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

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

Didn’t you like the fact we bribed a couple of senators to get them to vote for it, and included provisions about abortion that we are now going to ignore? What’s not to like?

GarandFan on March 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM

If her mouth is moving, she’s lying.

BallisticBob on March 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM

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

Roberts wasn’t on SCOTUS for Kelo. Rehnquist was Chief Justice when Kelo was decided.

cheeflo on March 29, 2012 at 5:21 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

Exactly – like the teacher’s union health insurance in Wisconsin when they had a CBA mandated monopoly.
Competition among vendors and plenty of supply of services/products is what makes prices come down.
In the basic supply and demand equation, more demand with static supply leads to higher prices, not lower.

dentarthurdent on March 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM

We have to pass it do see what’s in it.

Good Lt on March 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

I think Allah’s pessimism regarding the final SCOTUS ruling is well-founded. I’m betting SCOTUS will support the mandate and ObamaCare in toto. Kennedy will follow his natural inclinations and go Left while Roberts will balk at the thought of repudiating President Obama’s signature accomplishment during a highly charged presidential election year.

It’s odd what seems to me so plain–that the mandate and ObamaCare are the key that unlocks the door to unbridled federal power–is so lost on so many very smart people. Is it they don’t mind a dictatorship as long as its intentions are so seemingly benevolent?

Assuming SCOTUS approves the constitionality of ObamaCare, then what? That’s trillions of dollars we can’t possibly afford, especially with a potentially catastrophic economic crisis coming our way not if but when. Surely the Democrats have budgetary and finance experts who can see the numbers as clearly as we do. Do they want economic catastrophe? Is what’s about to happen going to be spun as a crisis of capitalism?

We very badly need to win this election.

troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Ha there ever been a more irresponsible congress than the one led by this nitwit?

Lonetown on March 29, 2012 at 5:23 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

Her two very public comments( Pass it to see it and Serious?) put her in extremely bad light now that issue is before SCOTUS.
If court rejects Obamacare, she will go down as the a most ignorant Speaker EVAH !!

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

“No mas pantalones”

LegendHasIt on March 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Heh, imagine Madam Pelosi, Messrs Reid and Obama sin los pantalones.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM

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

You nailed it. Kudos.

JannyMae on March 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I wish someone from the MSM would ask Pelosi the following easy question – with probably a hard to come up with answer:

Why was severability left off Obamacare?

With intent or lack of competence…… Then follow up with some good old reporting on history of the “non-inclusion” of “severability”.

I know I’m asking the MSM to have some balls and actually do some reporting. One can dream……

bubbafromkc on March 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM

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

I agree. Roberts is particularly annoyed that the law forces everyone to buy THE SAME expensive and often unnecessary health insurance, and did not provide a catastrophic option. Pelosi and co. really blew it there.

I have a completely different take than Allah on the result. I think it will be 7-2 or 6-3 to throw out the mandate, 7-2 (and possibly even 9-0) to uphold the Medicaid expansion, and 6-3 to uphold the rest of the law, with Roberts and Kennedy in the majority. If the conservatives insist on throwing out the entire law, then the liberals will vote to support as much of it as they can, and Roberts doesn’t want any 5-4 decisions here. The best way for him to split the baby is to get a solid majority against the mandate and a solid majority to keep the rest of it. That throws the thing back to Congress, but as Ginsburg stated, as a salvage job rather than a wrecking job.

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

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

Yeah, after you wiped your *ss with the constitution, you took your pen, dipped it in the sh*t, and voila! The ACA appeared!

JAM on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

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

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

It’s depressing and despairing, when we should be sharpening our knives and getting our war face on.

squint on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3

I think that could happen. I said the other day that the 6th vote would come from either Breyer or Sotomayor. Now I think it will be Sotomayor.

cicerone on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

So, the liberal justices can make an unprincipled decision, but the more conservative justices must not? They should go along to keep down the flak..? What a country!

d1carter on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 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

Deafdog:I’m thinking Immaculate Conception,oh wait…nevermind!:)

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

I’ll let her keep that title regardless of the outcome.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Whose constitution, Nanzi? Whose?

