Pelosi on ObamaCare: “We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

posted at 4:50 pm on March 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

How would she know? Her party’s all but given up on enumerated powers, at least in economic contexts. The first time she was asked to name which constitutional clause grants Congress the power to pass the mandate, her response was, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Turns out we were serious. As a famous woman once said, they had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. What was in it was an unconstitutional power grab. Surprise.

I’m intrigued, actually, by how low key Pelosi’s been about the ObamaCare wars this week. Yesterday, while liberals were screeching about conservative judicial activism and Dick Blumenthal was warning reporters that “the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance,” she went out of her way to say, “We respect the third branch of government and the role that they play under our Constitution.” Her thinking, I assume, is that she’s the public face of this boondoggle almost as much as Obama is, so if she comes out swinging at the Supremes it may annoy Anthony Kennedy just enough to fatally color his view of the statute. Judicial deliberations shouldn’t work that way, of course, but people are people. Tell them they’re hacks and morons and they’re naturally going to scrutinize your work product more closely.

Exit question via NRO’s Dan Foster: What’s the final Court vote on the mandate going to be? He thinks it’s 5-4 to strike it down with Kennedy writing for the majority. I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority. (The chief justice gets to decide who should write the opinion when he’s in the majority.) Kennedy’s open to the possibility that the mandate is constitutional if the government meets its “heavy burden” of showing that the law’s necessary and proper. He also appears open to the idea that health insurance is “unique” because one’s choice to remain uninsured affects the rates and availability of insurance for everyone else “in a way that is not true in other industries.” I think ultimately, rather than torpedo legislation this momentous on a 5-4 vote, he’ll err on the side of letting it stand if the opinion can be written narrowly enough to limit the decision to health insurance and nothing else. And once he makes that move, I think Roberts will join him for two reasons. One: I’m sure he’s sensitive to the grumbling about how divided and partisan the Court often seems, especially after he was confirmed promising to be a neutral “umpire.” If Kennedy’s going to defect and hand the liberals a 5-4 win, Roberts — who seemed less conclusively opposed to the statute during oral arguments than Scalia — may figure that he might as well cross the aisle too so that the Court seems less divided. Two: If he does cross the aisle, he can then write the majority opinion himself and make it as narrow as he and Kennedy like. The four liberals will sign onto anything to rubber-stamp this thing for their pal Barack. Joining them and Kennedy gives Roberts a measure of influence over the ruling that he wouldn’t have otherwise. Click the image to watch.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

How would she know if it was constitutional when it was written, if they had to pass it to find out what is in it?

Lying old scarecrow P.O.S.

Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

She’s an incoherent, bumbling mess in this vid.

Wait.

Nevermind. She’s always in incoherent, bumbling mess.

BKeyser on March 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

These Madame Tussaud wax pieces are getting less lifelike.

nico on March 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Click the image to watch.

No, it’s dinner time.

hillsoftx on March 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority.

That’s our eeyore!

rbj on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

AP … you are so cynical.

Paul-Cincy on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

They’ll strike it down. Roberts has to know now matter how narrow he writes the opinion to stick to only health care, Congress can find away around. How about forcing homeowners to buy solar panels? Why? Well we need a healthy environment. The environment is unique because everyone has to interact with it. So to guarantee the majority of Americans are not punished by the choices of a few, homeowners must buy solar panels.

Zaggs on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

My contempt for this woman, her party and her constituents knows no limit.

turfmann on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Pelosi on ObamaCare: “We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

Not in the USA, you certainly did not…

Khun Joe on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

One: I’m sure he’s sensitive to the grumbling about how divided and partisan the Court often seems, especially after he was confirmed promising to be a neutral “umpire.”

And why on earth should that matter?

Nobody on earth can touch John Roberts now. Liberal moaning about the Supreme Court’s “terrible partisanship” is one of their regular check boxes. (It’s one of the ways you can tell it’s really them, like Chuck Schumer proclaiming where nominees stand in relation to “the mainstream.”) If he were so concerned, he’d have voted the other way in Kelo, Citizens United, Ricci, and a host of other 5-4 decisions that liberals didn’t like.

KingGold on March 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Wait, did she say “constitutional” or “constipational”?

BRunner on March 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority.

Buzzkill.

But, that makes sense. Sigh.

changer1701 on March 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

QED: Why the Republican Party is called the stupid party.

EMD on March 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

My contempt for this woman, her party and her constituents knows no limit.

turfmann on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I’m with you times 1,000 on that one. It can’t be said in strong enough terms that would be allowed on this site or any other probably.

Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Our resident Eeyore is his resident Eeyore self.

amerpundit on March 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM

And once he makes that move, I think Roberts will join him for two reasons.

And neither of them are because it’s constitutional. So the constitutionality of the law is irrelevant. It’s all about looking good.

yhxqqsn on March 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM

allah pundit, sometimes I get annoyed with you, but then I remember your a Jet Fan and it explains everything fatalistic you post.

rob verdi on March 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I go the other way, 6-3 the mandate fails. Would Roberts prefer that 2 out of 3 in the public forget about ‘grumbling’ about Obamacare or the court’s being divided???

Bob in VA on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

KingGold on March 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Correction.

Kelo trampled private property rights to facilitate government central planning. The libs loved that one.

KingGold on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

It’s true of every industry that the more people buy a product the price goes down. Next up is a mandate tax credit to by Pelosi-mobiles.

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority.

If this happens, George W. Bush will be despised by both liberals and conservatives just for nominating Roberts. Kind of like his dad with Souter.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Wise Latina Powers Activate! Form of Concurring in Part and Dissenting In Part!

JeremiahJohnson on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

In addition to the Obamateurism of the Day, Hot Air needs another, occasional post of Pelosi comedy, maybe More Nonsense from Nancy or Pieties from Pelosi.

slp on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

We go back in time Part 1!
————————–

Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it
Mar 9 2010
***********

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

“Yes….the format, margins…syntax, everything was Constitutional. We even ran spell checker on it….are you serious?…what do you mean…of course it was constitutional…all of my documents are written constitutional font”

BobMbx on March 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy…

We passed the constitution around the time of your birth, it’s about time you find out what’s in it.

M240H on March 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Wait, did she say “constitutional” or “constipational”?

BRunner on March 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Close. Constifictional.

nico on March 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM

If Allahpundit is correct and “people are people,” then, as I said in another thread, the outcome is much more likely to go the other way. Sorry Allah, here’s why:

If people truly are people, one MUST consider the impact of the POTUS’s disgraceful comments during the state of the union address. When Odumbo insulted the Court over the Citizens United decision and misstated the opinion and the holding, the justices were visibly offended, with Roberts even verbalizing his offense. Now, who authored that opinion? Yep, Justice Kennedy–the key vote in the Obamacare decision.

Speaking from experience, attorneys instinctively and vehemently defend their legal positions, and having to sit and listen to a legal lightweight criticize their reasoning before the entire country and Congress was highly offensive, especially with no opportunity for defense. Given that Kennedy and Roberts easily articulated during orals how the act could be found unconstitutional, and given that, well, people really are people, payback could be a b_tch!

guitarman67 on March 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Someday, someone will collect the full range of Pelosi hacktastic quotes and this will go right in chapter one. She’s like the Joe Biden of the House.

Maybe, as an honorary Pelosi-ism we should include the fantastic Obamaism, “you know the feeling of signing your name to pages of barely understandable fine print?”

MTF on March 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

If he were so concerned, he’d have voted the other way in Kelo, Citizens United, Ricci, and a host of other 5-4 decisions that liberals didn’t like.

Um. Liberals liked the Kelo decision. Also, I’m quite certain he wasn’t on the court for that one. Like, I’d bet my life on it.

Andy in Colorado on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

They can call in the Kennedy amendment “Congress shall have the authority to nationalize any industry it wants, so long as it does so one industry at a time.”

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

so if she comes out swinging at the Supremes it may annoy Anthony Kennedy just enough to fatally color his view of the statute. Judicial deliberations shouldn’t work that way, of course, but people are people. Tell them they’re hacks and morons and they’re naturally going to scrutinize your work product more closely.

Could that also apply to using the SOTU address to publically sucker punch the justices attending?

a capella on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

“‘There ain’t no rules around here, we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make them up as we go along”

– Alcee Hastings, Impeached and Convicted ex-federal judge and current dem Congress-critter, commenting on the procedures used to shepherd ObamaCare/PACACA through Congress.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Pelosi on ObamaCare: “We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

Are you serious?

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

My understanding is that the SG never answered the questions regarding the limiting principle of the law. It’s difficult to believe that Roberts would introduce one in an opinion. In any event the precedent of constitutionality determined by subject matter doesn’t strike me as something a conservative justice would go anywhere near.

wolfsDad on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

If they approve it I’ll be moving to a different country because to quote Harry Reid “this war is lost!”

tim c on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

We go back in time,Part 2!
————————–

Nancy Pelosi – What she is willing to do to pass Healthcare
on Jan 31, 2010
*****************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imUyBlc7NHQ

(Jump the fence, pole vault over or parachute in. Sounds determined.)

