Paul Clement: What’s at stake here is the basic nature of our government

posted at 6:47 pm on March 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

He’s just 45 years old, a former Solicitor General under Bush, and gave the argument of his life yesterday on the most momentous day for small government before the Supreme Court in decades. At this point, I’d say he’s a mortal lock to be nominated by a future Republican president. So watch the clip. In a few years, this guy will have a lot of influence over your civil rights and obligations.

I keep thinking about Kennedy’s point yesterday that the mandate “changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way.” That’s the core of what the Constitution does — it defines the relationship between individual citizens (and the states) and the federal government. He was basically accusing the White House of trying to change the constitutional order. The logical next step in that chain of thought is “and you can’t do that without passing an amendment,” but instead he turned around and asked Verrilli whether there isn’t a “heavy burden of justification” for any law that seeks to do so. The suggestion seems to be that you can tweak the basics of Article I with a simple statute provided that you have a really good reason. Note to Kennedy: That logic is an even more fundamental change to the constitutional order than the mandate is.

The way they’re purporting to meet the “heavy burden of justification” is with the “health care is unique” argument. Noah Feldman makes it as well as anyone could, but he’s awfully heavy on the “necessary” and awfully light on the “proper.” The left’s point about “uniqueness” seems to me less a good-faith argument for why this law is kosher under relevant Commerce Clause precedent and more window dressing for the idea that because the law purports to solve a vexing long-term problem of life and death, the sheer necessity of it should diminish the requirement that it be proper. What they’re asking for, in other words, even though they can’t phrase it this way, is a waiver from the Commerce Clause because this boondoggle is that important. And Kennedy, per his “heavy burden of justification” reasoning, just might give it to them.

Update: As a counterpoint to Clement, go see what poor sap Donald Verrilli was reduced to arguing by the end of business today. Someone buy that guy a beer.


Related Posts:

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

But hey, meritocracy (hahahahaha) is a good thing

WryTrvllr on March 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

iPad no see clip. Single Payer is Still the Goal.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Listening to this young man argue in front of the Supreme Court shows the contrast in intellect between himself and the two newest members of the court.

dirtseller on March 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I heard Hannity on the radio today talking with Susan Estridge (sp?). She predicted that because this is an election year, conservative justices won’t make political waves for Obama.

To heck with the Constitution, think about the president’s career!

VibrioCocci on March 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

What they’re asking for, in other words, even though they can’t phrase it this way, is a waiver from the Commerce Clause. And Kennedy, per his “heavy burden of justification” reasoning, just might give it to them.

Health insurance is probably the only ‘commerce’ in the entire economy that is absolutely not ‘interstate’. You are specifically prohibited from purchasing it across state lines.

Dr Evil on March 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

the left is getting desperate. i think they have “the pelican brief” in mind for the conservative justices

gemini on March 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Yet, Clement will never sit on the bench at SCOTUS.

ElenaKagan on March 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

What they’re asking for, in other words, even though they can’t phrase it this way, is a waiver from the Commerce Clause. And Kennedy, per his “heavy burden of justification” reasoning, just might give it to them.

Didn’t Kennedy also say that he felt that if he accepted this is a special case the government would be back tomorrow with another special case? He sounded skeptical of accepting that this is a good idea.

amerpundit on March 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Update: As a counterpoint to Clement, go see what poor sap Donald Verrilli was reduced to arguing by the end of business today. Someone buy that guy a beer.

Hahaha. Liberals always have to fall back on “at least we tried” as their argument when everything goes to hell.

Chuck Schick on March 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

“He was basically accusing the White House of trying to change the constitutional order…”

A) Nail
B) Hammer
C) Some assembly required.

Seven Percent Solution on March 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

see what poor sap Donald Verrilli was reduced to arguing

The scoundrels always retreat to General Welfare. Daggum control freaks.

John the Libertarian on March 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM

There is another option, the Congress passes a bill that allows Health Insurance to be sold over state lines.