ExpressoBold on March 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Allah, you’re out of your mind.

Showing deference to the process is not the same as showing how you’d vote. There are three things at work: 1) the limits of Federal power, 2) The tortured insanity that has become ‘commerce clause’ legislation and jurisprudence over the last half century, and 3) basic contract law – coercion is forbidden for a contract to be valid.

Just because the solicitor general is having his bacon saved by the four liberal justices doesn’t mean the rest don’t recognize enumerated powers.

If this court doesn’t strike this down, America is truly over, and the Constitution doesn’t mean anything.

Which is why they will.

Pablo Snooze on March 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM

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

cheeflo on March 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Quite right. Completely confused Kelo with a different decision. Ugh.

If anyone needs me, I’ll be sitting on the time-out stool.

KingGold on March 29, 2012 at 5:26 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

Ginsburg seemed pretty pro-mandate during oral arguments.

NotCoach on March 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

That is some very cute hypothesizing, AP. Why stop with Roberts? Why not a unanimity pile-on to clinch your point?

IF Obamacare survives its incredibly weak defense then it won’t be because of the imagined advantages of jockeying for influence, it will be because the bench understands the Constitution about as well as Team Barry.

Thanks for harshing the mellow. Whether Obamacare is upheld or tossed, why should anyone enjoy the warm glow of the second possibility. You are correct to roll out the spissated gloom, no room for cheer while Mr. Obama rules. There you go. We’re all as miserable now as we were before Mr. Verrilli gave us hope.

DGB

Damian Bennett on March 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

How’s about the White House sending a proposal to Congress and Congress passing a bill to require that all adult Americans join the Democrat Party or face fines and sanctions for not doing so?

The preponderance of Americans are affected daily by the so-called lack of bi-partisanship in Congress, and billions are wasted every year or so for local, state and federal elections, and that loss severely impacts the people, right?

And if there were only one party, then there would be no divisiveness?

And, there would be grave damage if it a statute of this magnitude and importance were to be stricken by the USSC, right?

And as for the economy, we’ve seen how much our our tax dollars are wasted on pork barrel projects designed to get candidates re-elected, so if there was only one party, the party leadership could choose the candidates and end pork-barrel politics once and for all, and that would be a real boon to the economy.

Heck, we’d be able to streamline things by having a Central Committee pick which industries will get federal funds and which ones would be shut down, and we could convert everything and everybody to use only clean, friendly, green energy as well.

And this thing about having to re-elect a President every four years, well, we know four years is not long enough for a President to even get settled into the White House let alone carry out sweeping changes for all of America’s children, so why not just have the one Party choose the President and let the President rule for as long as the Party allows him/her to do so?

That would make it so much easier to deal with foreign governments as well…none of this waiting around until after the election to deal with the Russians on missile defense and such.

So…let’s make the Constitution a living breathing modern document and get these simple cost-effective, healthy to the economy and good for the people changes initiated sooner rather than later, OK?

See?

That was easy. Once the USSC says that Obamacare and the mandate are perfectly OK, there’s no stopping us from reaching for the stars and ushering a brave new world…where the tides recede and unicorns and Skittles abound…and we all can sit around and sing Kumbaya.

And if everybody in The Party agrees, that’d make all of this perfectly Constitutional.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

wish someone from the MSM would ask Pelosi the following easy question – with probably a hard to come up with answer:

Why was severability left off Obamacare?

With intent or lack of competence…… Then follow up with some good old reporting on history of the “non-inclusion” of “severability”.

I know I’m asking the MSM to have some balls and actually do some reporting. One can dream……

bubbafromkc on March 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM

My understanding is that you can’t have a severability clause in a reconciliation bill. The whole point of reconciliation is to reconcile various taxing and spending measures, so it all has to be voted on as a whole.