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I’m sure he’s sensitive to the grumbling about how divided and partisan the Court often seems, especially after he was confirmed promising to be a neutral “umpire.”

The definition of “divided and partisan” is when Democrats don’t get what they want. I am assuming a man as brilliant as Roberts understands this. Despite the enourmous pressure that will be on him and the other justices, he has to put the constitution and this nation first without concern for how loud the caterwauling is going to be on the left.

Kataklysmic on March 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM

She is the reason the 8th amendment was added…

right2bright on March 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Wrote it? They didn’t even read it!

Wagthatdog on March 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM

guitarman67 on March 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Got a nice ring to it.

a capella on March 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

If Allahpundit is correct and “people are people,” then, as I said in another thread, the outcome is much more likely to go the other way. Sorry Allah, here’s why:

If people truly are people, one MUST consider the impact of the POTUS’s disgraceful comments during the state of the union address. When Odumbo insulted the Court over the Citizens United decision and misstated the opinion and the holding, the justices were visibly offended, with Roberts even verbalizing his offense. Now, who authored that opinion? Yep, Justice Kennedy–the key vote in the Obamacare decision.

Speaking from experience, attorneys instinctively and vehemently defend their legal positions, and having to sit and listen to a legal lightweight criticize their reasoning before the entire country and Congress was highly offensive, especially with no opportunity for defense. Given that Kennedy and Roberts easily articulated during orals how the act could be found unconstitutional, and given that, well, people really are people, payback could be a b_tch!

guitarman67 on March 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Very good point!!

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

While conceding that Obamacare is “momentous” (for that matter, so is a tidal wave, but I don’t want to be anywhere near one) that fact should have absolutely no place in this decision. Heaven help us all if it does. There’s no way that Roberts and Kennedy can craft an effective enough opinion to hold back government’s further assaults on individual liberty once they’ve rubber stamped this unconstitutional monstrosity.

natasha333 on March 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Allah, don’t comment on matters you don’t understand. Of course that would require you to quit your job here. That “curve ball” you mentioned is pure nonsense. Roberts will vote based on what he believes is right, not some asinine perception of the court people may or may not have.

echosyst on March 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Allahpundit, why have you abandoned us on Twitter?

kerrhome on March 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Someday, someone will collect the full range of Pelosi hacktastic quotes and this will go right in chapter one. She’s like the Joe Biden of the House.

Maybe she and Baghdad Bob can tour together.

BobMbx on March 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

One: I’m sure he’s sensitive to the grumbling about how divided and partisan the Court often seems, especially after he was confirmed promising to be a neutral “umpire.”

I hear this nonsense all the time about Roberts, yet I don’t recall him ever indicating he was on some sort of great crusade to achieve only 9-0 rulings. I think you have inhaled too deeply of this liberal talking point. Roberts may very well vote to support the mandate, but I doubt very much it will be because of a political consideration.

NotCoach on March 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Click the image to watch.

No, it’s dinner time.

hillsoftx on March 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

This.

Yakko77 on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

making Justice Breyer look smart…

tomg51 on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

We go back in time Part 3!
—————————

Nancy was also fighting in Iraq,at the same time!

PELOSI – “I WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN IRAQ”
May 28 2009
************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac_oTbglg5c

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Good to know that she views this as a game. What fun!

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority.

That would mark the certain end of America. I wouldn’t live in such a nation and many, many other Americans wouldn’t, either. The Constitutional Union of American States would form within a few years.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I think the 9 will go 6-3 to favor Hussein .
I even have some money riding on it.
I’m betting on the basis of wet noodles a k a ” spine” of the 6.
But I’ll kiss Humpbot if I LOSE this bet :P

burrata on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

My prediction? 4.5 to 4.5

Unprecedented.

BobMbx on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

No you didn’t!!!

But then maybe she meant to say confiscatorial.

dentarthurdent on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Pelosi you stupid delusional cow. It’s OVER. Your lies are exposed.

rayra on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Pelosi on ObamaCare: “We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”
==============

Oh ya,in the Warped Progressive Socialist LibTard MindSet!!
(sarc).

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority.

My god, you are a magnificently pessimistic bastard!

peski on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

She’s an incoherent, bumbling mess in this vid.

Wait.

Nevermind. She’s always in incoherent, bumbling mess.

BKeyser on March 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Is there anybody else out there that prays for the earthquake that would send CA to somewhere else (can take WA and OR at the same time) so that the middle of the country could live in peace?

