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

budfox on March 29, 2012 at 6:24 PM

None of your links work.

ladyingray on March 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Why would Chief Justice Roberts care how the court looks, it’s either constitutional or it’s not.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

jessus Allah…you are a party pooper.

exit question: if a SCOTUS dismantleing of BarryCare = a political boost for The One, does a SCOTUS affirmation of BarryCare = a political boost for the GOP in November?

DrW on March 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

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

So the bill was just WORDED to appear to be Constitutional .
The objectives of the bill on the other hand are totally malicious , right ?

burrata on March 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

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

No, no, NO! She meant to say “clusterfarktional”.

El Salsero on March 29, 2012 at 6:33 PM

…You eliminate the pre-existing condition clause, and the need for the mandate goes away. Scalia was particularly scathing on this issue…

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

Yes, as in, DITTO. Listening to the various other opinions about the mandate is an exercise in entertaining the ridiculous — in all due respect to the Court and their illustrous credentials, some of them are working far beyond reason to try to frame the mandate if not the entire bill seriously when it is so clearly one giant RATIONALIZATION about a body politic.

I’d have given anything had more of the Justices just chewed out the argument by the Obama Admin for being as ridiculous as it is.

Lourdes on March 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Oh Nancy . . . stick it in your ear or the orifice of your choice. Enough of your lies and obfuscations.

rplat on March 29, 2012 at 6:36 PM

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

Yeah, Conyers told her it was covered by the “tax and welfare clause.” Snort.

BTW, Allah, you should stop making predictions based on insights gleaned from SCOTUSblog. They’re a bunch of Communists over there.

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM

You didn’t write it, the Apollo Alliance did, or one of the Soros front groups

tommy-t on March 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Nanzi wouldn’t know the constitution from gas: she would have to pass both of them to find out what’s in them. Aside from that, she couldn’t possibly care any less what the constitution says – the truth is what she says it is.

ghostwalker1 on March 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM

That woman is criminally stupid.

VorDaj on March 29, 2012 at 6:45 PM

What a wasted hunk of human tissue

rjoco1 on March 29, 2012 at 6:49 PM

jessus Allah…you are a party pooper.

DrW on March 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

+1000

redmama on March 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

1. If that was true, Nancy, why didn’t you let anyone READ it???

2. Did YOU read it???

“Denial” is not a river, Nancy!!

landlines on March 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

My favorite photo of Nancy.

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Basically, this article is saying that SCOTUS decisions are based on political popularity contests. If that is true, then the constitution is nothing more than a rag. For decades, liberal judges have been radicalizing interpretations of the constitution or just ignoring it to further their agenda and forcing many unpopular progresseive decisions on the citizens of this country. I don’t recall the liberals suggesting they were biased because they overruled the conservatives. But my goodness, let the liberals even whisper that conservatives are biased and many conservatives break their legs to move to the left. Disgusting. If it is a 5-4 vote, why the hell wouldn’t people scream about the liberals refusal to rule something “unconstitutional”? The main reason liberals don’t find anything “unconstitutional” is that philosophically they believe nothing is “unconstitutional”. If the constitution is ignored, treated as null and void and irrelevant in our times and judges’ primary concern is how the court is perceived, then I say the union binding the states together is null and void and irrelevant and we should vote to go our seperate ways.

Oracleforhire on March 29, 2012 at 6:55 PM

So if I decide that I do not want to buy health insurance for myself and that means that Joe Blow who does want it has to pay an higher rate but can’t afford it and then he dies…does that mean I could be charged for murdering Joe Blow? So absurd!

Zaz on March 29, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Yeah, Conyers told her it was covered by the “tax and welfare clause.” Snort.

BTW, Allah, you should stop making predictions based on insights gleaned from SCOTUSblog. They’re a bunch of Communists over there.

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM

That was the “good and plenty clause.” It comes after the Snickers Clause and before the Three Musketeers Clause.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

If the Supreme Court upholds this law then we have finally pushed aside any remaining devotion to a Constitutional republic.