So once again, Queen Nancy is hoist on her own petard.

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Each justice has two sides to their brain- the political side and the legally trained side. To vote to uphold has to be a giant leap past cognitive dissonance for the liberals. Sure, they have their politics, but they also must have some love of the law or they wouldn’t have gotten to where they are. I’m betting reason wins out, perhaps at great personal expense, but wins out none the less. At least for one of the four.

Scotsman on March 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

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

Chances are much bigger that the dumb righties will join the extreme lefties. At least they have ‘principles’, and stick by them.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Piglossi gets her knowledge about the Constitution behind closed doors from her buyers .
Scroll down to


Top 5 Industries, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte

burrata on March 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

It’s been written elsewhere that Kennedy is NOT a squish on Commerce Clause or First Amendment cases, and never has been. He has never voted with the liberals in any of them. Kelo was not a Commerce Clause case.

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM

So once again, Queen Nancy is hoist on her own petard.

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

As the witch s/b. She passed it with thuggery, she needs to get punished harshly.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 5:30 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

Cindy Munford:

Sorry for the late responce.Ya you have to wonder about that,
as if she is going to brow-beat SCOTUS!

I posted a bunch of Pelosi tweets,and it looks as if its hung
up in the internet abyss,anywho,read a couple!:)

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

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

If court rejects Obamacare, she will go down as the a most ignorant Speaker EVAH !!

I think that Palomino Pelosi has had a good handle on that position for a while now.

teke184 on March 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Well, all I know is this coming July 4th we will

- be toasting the SCOTUS or

- damning Baracka or

- taking some target practice.

If it’s the last one, I’m changing my name to Butcher Dick and looking for lawyers.

OkieDoc on March 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I will have lost all confidence in the Supreme Court, if it turns out the way you think, Allahpundit. I’m just an ordinary citizen, but from no angle can I see that as justification for upholding Obamacare when all they really need to do is answer one question: Does the constitution provide the federal government with the power to oversee every aspect of our lives? The answer should be NO.

poli-nana on March 29, 2012 at 5:32 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 am calling bull**** on this one AP! What is this high school??

We need to make major decision that effect the country and its future to appear bipartisan? The Justices more than anyone read decisions liem Roe vs Wade and know THIS IS THEIR LEGACY if they go with the liberals and big government. This is not a throwaway case where you look to curry favor. You ARE WAYYY off with this popularity contest Bull****!

No conservative justice is going to enforce Obamacare and have to live with THAT reading of the constitution as their intellectual LEGACY.

NO!!! WAY!!! IT!!! HAPPENS!!!

Conan on March 29, 2012 at 5:32 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.

Curves aren’t that hard to hit. Try a slider. Could just as easily break the other way 6-3. Roberts could be playing devils advocate. We may just find out one of the libs has been playing opossum.

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Heh, imagine Madam Pelosi, Messrs Reid and Obama sin los pantalones.
Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I try not to think of such.

I was referring to the “Liar Liar, Pants on Fire” concept of the commercial.

LegendHasIt on March 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I know I’m asking the MSM to have some balls and actually do some reporting. One can dream……

bubbafromkc on March 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Actually, I saw a pretty good example today of a reporter actually doing her job. From CNN, of all places.

UltimateBob on March 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Yup. I’ll take the curveball.

The SCOTUS will uphold. Additionally, President Barack Hussein Obama will be reelected to another excruciating 4-years — termed out with nothing to lose — and the flood gates of Barack Obama’s bloodless coup will open wide.

It will be very interesting [as a colossal understatement] to see what happens to our country, and to us all, during and after the death-throws of what was once the United States of America.

FlatFoot on March 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I’ll let her keep that title regardless of the outcome.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM

She earned it, for sure.
FWIW, Reid has been quiet, no?

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Do any of the Pelosi businesses have a case that is headed to the SCOTUS..?

d1carter on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

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.

