are enacted. Specifically, the stock market, international trade, the ability to start and grow a business, freedom of contract, the ability to buy and sell products in a competitive market, etc. will all be left even in the most dramatic version of what you might think Obama’s policies are.

If you’re asking whether Obama wants to increase regulation in certain areas of business, like the power of unions and environmental regulations, and whether he would ultimately prefer a single-payer health system, then yes, I agree that he wants that. But I don’t think it would leave nothing of the free market behind.

tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM

“of course”? I’m sorry (ok, maybe not), but I’m LOL at that.

I ask you, do you believe Adolf’s Germany had a free market? Do you believe he was a socialist? Don’t misuse/abuse Godwin’s Law here, because I’m using this specific example for a good reason.

How is the expansion of unions not a major encroachment into “a very free market”? How could you look at what our government did to GM and Chrysler, and the recent NLRB ruling on Boeing, and say that 0bamessiah is presiding over “a very free market”? How does significant government involvement in the student loan program, and the health care field, promote “a very free market”? How do Sarbanes–Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and the ever-expanding reach of the EPA benefit “a very free market”?

How can a true free marketer be a Keynesian – how could one comfortably tolerate massive government debt, income redistribution, and a self-justified definition of “fair tax rate” like 0bamessiah does? OWS is officially an anti-capitalistic movement, one that 0bamessiah expressed sympathy with and favorably compared to the Tea Party – how could a genuine free marketer be so stupid as to embrace rather than distance Himself from such a movement?

If you look at where those questions lead, but still believe that 0bamessiah’s economy/economic goals reflect the mentality of “a very free” marketer, the best that could be said about you is that you are incredibly naive with inadequate critical thinking skills – you’ve been indoctrinated with Orwellian Leftist propaganda, and you’re a wishful thinker who ignores what doesn’t jibe with your belief that 0bamessiah is a good capitalist.

The truth is, 0bamessiah is a dictatorial statist who believes that government bureaucrats can run markets better than businesspeople can, and who believes that the middle class and the poor don’t have a clear path to financial success in this country, and thus need government assistance to get ahead, something true free marketers reflexively scoff at.

Bizarro No. 1 on November 14, 2011 at 11:30 PM

rrpjr on November 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Because I didn’t need saving, it wasn’t meant to save me, but rather to point out what the entire group knows about you worshipers of St Palin the Victimized. You are weak minded, shallow, and cannot think beyond two dimensional thinking.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

csdeven on November 15, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on November 14, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Facts? Who needs those?

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on November 14, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Facts? Who needs those?

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2011 at 12:32 AM

PS I am talking about the person you’re responding to

Del Dolemonte on November 15, 2011 at 12:34 AM

He’d probably appoint more conservative justices than Reagan. Two of Reagan’s three SCOTUS appointments were pro-choice moderates.

Jon0815 on November 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Not at all a fair statement, since Reagan nominated Bork and the Democrats Borked him. And Reagan was assured that Souter would be a conservative justice.

Reagan had to fight to get nominees through a Senate controlled by Democrats. Up until Reagan nominated Bork, it was understood that the president’s nominees for SCOTUS would be accepted unless they were truly awful candidates.

This looks to me like just another feckless attempt to promote Romney by claiming he’s almost as conservative as the president he tried so hard to distance himself from throughout his political career.

I call a foul.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 15, 2011 at 2:30 AM

csdeven on November 15, 2011 at 12:02 AM

This woman really is your bete noire. Queeg might have been an understatement.

rrpjr on November 15, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3