Heck, the SC should strike it down based on the fact that the vast majority of the Congress didn’t even read the legislation being voted on.

joey24007 on March 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM

6-3 to strike the mandate down. Sotomayor shocks the world by joining the majority, writing a concurring opinion saying how badly the country needs some kind of socialist pipe dream or other to “save” health care but the mandate isn’t constitutional. Thomas will write a concurring opinion for all time tearing Obamer up one side and down the other, Scalia will write another concurring opinion making fun of the justices who voted to uphold, and Roberts will write the main majority opinion that Alito and Kennedy will sign on to.

Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan will decline to write their own dissents, instead submitting a piece of paper with nothing other than the URL to Dahlia Lithwick’s epic Slate meltdown.

deepelemblues on March 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

From the Republican perspective, it’s the best of both worlds if the IM gets tossed, and the rest remains. The Constitution is protected, but voters are still given a reason to get rid of Obama and the Democrats in the Senate.

And if the Dems filibuster the ObamaCare repeal, that gives us an awesome excuse to pull out the nuclear option. ;-)

But I still think they’re going to kill it all.

Greg Q on March 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Greg Q on March 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I agree.

Rusty Allen on March 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan will decline to write their own dissents, instead submitting a piece of paper with nothing other than the URL to Dahlia Lithwick’s epic Slate meltdown.

deepelemblues on March 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Plus, they’ll wear hoodies.

Blake on March 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Why would Chief Justice Roberts care how the court looks, it’s either constitutional or it’s not.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

He cares very much about the popular reputation of the Court. He knows that 5-4 decisions over and over again serve to erode that reputation.

We think our Constitutional system is written in stone and can never perish. But it is really only as valid as the people allow it to be. If the people lose faith in the judgments of the Supreme Court, we are lost.

President Lincoln openly defied the Supreme Court, believing that saving the Union in a time of rebellion was more important. The people supported him, so he got away with it. Barack Obama in a second term is very much capable of doing the same thing, if he thinks he has the people behind him.

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Who the hell is Dalia Lithwick and where can I read this meltdown?

Bishop on March 29, 2012 at 7:35 PM

LOL … more revisionist statements from the one who told us that they had to pass the bill so that we could find out what is in it.

john.frank on March 29, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I hate to say it but my instinct is also that it will be 6-3 to uphold. The left was infuriated even by conservatives asking skeptical questions, but I fear that’s as much pleasure as I’ll get.

Chuckles3 on March 29, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Okay, so if possibly, perchance, maybe, imaginably, assumably, allegedly, ostensibly, tangibly, stretching the truth beyond all probability Obamascare might be constitutional, then pray tell what third world dictatorship’s constitution does it follow–the Baraka Obamazombie Socialist Republik?

stukinIL4now on March 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Her breathtaking stupidity and seeming insanity inspires me to update The List:

Nancy Peloser
Joe Biden
Mo Hinchey
The Entire Illinois Democrat delegation
The Entire CBC
Rosa Delauro
Keith Ellison

The Stupidest Democrats in the House.

Jaibones on March 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM

I can’t believe anyone predicts the justices will vote to uphold this law. Allah seems to think that Roberts will vote to do so for political reasons. Seems to me if they vote for this horrendous bill for political reasons, they should be impeached. What’s really on trial here is the Constitution itself. Does it mean anything anymore or can the libs change it any way they want?

Christian Conservative on March 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM

He cares very much about the popular reputation of the Court. He knows that 5-4 decisions over and over again serve to erode that reputation.

rockmom on March 29, 2012 at 7:34 PM

How do you know, Ma?

Jaibones on March 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

If the constitution is ignored, treated as null and void and irrelevant in our times and judges’ primary concern is how the court is perceived, then I say the union binding the states together is null and void and irrelevant and we should vote to go our seperate ways.