1) The partisanship is on both sides; so the conservative wing must cave because…they just don’t want to hear liberals whining? Too damn bad.

2) I wonder if Roberts is sensitive to grumblings about himself, because if he joins the liberals, he’ll never hear the end of it from conservatives.

3) Why is a 5-4 decision so unpalatable? It happens all the time in important cases (see Boumediene).

4) Umm, for a change, can’t these folks simply vote on the constitutionality of this legislation without taking the above nonsense into consideration? Or is it too much to ask highly educated jurists to actually do their jobs?

Erich66 on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The four liberals will sign onto anything to rubber-stamp this thing for their pal Barack.

This, I completely agree with.

But as to trying to second-guess the decision, especially as to Kennedy and Roberts, I can’t beyond entertaining “one way or the other”…I mean by that that there’s no way to literally know what they’ll decide with any certainty until they announce in June what they’ve decided, other than to know:

The four liberals will sign onto anything to rubber-stamp this thing for their pal Barack.

As to Roberts, you’ve made an interesting description of a possible outcome but I just can’t go there.

Kennedy, however, seems to have lapsed into criticism for purposes of confusing the outcome — meaning, he’s aired his doubts but not necessarily because he’s not going to support the dratted thing.

AS TO WHAT PELOSI SAID, it was Anthony Weiner who claims he “wrote the health care bill” and what Pelosi said (in total, the rest of her comments in that video) is more of her abuses of reality. It’s to the point where we need a Pelosi-Decoder device just to avoid concluding she’s insane.

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 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

Ginsburg seemed pretty pro-mandate during oral arguments.

NotCoach on March 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM

She definitely is pro-mandate. And remember, she was the one who told another government not to model their constitution after ours, because ours was outdated (paraphrasing). So she isn’t too bright. Or principled.

My money is on the Wise Latina to turn on Team Zer0. Oh, how I would love to see that.

UltimateBob on March 29, 2012 at 5:38 PM

It’s to the point where we need a Pelosi-Decoder device just to avoid concluding she’s insane.
Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Lourdes, not even 20 million Captain Midnight decoder rings would assist in avoiding the conclusion that Pelosi is indeed insane.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM

I am amazed this woman can wipe her own azz!

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 5:41 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.

I’m with the conventional wisdom — 5/4 right along party lines. If anyone is going to “err” it will be on the side of “most people hate this bill and Congress lied and cheated every step of the way to pass it, so it must suck at it’s very core”, and so it does.

And if O’Bozo chokes on a sharp bone, we can begin the painful work of getting more than 4 1/2 people with functioning brains on SCOTUS.

Jaibones on March 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Curves aren’t that hard to hit. Try a slider. Could just as easily break the other way 6-3. Roberts could be playing devils advocate. We may just find out one of the libs has been playing opossum.

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Wondering why I came to catch up on today’s news, uuuuuughhhh.
Ap sometimes makes me want to take a butter knife to my wrists.
(being dramatic) It’s going to be a long 3 months.

MontanaMmmm on March 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM

guitarman67 on March 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Very good point!!

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

x3…well thought out, GM67

hillsoftx on March 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Yup. They gave it a serious inquiry too. I believe it was “Are you serious?!”

Axeman on March 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

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

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Pablo Snooze on March 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Thank you for your comments. I am a big AP fan, but sometimes he can be so Eeyoreish that I feel like slashing my wrists. Thanks for talking me down.

Kataklysmic on March 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

AP, this post is going to get linked on every lefty blog, just watch. It’s a cynical take on Roberts for sure. However, I am not convinced that he’ll rule to uphold the law just so he can write the majority opinion.

GeorgiaBuckeye on March 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I’ll bet you $1000 to any charity you want that Roberts will not vote in favor of the Mandate, much less write the opinion for it.

Opposite Day on March 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM

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.”