Earthquakes are rare on the eastern coast so we’ll need a Plan B.

teejk on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

It may or may not be upheld, but at this point, I’d be a lot more surprised if it were upheld than a week ago.

And I kind of hate to say something this stark, but I truly believe it: If, in fact, the law is upheld, none of us has any moral duty to respect or obey the ruling or the act. I’m dead serious. The country will have been irrevocably, fundamentally changed if we accept such a putrid ruling, and the idea of America will be lost forever.

Andy in Colorado on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If he were so concerned, he’d have voted the other way in Kelo, Citizens United, Ricci, and a host of other 5-4 decisions that liberals didn’t like.

KingGold on March 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Just for accuracy’s sake, Kelo was before Roberts was on the court, and that one was 5-4 with the liberals plus Kennedy stamping approval on overly expansive eminent domain- Sandra Day actually sided with most of the GOP appointees for a change.

DavidW on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Good to know that she views this as a game. What fun!

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Cindy Munford:Her ComeUppance is over do!:)

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

AP’s reasoning on why Chief Justice Roberts would ever consider this was the most depressing revelation I have ever read at HA.

awake on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Pelosi on ObamaCare: “We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

Yes but who’s Constitution were you writing it for? Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, Venezuelan, Russian……

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Wait, did she say “constitutional” or “constipational”?

BRunner on March 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Close. Constifictional.

nico on March 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Maybe Contraceptual?

Deafdog on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

My prediction? 4.5 to 4.5

Unprecedented.

BobMbx on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Kennedy will be for it before he’s against it?

peski on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

With the way Dems vote, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a final tally of 9 to 5 in favor of Obummercare…..

dentarthurdent on March 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM

To quote a commercial by a company also run by a communist elite:

“No mas pantalones”

LegendHasIt on March 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I’m happy to say I think you’re wrong.

1: Even if Roberts and Kennedy voted with the 4 lefties, the 4 lefties would still have a concurrence that goes way farther than Kennedy or Roberts will tolerate. A 4 vote concurrence on a 6 – 3 win carries a lot more weight than a 4 vote dissent in a 5 – 4 loss.

Second, a collection of Roberts comments on the mandate.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But your theory is that there is a market in which everyone participates because everybody might need a certain range of health care services, and yet you’re requiring people who are never going to need pediatric or maternity services to participate in that market.

That’s not the comment of a man who’s going to vote for the Kool-aid.

As for Kennedy’s concerns that “health care is different”, Justice Alito has the answer to that:

the reason why there is cost- shifting is because the government has mandated that. It has required hospitals to provide emergency treatment and, instead of paying for that through a tax which would be born by everybody, it has required — it has set up a system in which the cost is surreptitiously shifted to people who have health insurance and who pay their bills when they go to the hospital.

5-4 for the good guys.

Greg Q on March 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM

AP’s reasoning on why Chief Justice Roberts would ever consider this was the most depressing revelation I have ever read at HA.

awake on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

What’s wrong with getting the Eeyore point of view ;)

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM

The country will have been irrevocably, fundamentally changed if we accept such a putrid ruling, and the idea of America will be lost forever.

Andy in Colorado on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Yep. One of the few reasons for my guarded optimism on this is because Kennedy already announced that he thought keeping the mandate would fundamentally change the relationship between the feral government and the individual. If he rules with the mandate, then it is explicit that it was done to change the very character of America.

I have my fingers crossed …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I don’t know, Justice Breyer, seemed more than a little unnerved that the Secretary of HHS had the power to withhold funds to states that don’t tow the line.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM

“we wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional ”

Well, some of it anyway. But the “way” you write it, the process, that is, does not make it constitutional.
using the DoI isn’t the same as The Constitution.

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM

again being guided by the “Congress Can Do Anything It Wants” clause of the Constitution…

i vote cede california to mexico. here, take it- it’s all yours.

mittens on March 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM

House Democrats‏@HouseDemocratsReply
Retweet

Have a Q about new health care benefits for young adults? Ask from 2-3pm EDT today in our #TwitterTownHall by adding #AskDems to your Q

Retweeted by Nancy Pelosi
http://twitter.com/#!/nancypelosi

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM

“We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

Obiviously she is referring to her coven’s constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

MessesWithTexas on March 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Is there anybody else out there that prays for the earthquake that would send CA to somewhere else (can take WA and OR at the same time) so that the middle of the country could live in peace?