Oracleforhire on March 29, 2012 at 6:55 PM

That’s why I HOPE Allah’s analysis (and Rockmom) on this is flawed – it’s inconceivable to me that Roberts or any jurist would be more concerned about the court’s reputation and public perception than his personal fealty to the Constitution and to the solemn oath he took to uphold it. His personal reputation, as well as his reputation as a responsible Justice of the USSC will be ruined for all time, as he would descend to the level of a common politician with no principles or moral compass with a vote to protect the reputation and perception of the court.

I just cannot believe this could happen with Roberts, but if it does, Oracleforhire has it right, and the Union should be dissolved.

Harbingeing on March 29, 2012 at 7:52 PM

My favorite photo of Nancy.

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

You are an evil person sir!

Yakko77 on March 29, 2012 at 8:02 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

Okay then. Please take her back to your home planet. We have grown tired of her.

climbnjump on March 29, 2012 at 8:03 PM

The problem when this thing goes down is that the left can argue “Hey, we gave you the private market option, similar to that Romneycare that the Heritage Foundation and a bunch of conservatives thought was so wonderful, and you trashed it.” Now they will go straight for single-payer, which will be found Constitutional under the General Welfare provision in the Taxing and Spending clause. That’s the easier argument, and why the administration originally tried to define the mandate as a tax.

Quite frankly, I think the left went for this version of Obamacare thinking that the right wouldn’t put up much of a fight with single-payer looming in the background.

Also note that a ruling against the mandate doesn’t mean that 50 states can’t copy MA and impose mandates of their own.

The GOP/Right is going to have to offer and implement an effective free market solution to our health care problems or single-payer will be in our faces again in the near future.

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2012 at 8:04 PM

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.

Allahpundit, that’s classic!

ITguy on March 29, 2012 at 8:06 PM

We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

In Europe or South Africa.

RickB on March 29, 2012 at 8:09 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

Yep, Sotomayor and Kagan were chosen for their unprecedented-ness and their political views, and not for their brains.

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2012 at 8:10 PM

The Slaughter Rule was absolutely unconstitutional. That bill never even properly progressed through Congress. And the mandate in unconstitutional. Let it’s death become the beginning of the fall.

hawkdriver on March 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM

The Dems only nominate people as Justices who think Congress knows best. That’s what I learned from listening to these oral arguments.

flataffect on March 29, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I used to be an individual mandate, then I took a U.S. constitution to the knee.

Machismo on March 29, 2012 at 8:23 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

Wasn’t this the plot to “Godzilla verus Monster Zero”?

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Democrats wouldn’t know Constitutional if it kicked them in the privates…

Wolftech on March 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM

6-3 and Roberts votes with the libs because Kennedy does?

You seriously think how Roberts will vote depends on how Kennedy votes? That means Roberts does not care whether the mandate is unconstitutional. He thinks it is irrelevant to his decision. Seriously?

If the conservative Chief Justice makes a decision this momentous on the basis of politics and not on what he actually thinks the Constitution says or does not say and votes with the libs it really doesn’t matter who wins in Nov.

farsighted on March 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I can’t believe anyone predicts the justices will vote to uphold this law. Allah seems to think that Roberts will vote to do so for political reasons. Seems to me if they vote for this horrendous bill for political reasons, they should be impeached. What’s really on trial here is the Constitution itself. Does it mean anything anymore or can the libs change it any way they want?

Christian Conservative on March 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM

This is Allah’s way of telling you he’s pink. He writes views for the away squad routinely.

DevilsPrinciple on March 29, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Also note that a ruling against the mandate doesn’t mean that 50 states can’t copy MA and impose mandates of their own.

The GOP/Right is going to have to offer and implement an effective free market solution to our health care problems or single-payer will be in our faces again in the near future.

Mr. Arkadin on March 29, 2012 at 8:04 P

1/ The GOP has to do nothing at all. There will be no next time at the Federal level which leads me to point number two.

2/ You stated that the 50 states could copy MA and institute their own mandates. And I concur because THIS is exactly the point of striking down the Federal mandate under its current construction. It is an over reach of Federal power but well within the purview of the States… all 57 of ‘em.