This is not true. Not buying something will always affect the price of that something no matter what it is. Not buying a GM but instead buying a Toyota affects the price of both GM and Toyota products in the long run. There is less demand for GM, hence the price of GM goes down. There is more demand for Toyota, hence the price goes up. There’s a reason a used 3 year old Camry sells for 60% of its MSRP while a 3 year old Chevy sells for 40% of MSRP. It’s because people’s actions to buy one vs. the other affects price.

angryed on March 29, 2012 at 5:46 PM

It’s to the point where we need a Pelosi-Decoder device just to avoid concluding she’s insane.
Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The mental gymnastics needed to avoid that conclusion would be the cognitive equivilent of Nadia Comaneci.

tommyboy on March 29, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Kennedy’s comments on a fundamental change between people and govt. should have a profound effect on the liberal justices.
1st amendment and civil rights immediately come to mind.
Its one thing to have a free choice to do something, entirely another matter to be told.
If they do not reject, at least the mandate, there is no need for SCOTUS.

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

AP, I think your East Coast surroundings have given you somewhat of a distorted view of the court. Or At least I hope.

No, I think the mandate will get stuck down but I’m not nearly as confident on the rest of the law. Remember, the left is not enamored with the individual mandate either. It’s single payer they’re after.

WisRich on March 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

“Justice Kennedy’s 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.”

This is such a load of BS and at the same time absolutely scary sh*t that anyone is seriously considering this line of thinking. We know the law of supply and demand. The price of anything may be affected by who buys and who does not buy. For example, how many people drink beer or alcohol? In particular how many people drink Pilsner Urquell? I would bet not very many. If I apply the logic above to my “unique” beer, then the SCOTUS could rule that people must buy my brand of beer or else Pilsner Urquell is too expensive for the folks who drink it! That is totally rediculus!

Zaz on March 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Wondering why I came to catch up on today’s news, uuuuuughhhh.
Ap sometimes makes me want to take a butter knife to my wrists.
(being dramatic) It’s going to be a long 3 months.

MontanaMmmm on March 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Yes it is, and the mosquitoes are already out down here, love the hot weather though.

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 5:49 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.

I hope you’re wrong… If anybody accuses anyone of judicial activism, let them simply point to the 9th Circuit Ct… Liberal justices are activist 1st, justices 2nd by definition.

If Roberts swings the SCOTUS 6-3 in favor of this g’dam aberration, because e wants control over writing the opinion? And doesn’t want to hurt liberals feelings?

WTF AP? This is why whoever is President can have such influence, isn’t is? If it wasn’t for Obama arguably appointing 2 new socialists in Kagan & Sotamayor, it shouldn’t even be this close.

F’k liberals. If the Democrats love this law so much, then perhaps it should mandate that only the DNC, all union members, and any registered Democrat should be solely responsible for funding this atrocious overreaching government subsidizing piece of trash.

Danny on March 29, 2012 at 5:49 PM

The mandate is toast; the only contentious issue at this point is severabiity. Even Sotomayor admits it – she let the cat out of the bag yesterday with her question as to whether they couldn’t just kill the mandate and let Congress deal with the rest of the bill. It was kind of sad really, almost a plea.

The administration was given every opportunity during oral arguments to offer up a valid limiting principle for the mandate and failed. Without a limiting principle, the mandate does change the relationship between the individual citizen and the Federal government in profound and fundamental way, as Kennedy noted, and he’s not going to go there.

If the whole bill is declared unconstitutional, it will be because the court does not want to appear to be “rewriting” health care; Scalia may write the opinion. If it is just the mandate, Sotomayor might have been effective in arguing that it is Congress’s job to fix the bill after the court does its job. I’m doubtful, however, because Kennedy was very skeptical about leaving Obamacare intact without the mandate and potentially destroying the private insurance market. Sotomayor may argue that Congress will have to fix the mandate-less bill, but there is no guarantee.