Dr Evil on March 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Paul Clement is impressive argued with tight reasoning, and he supposedly made his presentation and answered questions directed to him without notes (nor teleprompter). He is apparently a conservative jurist. Supreme material if GOP wins the White House?:

galtani on March 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM

As a counterpoint to Clement, go see what poor sap Donald Verrilli was reduced to arguing by the end of business today. Someone buy that guy a beer.

I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Yes, the stakes are enormous.

So each Supreme Court Justice should be voting very carefully.

The American people will be watching this decision (and actually reading the decision)very carefully.

The way each Judge votes will reflect on the types of Judges that Presidents have appointed.

So we should have a very clear understanding of the types of Judges that President Obama would appoint if he is elected to another term, before we vote in November.

wren on March 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

45?

That is one of the oldest looking 45′s I’ve seen in sometime.

He better get nomniated ASAP, ’cause when he’s 50, people are going to ask “how’s retirement”?

budfox on March 28, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Why is Obama Hussein Odinga sending such weaklings to argue his case ?
Why doesn’t he himself, the distinguished Constitutional scholar and his now proud patient dumping attorney missus convince the 9 ?
( Well not all 9, maybe just 6…the prune, Wide Latina and KD Lang need no convincing)

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

iPad no see clip. Single Payer is Still the Goal.
Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I can’t view the clip either and I’m not on an IPAD.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

God bless you, Mr. Clement !
Psst .. watch your back.

pambi on March 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Hearing Progs argue for Americans to give up their freedom to the government, it really sounds shockingly stupid. I’m just glad there are still some on the SCOTUS that still see that for what it is…

d1carter on March 28, 2012 at 7:10 PM

more window dressing for the idea that because the law purports to solve a vexing long-term problem of life and death

Say what?!! Life and death? Since when? They think this law has God powers now–or they do? Life and death is between me and my creator and the only way this ugly monstrosity has anything to do with life and death other than it is life-force sucking and the death of freedom is that I’ll fight to the death to get this bill of bs outta my life.

stukinIL4now on March 28, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Hey, you know who is good friend of Mitt Romney’s?

Paul Clement.

Just sayin’, is all.

Esoteric on March 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

The suggestion seems to be that you can tweak the basics of Article I with a simple statute provided that you have a really good reason. Note to Kennedy: That logic is an even more fundamental change to the constitutional order than the mandate is.

Exactly. All the liberals are using this weak “really good reason” logic. Example, Susan Estridge saying SCOTUS would uphold to avoid upsetting the election (one of the weakest “really good reasons” we’ve heard so far).

If you want to change the constitution, amend it. If you can’t succeed with the amendment, well then your “really good reason” just wasn’t as good as you thought it was.

Dee2008 on March 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Why is Obama Hussein Odinga sending such weaklings to argue his case ?
Why doesn’t he himself, the distinguished Constitutional scholar and his now proud patient dumping attorney missus convince the 9 ?
( Well not all 9, maybe just 6…the prune, Wide Latina and KD Lang need no convincing)

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

weakling???? That’s racist!!!!!!

WryTrvllr on March 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

It just goes to show that our constitution doesn’t really have any meaning. Justices are free to do as they wish.

ronval912 on March 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Good on ya, Mr. Clement. Let’s hope at least 5 of those justices have enough common sense to assert a limit to the Commerce Clause.

Can’t wait till June.

changer1701 on March 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

i was just over at scotusblog reading the daily summary on how the court was wringing its hands over what to do to save parts of the bill.

i know that a deference is due to the co-equal branch…but of course with the crooks, liars and corruption that mark the dim party it is hard to swallow the courts concerns

Or, better yet…from Instapundit

IGNORANCE IN OFFICE: Democratic Congressman and Senators on Constitutional Authority for ObamaCare:

Most of us know that when then-Speaker Pelosi was asked where the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact an “individual mandate,” she replied with a mocking “are you serious? Are you serious?”

Here are a few more pearls of constitutional wisdom from our elected representatives.

Rep. Conyers cited the “Good and Welfare Clause” as the source of Congress’s authority [there is no such clause].
Rep. Stark responded, “the federal government can do most anything in this country.”
Rep. Clyburn replied, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
Rep. Hare said “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest [...] It doesn’t matter to me.” When asked, “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority …?” He replied, “I don’t know.”
Sen. Akaka said he “not aware” of which Constitutional provision authorizes the healthcare bill.
Sen. Leahy added, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there’s no authority?”
Sen. Landrieu told a questioner, “I’ll leave that up to the constitutional lawyers on our staff.”