I say 7~2 in favor of striking it down with Kagan and Ginsberg dissenting.

DevilsPrinciple on March 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Why would Chief Justice Roberts care how the court looks, it’s either constitutional or it’s not.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Bingo. This should not be a political question. It’s safe to say that to at least four of the Supreme Court justices, it is. And there you go.

gryphon202 on March 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Roberts’ job is not to be concerned with how the court “looks.” That went out the window long ago whent he court decided for itself that it has the last word on constitutionality.

So, it is not the court’s job to issue a ruling that makes both sides “happy” – it’s to issue a legally correct ruling. If Congress wrote an unconstituional law, and didn’t inlcude a severance clause, leaving a 2,700 page monstrosity for the COURT to read through and decide line by line what to keep, then that makes the court the legilsature, which is not their job. And all of those mistakes and omissions are CONGRESS’ fault, not the court’s.

In short, USSC: “man up and do what’s right, not what’s “popular”.

Saltyron on March 29, 2012 at 8:47 PM

6-3 and Roberts votes with the libs because Kennedy does?

You seriously think how Roberts will vote depends on how Kennedy votes? That means Roberts does not care whether the mandate is unconstitutional. He thinks it is irrelevant to his decision. Seriously?
farsighted on March 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I’m not ready to go down that path either. I still need to believe the Chief Justice has more integrity than what this line of thinking suggests.

lynncgb on March 29, 2012 at 8:48 PM

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

SouthernGent on March 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Uh…SG? I think he’s suggesting that “upheld” means the libs win it, so Sotolatina would be “joining” the dark side…not the thinkers. And she’s pretty much already part of their team.

6-3 means that both Kennedy (Reagan) and Roberts (Bush II) vote to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate and thus, O’BozoCare.

Not.Gonna.Happen.

Jaibones on March 29, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Once you OK this bill, it doesn’t matter how narrowly you write the opinion that approves it.

Health care is special, but only in the way that every snowflake is special. There’ll always be another special issue.

David Blue on March 29, 2012 at 8:54 PM

So far, every major point in the media has been the result of liberal perspective – Nancy was incredulous that anyone could challenge it at all, and all through the parade we have been surrounded by talking points about how they couldn’t lose, up until Toobin pronounced last week that Obamacare should be upheld 6-3 or even 7-2.
So…what happens if one of the lockstep liberal Justices actually figures out there is no limiting principle and that future Presidents, who might actually be Republican, will have the same power as the Constitutional scholar who is our current President?

Liberal talking points (the majority of news coverage and the basis for so many conversations, including this one) don’t even address the slightest possibility of a 6-3 ruling against them.

Then again their track record is so good, I am sure they don’t have a thing to worry about… /sarc

DublOh7 on March 29, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Reminds me of a Star Trek Voyager quote from Q, to paraphrase:

“So Roberts, will you strike the bill in total as unconstitutional or will you assist in the “salvage operation” of a political landmine? That’s a toughie, but that’s why they made you Chief Justice, isn’t it? To handle the real tough ones? My, my. Now I guess we get to find out whether the robe…really fits.”

Saltyron on March 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM

6-3 to strike the mandate down. Sotomayor shocks the world by joining the majority, writing a concurring opinion saying how badly the country needs some kind of socialist pipe dream or other to “save” health care but the mandate isn’t constitutional. Thomas will write a concurring opinion for all time tearing Obamer up one side and down the other, Scalia will write another concurring opinion making fun of the justices who voted to uphold, and Roberts will write the main majority opinion that Alito and Kennedy will sign on to.

Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan will decline to write their own dissents, instead submitting a piece of paper with nothing other than the URL to Dahlia Lithwick’s epic Slate meltdown.

deepelemblues on March 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I like your scenario a lot better than Allah’s.

Sterling Holobyte on March 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I say 7~2 in favor of striking it down with Kagan and Ginsberg dissenting.

DevilsPrinciple on March 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I like yours even better.