Honestly, I think that if the mandate only is struck down, it’ll be 6-3 with Sotomayor joining the majority. She’s got a bit more sense than the idiot Kagan, the dunce Breyer, and the insane Ginsberg. If the whole bill goes down it’s 5-4. I think it will be the latter.

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2012 at 5:49 PM

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

I agree. Roberts is particularly annoyed that the law forces everyone to buy THE SAME expensive and often unnecessary health insurance, and did not provide a catastrophic option. Pelosi and co. really blew it there.

I have a completely different take than Allah on the result. I think it will be 7-2 or 6-3 to throw out the mandate, 7-2 (and possibly even 9-0) to uphold the Medicaid expansion, and 6-3 to uphold the rest of the law, with Roberts and Kennedy in the majority. If the conservatives insist on throwing out the entire law, then the liberals will vote to support as much of it as they can, and Roberts doesn’t want any 5-4 decisions here. The best way for him to split the baby is to get a solid majority against the mandate and a solid majority to keep the rest of it. That throws the thing back to Congress, but as Ginsburg stated, as a salvage job rather than a wrecking job.

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I have it different,

I have 6-3 against the mandate
6-3 upholding Medicare
5-4 against the total bill to start over

Conservative4ev on March 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Its one thing to have a free choice to do something, entirely another matter to be told.
Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Didn’t we used to call that slavery?

tommyboy on March 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM

angryed on March 29, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Hell’s bells, angryed, that’s a simple fix.

Once the mandate is upheld, the White House can issue an Executive order requiring all American adults buy only GM cars. That’s boost the economy, lessen the angst and burden of having to make a choice whether Toyota or Volvo, Volkswagen or Ford, right?

And with only one car maker making cars in America, GM, it’d streamline things and the price of cars would necessarily plummet.

[Face it, progressives will never, ever, understand simple market mechanics.]

coldwarrior on March 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM

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.

Oh! So that’s how the Court’s supposed to work.

Kensington on March 29, 2012 at 5:51 PM

There are many insurance companies today…just like beer companines. If the government would stop interfering (restricting), then the prices would be lower for everyone.

Zaz on March 29, 2012 at 5:51 PM

My money is on the Wise Latina to turn on Team Zer0. Oh, how I would love to see that.

UltimateBob on March 29, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I don’t thing Kegan (Kagen?) or Sotowhatever will go agains the liberal grain here. I can’t stand either one of those bags of tallow and don’t believe for one raw moment they have any business even being there.

Whoever (ahem) put them up for nomination deserves to be tried for treason.

Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM

The statement “click image to watch” doesn’t end up with may “takers” when the image shows a screen shot of Nancy Pelosi……..

Opposite Day on March 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM

FWIW on intrade the betting is at 62% that SCOTUS rules to strike down. That was 35% on Monday.

angryed on March 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM

FWIW, Reid has been quiet, no?

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Must be smarter than I ever gave him credit for. Gosh, he’d almost have to be.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Maybe according to *some* Constitution, but not the US Constitution.

ProfShadow on March 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I’ll bet you $1000 to any charity you want that Roberts will not vote in favor of the Mandate, much less write the opinion for it.

Opposite Day on March 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I agree. Roberts will vote against the mandate in a 5-4 decision and Kennedy will write the opinion. Breyer will write the dissenting opinion.

timberline on March 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I am a big AP fan, but sometimes he can be so Eeyoreish that I feel like slashing my wrists. Thanks for talking me down.

Kataklysmic on March 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Pessimist: Someone who feels bad when they feel good for fear that they’ll feel worse when they feel better.

squint on March 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM

If the whole bill is declared unconstitutional, it will be because the court does not want to appear to be “rewriting” health care; Scalia may write the opinion.

I hope it’s Thomas. He writes nice, tight opinions. None of that flowery or overly intellectual pontificating that always gets turned around against you 20 years later from an angle you never saw coming. Nope, with Thomas it’s facts – law – application – conclusion. Budda bing, budda bang – adios Obamacare.

tommyboy on March 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM

x3…well thought out, GM67

Thanks. What’s that saying about a blind squirrel?

guitarman67 on March 29, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Why does she care if the law is constitutional or not? It’s just an old document, written by dead white men, right?