Something to keep in mind when someone argues that the Supreme Court should defer to the constitutional wisdom of its coequal branches.

Kakistocracy. Plus, from the comments: “The salient point is the fact that few members of Congress even read the 2700-page bill; yet some argue still that the Supreme Court should give Congress the presumption of Constitutionality in the bills it passes? Worse than ridiculous, such a contention is a call for judicial abdication of responsibility. And it is quite blatant. It is a call to abandon checks and balances, the very underpinning of our form of government. It is a call to tyranny.”

precisely

r keller on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Paul Clement is impressive argued with tight reasoning, and he supposedly made his presentation and answered questions directed to him without notes (nor teleprompter). He is apparently a conservative jurist. Supreme material if GOP wins the White House?:

galtani on March 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM

…he has no notes, takes no notes, and talks to each Justice’s rapid fire questions, as if he had the answer to the question before hand. He is good!

KOOLAID2 on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

I can’t view the clip either and I’m not on an IPAD.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Dare I ask, what are you on?

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

the prune, Wide Latina and KD Lang need no convincing)

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Wow, that was priceless. Can I borrow that???

WryTrvllr on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

You think Kennedy will go pro mandate allah?

Flapjackmaka on March 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Hey, you know who is good friend of Mitt Romney’s?

Paul Clement.

Just sayin’, is all.

Esoteric on March 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

If that is true, then it is, as our Vice President would say, “A big f***ing deal.”

The the most troubling argument I’ve had heard against Romney is that he is surrounded by RINO’s. If he has good friends like Clement, that blows that argument all to Hell.

fadetogray on March 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

So we should have a very clear understanding of the types of Judges that President Obama would appoint if he is elected to another term, before we vote in November.

wren on March 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Have not been impressed so far. I haven’t heard any clips of Sotomayor so assume she hasn’t said anything interesting. And Kagan sounds like an idiot. “Would you not want to preserve half the loaf?”…when doing so means the complete destruction of an entire industry. She sounds like a pathetic whiner, watching her pet project circling the drain.

Dee2008 on March 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

“…go see what poor sap Donald Verrilli was reduced to arguing by the end of business today. Someone buy that guy a beer.”

Please don’t stoop to feeling pity for somebody trying to defend the indefensible. Instead, remember Cox and Richardson and what they did when given the wrong thing to do by Nixon.

TeaPartyNation on March 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Why is Obama Hussein Odinga sending such weaklings to argue his case ?
Why doesn’t he himself, the distinguished Constitutional scholar and his now proud patient dumping attorney missus convince the 9 ?
( Well not all 9, maybe just 6…the prune, Wide Latina and KD Lang need no convincing)

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

It could be that neither one is licensed to practice law in the 57 United States of America.

RickB on March 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

already seeing the wh talking points on the lsm…

those evil right wing conservative judges, its all their fault, but hey no worries, let’s go for the single payer system

cmsinaz on March 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

And I used to have a problem with dumb Democrats!

If this administration had one good lawyer in their number, they would not be sitting at the Little Big Horn right now.

What a joke.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Good post. I was starting to think I had just overlooked the “Heavy Burden of Justification” clause in the Constitution that allows the government to do anything as long as it has a darned good excuse.

forest on March 28, 2012 at 7:25 PM

those evil right wing conservative judges, its all their fault, but hey no worries, let’s go for the single payer system

cmsinaz on March 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Catnip for the <30% or whatever who support single payer. For the rest of the country, not so much.

Dee2008 on March 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM

…he has no notes, takes no notes, and talks to each Justice’s rapid fire questions, as if he had the answer to the question before hand. He is good!

KOOLAID2 on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Hey, you know who is good friend of Mitt Romney’s?

Paul Clement.

Just sayin’, is all.