Sterling Holobyte on March 29, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Heck, the SC should strike it down based on the fact that the vast majority of the Congress didn’t even read the legislation being voted on.

joey24007 on March 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM

It doesn’t work that way. There’s no requirement that members of Congress read a bill before passing it.

Syzygy on March 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

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.

What the he11?

Is this Bolivia?

hawkdriver on March 29, 2012 at 9:12 PM

“may figure that he might as well cross the aisle too so that the Court seems less divided” /// So, the role of a SC justice is not to rule on whether a law is constitutional, but instead to concentrate on “symbolism”. Wonderful. New Zealand here I come.

sbvft contributor on March 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Randy Barnett at Volokh discussed the Kennedy questions that AP and a few others are focusing on in this post: link

Best line: “Orin and some others, however, have highlighted a few questions by Justice Kennedy concerning “actuarial risk” that seem favorable to the government. (Indeed, it is quite striking that these may be the only moments of 6 hours of oral argument that are.) ”

gaius on March 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I sincerely doubt that Pelosi has ever read the Constitution.

Every day I wonder HOW this woman ended up 3rd in line…she and Biden compete daily for the airhead of the year award.

I would laugh, but it is truly not funny.

djn on March 29, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Allah, Roberts can’t truly believe that simply writing a narrow majority opinion will prevent future administrations from applying this law more broadly, can he?

And by forcing all Americans to enter the healh insurance business, aren’t we also then impacting each other directly by our decisions to not eat properly and excersize regularly? If healthy people are necessary for this public good issue, then isn’t it necessary to have more healthy people, even if it means creating them from unhealthy people who can choose to become healthier?

They can’t even prove that I was a burden on ANYONE when I didn’t have insurance, but it’s self evident that the unhealthy necessarily increase health insurance costs for the rest of us. That’s the whole reason Kennedy might vote to uphold, right?

This logic is just so basic that I feel insane.

Esthier on March 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I like to remember how utterly stupid Nancy looked walking with that giant gavel. Hearing the stupid ooze out of her mouth is just more than I can take.
Speaking of terrible moments in America – remember this 2010 SOTU moment of disgrace? I hope the Justices remember it.

redwhiteblue on March 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Sorry. Try this link to 2010 SOTU moment of disgrace brought to us by Barack Obama and the Democrats.

redwhiteblue on March 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM

“THROW YOU A CURVE BALL!!!!!!” How on Earth can you compare the end of our Constitutional Republic to a friggin’ curve ball? And not even an Adam Wainwright curve ball…just a normal two finger curve.
If we don’t take THIS seriously, why don’t we just hand the
keys over to Obama and his cronies? Maybe we could get him to ask Comrade Putin for a piece of Siberia to call home.
This year is make or break…literally.

Kenz on March 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM

…Tell them they’re hacks and morons and they’re naturally going to scrutinize your work product more closely.

Allahpundit

Ahh… you mean like B. Obama’s attack on the SCOTUS in his 2010 State of the Union address? Perhaps those chickens will come home to roost.

E-R

electric-rascal on March 29, 2012 at 11:27 PM

…especially after he was confirmed promising to be a neutral “umpire.”

Acting as a “neutral umpire” has nothing to do with the decisions a chief justice makes on the constitutionality of an individual case. It has to do with how he runs the business of the SCOTUS. Do you really think Roberts would decide this case, of all cases, based on some misguided desire to cross the aisle in the name of camaraderie and a bi-partisan Court? If that’s the case, we really are in a lot of trouble.

SukieTawdry on March 29, 2012 at 11:28 PM

I’m going out on a limb and say that AP might be correct. Judges/justices will, many times, ask really hard questions of one side and then rule in favor of that side. I’m very uneasy that we’re about to finally redefine the relationship between our elected officials and us.

Physics Geek on March 29, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Maybe after she reads the US Constitution, she can then read that Obamacare monstrosity.

racquetballer on March 29, 2012 at 11:43 PM

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

Yeah, that’s right, Griselda. Oh, look! Here comes the martini cart.

minnesoter on March 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I just saw this rather enlightening information

As a result of a Judicial Watch filing under the Freedom of Information Act, the USAF released documents detailing House Speaker Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft between March 2009 and June 2010. The data are published in the Judicial Watch Verdict of December 2010, Volume 16, Issue 12.