RebeccaH on March 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM

The statement “click image to watch” doesn’t end up with may “takers” when the image shows a screen shot of Nancy Pelosi……..

Opposite Day on March 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Allah is diabolical….and malevolent.

ted c on March 29, 2012 at 5:59 PM

“Click the image to watch.”

Watching a puss filled anal polyp with a wig and a blazer isn’t my idea of having a good time…

… but thanks anyway, Allah.

Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I cannot put my finger on it….something is missing from this thread…..oh wait I got it…..liberal trolls. Strange. /

CW on March 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I am a big AP fan, but sometimes he can be so Eeyoreish that I feel like slashing my wrists. Thanks for talking me down.

Kataklysmic on March 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I think the same thing sometime….

ted c on March 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

5-4 against the total bill to start over

Conservative4ev on March 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I think you might be right. Congress pulled this thing out of their ass, and they can do something else. Back to the drawing board folks—thems peeps with preexisting conditions today, is gonna be havin’ ‘em tomorrow too….

ted c on March 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Pretty decent new GOP ad:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294854/obamacare-trial-brian-bolduc

Erich66 on March 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM

I don’t put ANYthing past these Democrats, the current spate of “the Left” (Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Axelrod, Emanuel, Dunn, etc.). Thus, that the decision by the Court won’t be issued until this June, I am concerned about all the “undue influence” that can possibly be applied to the “other than the four liberals” on the Court.

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I don’t put ANYthing past these Democrats, the current spate of “the Left” (Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Axelrod, Emanuel, Dunn, etc.). Thus, that the decision by the Court won’t be issued until this June, I am concerned about all the “undue influence” that can possibly be applied DURING THE TIME FROM NOW UNTIL JUNE to the “other than the four liberals” on the Court.

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

It doesn’t matter what the logic or lack of same is that would convince the court to allow this. It so changes the relationship between the fedeal government and the people and the states that there is no longer a United States Of America where the government gets it’s powers from the people but something else entirely.

And if a supposedly conservative justice signs on to a majority opinion upholding the law it means that our votes really don’t count for anything important so why bother. Any attempt by a conservative president and congress to change things will just be ruled unconstitutional.

Nomas on March 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

AP, no way Roberts upholds this boondoggle, even if Kennedy does.

ladyingray on March 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM

It’s to the point where we need a Pelosi-Decoder device just to avoid concluding she’s insane.
Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Lourdes, not even 20 million Captain Midnight decoder rings would assist in avoiding the conclusion that Pelosi is indeed insane.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM

No, she’s not insane. She simply isn’t human. Her body was taken over by space aliens years ago. They are using her to torment us simply for their amusement.

climbnjump on March 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Maybe according to *some* Constitution, but not the US Constitution.

ProfShadow on March 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM

If Pelosi was intellectually and academically competent as to our Constitution, she could and would never have made the various statements she’s made, including what’s captured in the video from this post. Much moreso done what she’s done.

It’s as clear as a bell to just about everyone except Pelosi and others servicing her nuttiness that she doesn’t know what she is talking about as to ANYthing being “Constitutional.”

Pelosi is one among the Left who first establishes what she deems “should be” or “must be” and then she/they go about finding some passage here, there, context, that they “believe” justifies what they’ve deemed ought to be.

Worse, I believe this is also the mental and moral perspective of Kagan and Sotomayor.

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM

I’m going to throw you a curveball and predict that it’ll be 6-3 to uphold

Been saying this for months. I predict Sotomayer will join the majority.

However, I would love (I mean LOVE) if it was 6-3 with the 3 female judges voting against. Imagine the screeches from the Left! GOP WAR ON WOMEN CONTINUES UNABATED!!!!!