Earthquakes are rare on the eastern coast so we’ll need a Plan B.

teejk on March 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I’m looking forward to the version of the future world almanac becoming reality that identifies California as “a small island off the west coast of the United States”.

dentarthurdent on March 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Zaggs on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

It can and probably will get worse than that. At some point these liberal-communist-democrat America haters on the “democrat” side of government will declare that anyone not fully subscribing to the liberal progressive socialist view of things is bad for the environment, bad for government, and bad for the economy so they must all be rounded up and eradicated.

The look on their faces when they realize their fantasy is over will be absolutely priceless. Then we can get on with building a free republic from the ashes of the old liberal tyranny.

Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Call me a silly optimist- 6/3 against with Kagan joining. Maybe she’s not all that we expect? Plus I really think this is different- enough of a major shift in the relationship between government and the people that now they’ve been given the chance the court will step on the brakes. Fingers crossed, and all that.

Scotsman on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I don’t even understand why she is out front running her mouth, is it some sort of passive attack on the Court?

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

damn you Allah

ted c on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority.

Now we know – allahpundit is debbiedowner.

Ann on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Scotsman on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I don’t know, she help push it through and did her level best to help the SG yesterday but pointing out the “boatloads” of money the Federal government is going to give the states.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:14 PM

“We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

Pelosi and the House dems didn’t really write anything. The bill that became PACACA was the Senate bill. Remember the DemonPass and all the house dem critters not wanting to have to vote for the Senate language … because of the kickbacks still in it and the rest of the dirt?

How do people forget these things so quickly?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 5:15 PM

QED: Why the Republican Party is called the stupid party.

EMD on March 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Are you serious? I thought it was the liberal left who are deranged.

chai on March 29, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I so hope that one of Sandra Fluke’s Madams flies away on her broom, in that light blue outfit she had on when the Obamination passed.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

It’s true of every industry that the more people buy a product the price goes down.

pedestrian on March 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Except for when it’s mandated by law. Then, there’s no reason for the price to be competitive.

UltimateBob on March 29, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Call me a silly optimist- 6/3 against with Kagan joining. Maybe she’s not all that we expect? Plus I really think this is different- enough of a major shift in the relationship between government and the people that now they’ve been given the chance the court will step on the brakes. Fingers crossed, and all that.

Scotsman on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

At least one of the liberals is going to join them. I am guessing Ginsburg, it’s just a hunch.

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold with Roberts writing for the majority.

BO will be bummed. Unless he wants to be a one termer.

forest on March 29, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Ginsburg isn’t a recent Obama appointee……

Dr Evil on March 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

AP, you better be dead wrong.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I say we put Pelosi in a hoodie and make her walk the streets in Florida overnight…..

dentarthurdent on March 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

“[It's Constitutional] Under several clauses, [b]the good and welfare clause[/b] and a couple others.”

– John Conyers, House Judiciary CHAIR … yes, the CHAIR of the Judiciary Committee during PACACA passage.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 5:18 PM

That would mark the certain end of America. I wouldn’t live in such a nation and many, many other Americans wouldn’t, either. The Constitutional Union of American States would form within a few years.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Good gawd.
Just silly.

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM

How would Pelosi know if it was constitutional? She didn’t even know what was in it!

CA_Conservative on March 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Call me a silly optimist- 6/3 against with Kagan joining.

Scotsman on March 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Thte Wise Latina(TM) would vote it down before Kagan would.

UltimateBob on March 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Nancy Pelosi Tweets
*******************

My op-ed in @sfgate on how the Affordable Care Act is creating a healthier America: http://goo.gl/kNaAl #HCWorks #HCR

Affordable Care Act for a healthier America
Nancy Pelosi
Fri Mar 23 2012
****************

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/23/EDCB1NOSLR.DTL
==================================

Right now, the up to 17 million under age 19 with pre-existing conditions can’t be denied coverage–in 2014 that expands to all! #AskDems
=========

Nancy Pelosi‏@NancyPelosiReply
Retweet

.@CAPAction 2.5 million additional young adults up to age 26 now have health insurance thx to #ACA-in 2014 virtually all will #AskDems
===========

Nancy Pelosi‏@NancyPelosiReply
Retweet

.@Smanjie In 2014 there will be exchanges where you can chose from a menu of options, like in Fed health plan http://go.usa.gov/EZS #AskDems
=========

http://twitter.com/#!/nancypelosi

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Good grief Allah, do you enjoy kicking puppies too?

trish333 on March 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Prlousy wrote that bill? I doubt if she has yet even read the lousy thing.

Someone give Etch-a-Sketchy a call since he is the one that wrote the origional.

DannoJyd on March 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Roberts has children and presumably will have grandchildren. I doubt he’d uphold Obamacare for appearances and consign his progeny to a dystopian future.

Charlemagne on March 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3