Esoteric on March 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Whether Paul Clement is a good friend of Romney should not prevent him from nominating best man for the job. Election has consequences. If we want a 45 years old conservative smart guy in the mold of Roberts, Scalia and Alito as the next Supreme, work to throw Barry out in November !!!

galtani on March 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

“Verrilli, after all, had months to come up with a succinct, plausible, limiting principle in defense of the individual mandate. He should have been able to repeat this backwards, forwards, upside down and in his sleep. Yet he could barely explain himself yesterday,…”

Unless there is no succinct, plausible, limiting principle in the law he is trying to defend. He can’t just manufacture something that has no basis in the law.

novaculus on March 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Great stuff from Clement. Regardless of how SCOTUS rules, this will come up again as long as we leave government the size it is. Mandatory federal social programs already changed the relationship of the national government to the citizen. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

J.E. Dyer on March 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I keep thinking about Kennedy’s point yesterday that the mandate “changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way.” That’s the core of what the Constitution does — it defines the relationship between individual citizens (and the states) and the federal government. He was basically accusing the White House of trying to change the constitutional order.

Didn’t Obama say he wanted to “Fundamentally change” our nation?

Obama is simply doing what he always said he wanted to do.

portlandon on March 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Yet, Clement will never sit on the bench at SCOTUS.

ElenaKagan on March 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Hmmm … that’s what your side said about Thomas too. Oops …

ShainS on March 28, 2012 at 7:38 PM

WryTrvllr on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

:)

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Great stuff from Clement. Regardless of how SCOTUS rules, this will come up again as long as we leave government the size it is. Mandatory federal social programs already changed the relationship of the national government to the citizen. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

J.E. Dyer on March 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM

LOL. So true; well said, J.E.!

ShainS on March 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

So SCOTUS approves ObamaCare. Next week they’ll be back saying EVERYONE HAS TO BUY A VOLT!

GarandFan on March 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Feldman’s argument doesn’t make any sense. We already have inaction on the part of an estimated 40 million people yet the health insurance market is not breaking down at all. Furthermore, his limiting principle is not very limiting. For example… everyone is in the “transportation” market and so one could argue that “By not buying [a bus pass], the [car driver] is depriving everyone of a public good.” By his logic, the government could mandate that we all buy bus passes.

Furthermore, if this mandate holds, it will give the government the power to mandate anything it deems a part of health care. It could force us all to buy a diet plan or gym membership the same way it forces us to buy coverage for substance abuse, if not directly then at a minimum through how HHS defines minimum coverage.

Heywood U. Reedmore on March 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Back on a regular mac. Where have I seen the fellow Clement before? He looks vaguely familiar. Seems like a great person to have arguing our view, regardless of his age. He presents well.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM

It could be that neither one is licensed to practice law in the 57 United States of America.

RickB on March 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

The Lean Stream Media didn’t report it, it did not happen

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Why doesn’t he himself, the distinguished Constitutional scholar and his now proud patient dumping attorney missus convince the 9 ?

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

You forgot their co-counsel, the esteemed Constitutional scholar who is our Vice President.

Surely Sheriff Joe would welcome the chance to appear before the SCOTUS and appeal directly to Judges Ito, Wapner, and Reinhold.

malclave on March 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Why does Susan Estrich think that SCOTUS owes Obama any cover for this upcoming election? Remember, Obama has gone out of his way to criticize and demean the justices, from a podium of no less than the a State of the Union Address.

Estrich is getting more stupid as she gets older.

karenhasfreedom on March 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM

And Kennedy, per his “heavy burden of justification” reasoning, just might give it to them.

Let’s hope he has more sense than that. Still, it was very troubling to hear Kennedy seem to suggest that Congress can act outside its constitutional authority, as long as it can meet some imaginary burden of justification.