Here are the main highlights revealed by the USAF. Keep in mind that all the data below relate to United States Air Force aircraft used by one woman over a sixteen month period.

Several of these flights included Ms Pelosi’s guests such as grown children, grandchildren, various in-laws, friends, and hangers-on. Over 95% of the trips were between the west coast and Washington , DC or what we might call a commute between home and the office. READ it and WEEP!!

Total trips: 85 trips over a 68 week period or 1.25 average trips per week.
Total mileage: 206,264 miles or 2,427 average miles per trip
Total flying time: 428.6 hours or an average of 5 hrs per trip
Cost to the taxpayers: $2,100,744.59 or $27,715.00 per trip or $1,285,162.00 per year
Cost of in flight food and alcohol: $101,429.14 or $1,193.00 per trip or $62,051.00 per year.

On one junket to Baghdad, according to the Air Force report, she had the aircraft bar stocked with Johnny Walker Red Scotch, Grey Goose Vodka, E&J Brandy, Bailey’s Irish Creme, Maker’s Mark Whiskey, Courvoisier Cognac, Bacardi Rum, Jim Beam Whiskey, Beefeater Gin, Dewars Scotch, Bombay Sapphire Gin, Jack Daniels Whiskey, Corona Beer and several varieties of wine. This was obviously a very important “gubment bidness” trip.

Evidence generally speaks for itself, and in Ms. Pelosi’s case it speaks the language of abuse and (evidently) a serious familial drinking problem, for in a single year she and her spawn drank an amount in excess of the net income of the average employed American! When she said, “… If the stimulus doesn’t pass, five hundred million people might lose their jobs…”, I thought she was unintentionally revealing her ignorance. I’m now more inclined to think she was pickled. From Judicial watch Post
We should insist she fly Southwest airlines because bags fly free
BWAHAHAHAHAHa !!!

stormridercx4 on March 30, 2012 at 2:01 AM

I don’t know much about the US Constitution (but I suspect I know more than Obama …), but how can the mandate be constitutional, the government is basically obliging you to buy something horrendously expensive by virtue of being alive. I could understand if it were catastrophic coverage, but they’re making that illegal!

Also if this is legal, I don’t see what’s stopping them from extending it ad infinitum. The next thing would be climate related crap, windmills or something. And then obesity stuff …

If the Supremes don’t strike this down, then what are they for?

Hope on March 30, 2012 at 4:04 AM

We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”

In Europe or South Africa.

RickB on March 29, 2012 at 8:09 PM

No, this bill would not pass in France. There would be uproar.

Obama is giving you stuff we don’t have, and would never accept in Europe.

Hope on March 30, 2012 at 4:30 AM

Question:

How come Pelosi isn’t in the dems Black Caucus??

She definitely has the smarts to be in it !

What’s that you say?…oh, she’s not black??…bummer…

BigSven on March 30, 2012 at 5:13 AM

It’s easy to lie all day long when you have that much buttfat pumped into your face!

insidiator on March 30, 2012 at 7:54 AM

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

Cripes, I don’t know why I read articles on this site sometimes.

Kennedy did search for a limiting factor in arguments. For Heaven’s sake he was begging counsel to provide one. But the fact is there are none, which is why Verilli couldn’t articulate any. Hence you had activist judges asking questions about how to limit fallout by not scraping the entire legislation. That would be a clue for most of us as to where this decision is going. That’s not a prediction, just a logical conclusion. For many of us anyway.

SCOTUS is well aware how their decisions have been twisted into questionable constitutional extensions over the years. But the real question at hand here is the Constitutionality of this legislation- that is the essence of the SCOTUS role. If you focus on that, rule out any limiting factor (no, stating ad nauseum in a decision that Healthcare is unique enough to force citizens into commerce…now I said healthcare and ONLY healthcare) there is no Constitutional basis for this law.