SouthernGent on March 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM

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.

The nation is over if this is not thrown out whole cloth. Arrogant tailoring of the law by the supreams will de-legitimize the court, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire political process in this nation is beyond f*&^ed, and that we have reached a point where we will need to carefully reexamine the principles, actions, motivations, and words of our founders.

SilverDeth on March 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM

It’s to the point where we need a Pelosi-Decoder device just to avoid concluding she’s insane.
Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Lourdes, not even 20 million Captain Midnight decoder rings would assist in avoiding the conclusion that Pelosi is indeed insane.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM

No, she’s not insane. She simply isn’t human. Her body was taken over by space aliens years ago. They are using her to torment us simply for their amusement.

climbnjump on March 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

In Pelosi’s case, I used the description of “insane” while, instead, more specifically, I do think she’s irrational as she is also not at all in touch with reality. She’s been maintained and coddled her entire life by a social, familial cloister that keeps her out of touch with reality but pleased that she is — in other words, she’s “happy in her world” but her “world” is a fantasy and all that protecting wealth and social surrounding ensures she never tests whether the horizon is a painted background or an actual sunset/sunrise.

Thus, yes, she’s “insane” but in an oh-so-fabulous way, with “fabulous” being used by me here quite sarcastically as to reality but appropriately as to what occurs when Pelosi “thinks about things.”

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Yup. I’ll take the curveball.

The SCOTUS will uphold. Additionally, President Barack Hussein Obama will be reelected to another excruciating 4-years — termed out with nothing to lose — and the flood gates of Barack Obama’s bloodless coup will open wide.

FlatFoot on March 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

That right there is my nightmare as well. Based on another newsworthy story this week, perhaps it is finally time to start learning to speak Russian.

climbnjump on March 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

I’ll throw Allah a curve ball in return. The decision will be 6-3 to invalidate the mandate with Breyer crossing over.

PatrickHenry599 on March 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

No, she’s not insane. She simply isn’t human. Her body was taken over by space aliens years ago. They are using her to torment us simply for their amusement.

climbnjump on March 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM


WE SEEK PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE!!!!!

SilverDeth on March 29, 2012 at 6:24 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.

AP – Welcome To The Club

Here’s today’s narrative builder…

<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74605.html"&gt;

…and the two since Tuesday…

<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74570.html"&gt;

<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-supreme-court-vote-may-show-if-its-so-conservatively-politicized-as-to-hurt-the-president/"&gt;

UNLESS HIGHERS POWERS GET TO ROBERTS, PREPARE YOURSELF.

budfox on March 29, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Reid has been quiet, no?

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

That just means he’s busy scheming with other players as to how to destroy who, by one crook, hook or another. Reid’s not a moral man.

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 6:25 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 not a curveball…makes no sense, defies what’s right, no evidence to support…and is the worst outcome for the Country…PERFECT for RINOS!!!

winston on March 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

That’s ok, Nancy, you just hold your head high and back this boondoggle till the cows come home. How frustrated she must be that she can’t blame the Bush administration or the GOP for it going up in smoke. Even she isn’t that delusional…I don’t think. She has no scapegoat on this one, it must be killing her inside.

scalleywag on March 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

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.”

That’s pretty weak tea. The insurance market has already adapted to the issue of young, healthy people forgoing health insurance. Rates are set with that reality in mind, and in a less heavily regulated insurance market such as Virginia, where I live, rates for individual policies are affordable. In Maine, my former state, which instituted a pre-existing conditions clause, the private individual insurance market is practically non-existent. The mandate was put in place specifically to counter the devasting effects of the pre-existing conditions clause of the PPACA. You’ve got to force those healthy people into the system to subsidize the payouts for the sick people at the other end. You eliminate the pre-existing condition clause, and the need for the mandate goes away. Scalia was particularly scathing on this issue. I think the ultimate outcome of Kennedy’s line of questioning there is that the mandate is not severable.

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3