AZCoyote on March 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

AZC, maybe Kennedy said that to keep a “pelican brief” squad from visiting his home before they announce their decision /wink

karenhasfreedom on March 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Kennedy’s point about fundamentally changing the relationship between the individual and the government was made in amicus briefs written and filed by the Landmark Legal Foundation (Mark levin) in Virginia and Florida in 2011. You can find the briefs at the Landmark web site or go to these links for the .pdf file of the briefs for Virginia and Florida.

stukinIL4now on March 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM

This afternoon I engaged in a very polite e-mail exchange with Prof. Feldman. I was trying to get across the economist’s perspective that what he’s identified as a limiting principle isn’t limiting at all; that for at least the last 40 years (since Akerlof’s 1970 paper on “lemon” markets) we’ve had theoretical support for the notion of asymmetric information resulting in severe adverse selection outside the narrow example of insurance; that economists see risk-spreading and quasi-insuring activities left and right (since well before von Neumann); and that any nonexcludable, nonrival positive consumption externality meets his standard for a “public good” threatened by the nonexistence or underdevelopment of these allegedly special-case markets.

In short I made the case that adverse selection, externalities and asymmetric information are probably the top three stories you’re likely to hear from economists as justification for “activist” policy, and they’d be the first things any students of Stiglitz or Akerlof would bring up in future briefs.

Economists minted in the last 35 years or so? This is the air we all breathe.

He seemed surprised to hear this.

DrSteve on March 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Dare I ask, what are you on?

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Assuming that wasn’t a snarky joke about drugs, the answer is a P.C. using firefox.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM

45?

That is one of the oldest looking 45′s I’ve seen in sometime.

He better get nomniated ASAP, ’cause when he’s 50, people are going to ask “how’s retirement”?

budfox on March 28, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Heh…I thought the same. I hope I don’t look that old.

CW on March 28, 2012 at 8:49 PM

“There is another option, the Congress passes a bill that allows Health Insurance to be sold over state lines.”

That will only happen if a Whole Bunch of lobbyists “grease their wheels”. Members of Congress are All About The Benjamins, and nothing else.

RADIOONE on March 28, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Dare I ask, what are you on?

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Assuming that wasn’t a snarky joke about drugs, the answer is a P.C. using firefox.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I’m on a PC using Firefox; and I watched it just fine.

Solaratov on March 28, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I’m on a PC using Firefox; and I watched it just fine.
Solaratov on March 28, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Still nothing but a black box for me. Maybe my most recent firefox update screwed up my ability to watch vids. I’ll have to try my Kindle Fire ….

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 10:04 PM

important to “secure the blessings of liberty” for those individuals who would otherwise face health care crises.

I strongly disagree that health care crises chip away at our liberty. We are free to do as we deem best for our own health. What he is talking about, like Nancy Pelosi, is the supposed benefit of a golden cage of dependency. I’m not so sure that’s a blessing.

PattyJ on March 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I’d say he’s a mortal lock to be nominated filibustered by a future Republican president Democrat congress

There you go. FIFY

rogaineguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM

CW on March 28, 2012 at 8:49 PM

I’m 41 going on 42 and if I had a dime for every time I’ve been told that I don’t look enough …I’d wouldn’t be living in west Texas.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Assuming that wasn’t a snarky joke about drugs, the answer is a P.C. using firefox.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM

No it wasn’t. FF had an update yesterday, I think it was. Have you installed the anti refresh software to keep HA pages from auto refreshing? You might have a look at that. Its in FF plug ins or add on’s I think. Flash vids days are numbered if you ask me. There is a move to get away from using flash. Also just double check to make sure the FF updater completed. I have had it stop in mid update and not make me aware of it. You try that stuff and let me know. P.S. I hadn’t thought of it but you’re right it would have been pretty descent snark.

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM

No it wasn’t. FF had an update yesterday, I think it was. Have you installed the anti refresh software to keep HA pages from auto refreshing? You might have a look at that. Its in FF plug ins or add on’s I think. Flash vids days are numbered if you ask me. There is a move to get away from using flash. Also just double check to make sure the FF updater completed. I have had it stop in mid update and not make me aware of it. You try that stuff and let me know. P.S. I hadn’t thought of it but you’re right it would have been pretty descent snark.
Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM

ARGGH, don’t have time to deal with this right now. Yes, Firefox did update yesterday and there were some “add ons” they couldn’t install. A few days ago the updater didn’t complete. Don’t know if that has anything to do with it. I’ll save this message and try to figure it out tomorrow. My kid tells me I should switch to Chrome but I don’t want more Google in my life. It’s bad enough they’re scanning our Gmails now so they can be oh so considerate and tailor ads to lucky us!