There is also enough evidence to determine Congress wanted this to stand whole cloth (they deliberately took out the severability clause include in the original House bill- a little reported fact…I wonder why??)which leads us with the entire legislation being found unconstitutional and sent back to Congress.

So paraphrasing an apropos quote “unconstitutional bills are like porn, the people know it when they see it.” SCOTUS is well aware that a clear majority of the people see this as an unconstitutional measure and know intuitively it is a basic assault on our basic rights and freedoms. There is no hiding from that factor behind tricky legal reasoning. Ergo, more damage will be done to the court by somehow finding a crafty way to let this stand. Gun-to-my-head guess on result? I would say we are all going to be surprised at the number of justices finding the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The disagreements come on the issue of severability.

Marcus Traianus on March 30, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Calling Nancy Pelosi “as stupid as a brick” would be a an insult to millions of bricks

J_Crater on March 30, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Okay then. Please take her back to your home planet. We have grown tired of her.

climbnjump on March 29, 2012 at 8:03 PM

The parasites don’t want her back… why do you think they sent her here…

SilverDeth on March 30, 2012 at 10:45 AM

What a laugh! You couldn’t even spell ‘constitutional’, you shrewish b!tch, nevermind write a bill that reasonably fit the description!

MelonCollie on March 30, 2012 at 10:59 AM

You didn’t write it, the Apollo Alliance did, or one of the Soros front groups

tommy-t on March 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

exactly! Laws should be written by congressmen and women, not outside thinktanks or liberal/socialist organizations.

Mini-14 on March 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Hey Pelosi, is the bill you said here was written to be constitutional, just asking here, but is this the same bill you said before “we have to pass to see what’s in it”??? Pelosi you truly are a brainless, clueless dumbass.

Beastdogs on March 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Torches and pitchforks! Untimately it is up to We the People what is Constitutional and what isn’t. Start making noise and writing e-mails, phone calls, and letters. This cannot stand whatever the Court decides.

BetseyRoss on March 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I”m sick and tired of people like Pelosi telling me what I have to believe and what I have to buy. Scr3w her.

This horrible bill is the death of liberty. It isn’t constitutional, no matter what the SCOTUS says.

hachiban on March 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM

How would Pelosi even know how it was written?

After all, she’s the one that told us it needed to pass so we could find out what is in the bill.

Someone’s lying here…and her name is Nancy Pelosi.

(But ya’ll knew that already)

ProfShadow on March 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM

The pig didn’t even read it, and still has no idea what is in it.

jqc1970 on March 30, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I don’t know much about the US Constitution (but I suspect I know more than Obama …), but how can the mandate be constitutional, the government is basically obliging you to buy something horrendously expensive by virtue of being alive. I could understand if it were catastrophic coverage, but they’re making that illegal!

Also if this is legal, I don’t see what’s stopping them from extending it ad infinitum. The next thing would be climate related crap, windmills or something. And then obesity stuff …

If the Supremes don’t strike this down, then what are they for?

Hope on March 30, 2012 at 4:04 AM

We know that a minimum of 3 of the justices are commies. One is an old lying hag who wouldn’t even be alive today if it weren’t for American medicine she is determined to destroy. She even told Egypt to look else where other than at the US Constitution. Another one is nothing but an idiot who had many of her court of appeals cases overturned and who thinks she smarter than old white men. She meekly follows along behind the old commie with her finger up her arse. The third was involved in writing obamacare and refuses to recuse herself. She lied about it under oath and should be prosecuted. It’s a sad day that there is that kind of filth on the supreme court.

jqc1970 on March 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Pelosi also thinks Jesus is ok with chopping up babies.
Very sad, these people.

ravenhairedmaid on March 31, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Pelosi also thinks Jesus is ok with chopping up babies.
Very sad, these people.

ravenhairedmaid on March 31, 2012 at 12:33 AM

She has an iron-clad ticket to hell. Beyond salvation.

Myron Falwell on March 31, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3