And, yes, it would have been great snark. But it would not have gone over my head:)

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Personally, I cannot stand the idea that my God given rights are determined by nine appointed lawyers. What would happen if we won this battle? Then Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. The main argument that the Supreme Court wrote in favor of their ruling was not “Women’s Rights” but the right of a medical doctor to practice medicine freely from state control. With every victory comes a cost.

OliverB on March 28, 2012 at 11:22 PM

My friend in the TX AG’s office was absolutely stoked that Clement had been chosen, and predicted a fantastic performance. He was right, it seems.

TexasDan on March 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Leftists adhere to a fundamentalist agenda which they will lie, cheat and steal to implement. The erosion of personal liberty, the lesser cause in their mind, is the trade off for the noble good of “from each according to their means to each according to their needs”.

The evidence is 2 of the 3 branches of gov’t controlled by the leftists were willing to pass Obamacare by slight of hand to simply set a precedent of ending the liberty and making gov’t oppression absolute of a supposedly free people the new standard.

What particularly galls me is we have Supreme Court Justices (Ginsburg and Beyer) actively supporting arguments to destroy civil liberties while their sole duty is to defend the rights of a free people.

I gotta say this. The problem is in existing regulation of healthcare. The fact that no service can be refused (by federal law) flies in the face of human nature.

If a person is able and willing to by insurance and CHOOSES to by a motorcycle instead then slams into a telephone pole has NO RIGHT to expect the rest of us to pack his bacon. It will take one time (maybe twice) for a moocher a-hole to die and everyone that is paying attention will be buying insurance.

Well most that took advantage of the collectives marginal education anyway:

Should we take care of those that can’t? Yeah, but subsidizing those that won’t is BS.

My kid is in in the Armed service. When out will eventually not be eligible for coverage under my employer provided plan according current law in my state. I WILL buy catastrophic insurance out of pocket for my child to protect them and ME while my kid is finishing school and seeking employment. Total cost $80/month.

Should I depend on you to provide health care for my child? I say F*&k you, I will take care of myself and mine. What I ask you has happened to us? Why my god are not more thinking people libertarian?

old school on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Sorry, here’s the link link to dumb a$$’s that haven’t figured it out:
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-again-135069773.html

Bottom line is get real: http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-again-135069773.html

old school on March 29, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Hey, you know who is good friend of Mitt Romney’s?

Paul Clement.

Just sayin’, is all.

Esoteric on March 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

What NASCAR team does Clement own :-)

MJBrutus on March 29, 2012 at 6:10 AM

So SCOTUS approves ObamaCare. Next week they’ll be back saying EVERYONE HAS TO BUY A VOLT!

GarandFan on March 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Well, they won’t actually make you buy one, but if you don’t, you’ll have to pay a $10,000 fee for the privilege of driving another non-government car.

stenwin77 on March 29, 2012 at 6:16 AM

…the prune, Wide Latina and KD Lang need no convincing)

burrata on March 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

BWAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

ghostwalker1 on March 29, 2012 at 7:34 AM

A court watcher mentioned that Clement did his entire presentation and faced the justices without notes, or even a legal pad.

That is remarkable.

aquaviva on March 29, 2012 at 8:51 AM

At this point, I’d say he’s a mortal lock to be nominated by a future Republican president.

After playing a key role in torpedoing (hopefully) the liberal’s once in a lifetime power grab? The poor guy would be murdering children and having sex with animals by the time the Dems and the media got done with him and any nomination he was a part of. He’s taking one for the team and likely losing any chance for a federal position in the future.

jnelchef on March 29, 2012 at 3:12 PM

It shouldn’t shock anyone. Obama announced that his purpose was to “fundamentally [transform] the United States of America” before he was elected. It was one of the themes of his campaign.

Let this be a lesson to us. Progressives are seriously intent on gutting the Constitution. The individual mandate benefits some of us at the cost of our fundamental relationship to the government that was part of our patrimony. Obama needs to be hit back twice as hard.

flataffect on March 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM