Did the Supreme Court’s initial ObamaCare vote leak to Obama?

posted at 10:19 pm on April 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

Unless he’s trying to goose a slow news day with speculation, I have no idea why Drudge is pushing the “leak” angle. There’s nothing about it in the Reuters story he links to and, as far as I saw, nothing in O’s comments today in the Rose Garden to suggest he had inside info. If he had seized on some obscure part of last week’s arguments, like the Anti-Injunction Act, then that might have been a clue that something the media had overlooked was weighing heavily inside the Court’s own deliberations and that O had gotten wind of it. But he didn’t. He gave a straightforward pitch that, unless the Court rules his way, it’s illegitimate. I expected nothing less. Neither, I’m sure, did Anthony Kennedy, who has three months to make up his mind and therefore probably isn’t a firm yes or no yet. And, if you’ve been reading liberal pundits lately, neither did you.

Speaking of which, having endured a “train wreck” and a “plane wreck” at the Supreme Court last week, Jeffrey Toobin shakes off the trauma and joins in the left’s newfound appreciation for why judicial activism is a bad thing:

For example, the Justices had no trouble upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which used the [Commerce Clause] to mandate the integration of hotels and restaurants. “It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination,” Justice Tom C. Clark wrote, for his unanimous brethren. “But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress, not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce may be removed—what means are to be employed—is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress.” In other words, Justice Kennedy had it backward. The “heavy burden” is not on the defenders of the law but on its challengers. Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government

It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments. The awesome, and final, powers of the Justices are best exercised sparingly and with restraint. Their normal burdens of interpreting laws are heavy enough. No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either.

Rest assured, if Obama wins reelection and replaces Scalia or Kennedy with a hardcore liberal, the revered principle of judicial deference to Congress will be power-flushed down the toilet once a Republican president and legislature are in office together again. But never mind that, and never mind the fact that he sidesteps the question of whether people who aren’t participating in commerce are reachable by the Commerce Clause. He seems to be imagining here an almost conclusory deference to Congress by the Court on all things commerce. Imagine that the Court took his advice and declared that the “heavy burden” is on the states to show why Congress doesn’t have this entirely novel power to force people to buy things. What would the states have to show to convince Justice Toobin that they’d met that burden? This is a case of first impression so there’s no direct precedent that either side can point to. What argument, then, could the states theoretically make to convince Toobin that Congress had exceeded its commerce power? I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that, like so much of the left, he thinks there is no conceptual limit on the Commerce Clause except the Bill of Rights. If you can’t show that the mandate violates, say, the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause, then you’re out of luck. But that’s absurd; the whole point of enumerated powers is to set limits on what Congress can do apart from the Bill of Rights (which, of course, wasn’t even part of the Constitution originally). Within that larger context of circumscribed federal power, when you have Congress seeking to do something that it’s never done before, why should its prerogative enjoy heavy deference and not the states’?

Here’s Mark Levin unloading on The One for his comments about the Court today. Click the image to listen.


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 4

For rage inducing photos I nominate this.

taternuggets on April 3, 2012 at 8:53 AM

What’s Zero going to do if the SC rules against his law, go around them like he does congress? He’s trying to implement the Dream Act piece by piece to get the Hispanic vote now. He’s not going to stop pushing the lib agenda, ever, that’s why he must not be reelected.

Kissmygrits on April 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I think Obama was simply trying to intimidate Kennedy before the final decision is rendered. Has a sitting President since FDR tried cheap thuggery before?

What is next? Wandering past Kennedy’s house wearing a hoodie?

The fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government and that fact bugs Obama to no end.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM

…an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress

Someone needs to remind Obama that the 5 ‘aye’ votes in the Senate that put the bill out of filibuster reach were from unelected Senators appointed to fill out a term (Bennett, Kaufman, Burris, Kirk, Gillibrand) and 1 who was serving despite the people voting for a different party to hold the seat (Spector)

SaveFarris on April 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government…

That is the mindset of those who think that this country should be a Democracy, rather than a Constitutional Republic.

The fact that federal judges and justices are unelected is part of our Constitution, and to show disdain for the fact that judges are unelected is to show disdain for our Constitution.

You know who thinks that we should be a Democracy, rather than a Constitutional Republic?

The Democratic Socialists, a.k.a. Communists. Read the party program of the Communist Party USA.

Our Founders studied every government that had ever been recorded throughout history. They knew that pure Democracies always degrade into tyranny. That is why our Founders created a Constitutional Republic (Rule of Law), not a Democracy (Rule of the Majority).

There is a place for Democracy within our Constitutional Republic, and that place is the U.S. House of Representatives. Per our Constitution, every member of the U.S. House of Representatives MUST be elected democratically (vacancies can NEVER be filled by appointment), and votes within the U.S. House of Representatives are won by the majority… the minority has no real power at all.

But that democracy of the U.S. House is constrained by our Constitution. It is only one half of the Legislative Branch, and cannot accomplish anything (*) without the agreement of the other half of the Legislative Branch (the Senate, where the minority does have power to stop legislation) and the Executive branch (the President’s signature, unless the two houses of the Legislative branch have the 2/3 majorities necessary to override a Presidential veto).

Per the original, unamended Constitution, there is one and only one Federal Government position for which you are guaranteed a direct and democratic vote for the person to hold that position… you Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives. There has never been a direct vote for President, and it was the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, that changed the selection of Senators from being chosen by the state legislatures to being directly elected.

It is the Democrats/Democratic Socialists/Communists who want to make everything direct election. They are pushing for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and are seen in the quote above as criticizing the Supreme Court for being “unelected”

a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government…

—————————————

(*) One thing the U.S. House of Representatives was able to do on their own was be “witnesses” to Obama’s birth in Hawaii. They passed House Resolution 593, containing the words “Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961″, on July 27, 2009, at 6:55pm EDT (12:55pm HST).

And on that same day, Dr. Fukino’s second News Release was first made public in a PDF attachment in an email sent to “MissTickly” at 11:45pm EDT (5:45pm HST). That second News Release, unlike the first, contained the words “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961″.

Which came first? The passage of H.Res.593. Could the State of Hawaii have used that as evidence of a “witness” to his birth. It appears that the answer is “yes”. Dr. Fukino and the State of Hawaii could have used H. RES. 593 as “prima facie” evidence to issue her second News Release and finally make the claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902. Self-authentication

(10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

H.Res. 593 was authored by Neil Abercrombie while he was a Representative. Was he later rewarded with the Governorship of Hawaii?

The whole thing is more than just a little fishy.

ITguy on April 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

He’s not going to stop pushing the lib agenda, ever, that’s why he must not be reelected.

Kissmygrits on April 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Obama must not be re-elected because he’s harmed the country. He doesn’t deserve a second term. We all knew the jug-eared bastard was going to push a liberal agenda but that is beside the point. He is a failure in doing his job. Half the time he doesn’t even show up.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

He must already know they are going his way and is doing all of this to make it look like he intimated the court into doing his own bidding.

crosspatch on April 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Too clever by half. It’s an election year. He needs the votes of independents. He would be much better off taking a more presidential and statesmanlike tack if this was the case. Obamacare is still very unpopular, especially the mandate.

His aggressive petulant attack on the court is in character with how he would react to an impending defeat. The One does not react well to having his will thwarted. He has gone through life having almost everything handed to him, his path carefully cleared of obstacles. He has rarely experienced failure, much less one of this magnitude.

farsighted on April 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Jeffrey Toobin is a grade A a$$**** and a partisan hack of the first degree.

WisCon on April 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Isn’t Toobin the guy who was sleeping with the daughter of a colleague (despite the fact that he was married to somebody else at the time), got the mistress pregnant, and then tried to force her to have an abortion she didn’t want?

AZCoyote on April 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM

5-4, I don’t think so, I say 6-3, or 7-2…I think that is the problem, it’s so far out of reach that Obama will have to overeact.
Or…I could be entirely wrong and it is 5-4 and he is setting up as “if only we had one more, vote for me and you will”…
But I go with 6-3 or 6-2…He knows it is dead, Gingsberg and either Kagan or Sotomeyer will be the other.
Gingsberg, this will be her last “hurrah”, she is old, tired, and time to retire.
This election is so valuable for years to come, maybe two justices chosen…and we need the senate, house, and the white house for the tri-fecta…

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

And if this is Obama trying to sway Kennedy, I dont think this is the way to do it.

I’d be very surprised if the case wasn’t already decided at the end of last week, and if Obama didn’t know that the decision was going against him. The Dems have no choice but to attack the court and hope enough of the public buys it, which ain’t gonna happen since most people want this law overturned anyway.

eyedoc on April 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM

5-4, I don’t think so, I say 6-3, or 7-2…I think that is the problem, it’s so far out of reach that Obama will have to overeact.
Or…I could be entirely wrong and it is 5-4 and he is setting up as “if only we had one more, vote for me and you will”…
But I go with 6-3 or 6-2…He knows it is dead, Gingsberg and either Kagan or Sotomeyer will be the other.

I wish that turned out to be true, but I doubt very much if Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg or Breyer would vote against this law. I think it’s 5-4 against, which will make the Dems go completely batsh*t.

eyedoc on April 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM

BHO referred to commentators and pundits one time too many…he was like a deflated balloon.

d1carter on April 2, 2012 at 10:24 PM

I saw this too. It seems likely that there was a leak. Otherwise why would Zero openly attack the court and attempt to undermine them?

Why would the MSM attack machine rev up and continue the attack? Perhaps they have a sneaking suspicion? Launching a full press public attack on the Supreme Court makes no sense whatsoever unless he is certain things did not go his way.

In that event, to mitigate the damage, one like Zero will do everything within his power to demonize the court ahead of the release, using precisely the language he employed yesterday and which will undoubtedly be repeated often in the coming days.

We had two crazed shrieking screeds yesterday followed by Zero’s flat limp speech. Today we already have Toobin. Lets keep track, shall we?

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

I wish that turned out to be true, but I doubt very much if Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg or Breyer would vote against this law. I think it’s 5-4 against, which will make the Dems go completely batsh*t.

eyedoc on April 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I think it may have gone down 7-2, with a couple of lib justices recoiling in horror at the notion of a GOP executive branch with unlimited power. Remember, to libs we conservatives are “bitter clingers” and worse.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM

In that event, to mitigate the damage, one like Zero will do everything within his power to demonize the court ahead of the release, using precisely the language he employed yesterday and which will undoubtedly be repeated often in the coming days.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Agreed. They have three months before the decision is made public to tailor the narrative and indoctrinate the plebes. They will try to persuade the electorate, through constant repetition, that extremist right wing judges on the court have made not only a bad decision, but they have overreached and made a partisan political decision that will fundamentally damage the country now and in the future — Supreme Court justices should not behave this way. Re-elect The One and he will fix this.

farsighted on April 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Any of the 3 bloodsuckers could have leaked it. Ginsgerb, Breyer or Kagan. Most likely Kagan. Now the j-off in the white house is trying to intimidate the SCOTUS. He should try intimidating his bi@ch of a wife.

kozmo on April 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government…

What?!

Don’t they teach the concept of checks and balances in law school anymore? I’ve thought for a long time that things are very bad but that kind of statement is very, very scarey. With the president threatening the Supreme Court and the media pushing that kind of fallacy we are hurtling down the road to totalitarianism. Get yourselves ready people.

peacenprosperity on April 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I wish that turned out to be true, but I doubt very much if Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg or Breyer would vote against this law. I think it’s 5-4 against, which will make the Dems go completely batsh*t.

eyedoc on April 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM

They can go batsh*t all they want. Barack’s unconstitutional law will still be unconstitutional — and 70% of the country will be satisfied with that.

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

This type of threat might well back fire on a conservative judge that is vacilating. However, on a liberal judge…. This actually may be indicative that one of his own ain’t drinking the coolaid.

If so, sweet.

filetandrelease on April 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

7-2 against – and this POS POTUS affirms his most Arrogant Statist Status

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Kagan is a trojan horse that Obama has put into place as his tool on the Supreme Court. She, like him, has no respect for this country or the Constitution. She is a liberal bobble-headed doll with the morals of a cockroach. It seems we have been conquered by a invading gang of intruders hellbent on transforming our way of life to meet their views of world order whether the American people like it or not.

volsense on April 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Badger40 on April 3, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Outstanding !

DevilsPrinciple on April 3, 2012 at 10:04 AM

This just reinforces that if Obama is re-elected and has the opportunity to appoint another sychophant to the court, he will OWN the Supreme Court. Having his own Supreme Court will make the Congress null and void and give him free reins to force his will on the American people without regards for retribution.

volsense on April 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I see no reason why Kagen would respect any traditions of the Court after failing to recuse herself from this case. There are probably exhibits or portions of briefs for the State that she actually wrote for crying out loud.

A leak would mean nothing to her and nothing to Obama.

Destroying traditions is important to consolidating State power.

forest on April 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, shouldn’t be ruling depending exclusively on what the majority has decided for the minority.

-snip-

Just because the majority decrees something, that in and of itself shouldn’t be a dispositive argument for that thing’s constitutionality.

cjw79 on April 2, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Wow, this “logic” of yours is simply breathtaking.

So breathtaking that I can turn it right around and swing it back at you like a wrecking ball.

What you’re implying here is that you don’t think SCOTUS should have ruled 7-2 to legalize abortion in Roe V Wade.

And you don’t think that the 3 Activist Judges in Massachusetts should have made gay marriage legal.

But I’m sure what you’re whining about is Bush V. Gore. Kindly remember that the SCOTUS “Judicial Activists” first decided that case by a 9-0 majority, followed by a 7-2 majority. Both of which in your bizarro world were bad decisions.

We feel your pain.

PS, Gore would have never needed to win Florida in the first place, except that the voters of his own home state of Tennessee rejected him and voted for Chimpy.

Del Dolemonte on April 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Working the refs. If Kennedy does vote to uphold, now it will look like he is Obama’s b**ch. He probablt wouldn’t want history to describe him as that, would he?

a capella on April 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

fwiw it seems the attacks started yesterday:

Dems wage pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling
By Alexander Bolton – 04/02/12 06:02 PM ET

Democrats have waged a not-so-subtle pressure campaign on the Supreme Court in recent days by warning a ruling against the healthcare
reform law would smash precedent and threaten popular social programs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/219613-dems-wage-pressure-campaign-on-supreme-court-over-health-ruling

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Only time will tell if the information was leaked on Obamacare, my bet, yes.

DDay on April 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The one thing about liberals is that they have no respect for long-held traditions such as court secrecy. There’s no question there’s been a leak to the White House and that Obama feels the need to keep his libs on the Court in check and hope to get Kennedy to change his vote during the opinion circulation and review stage.

TXUS on April 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Probably not a “leak”, but a “you are in trouble”, type statement from either Gingsberg, Kagen, Sotamayer…
I say 6-3 or 7-2…it won’t be 5-4. Gingsberg won’t care, this is her last big case, but Kagen will be around for awhile, and she may want to be liberal, but she has to justify and win the respect of her peers. Same with Sotamayer.
If the arguments are strong, than they will have to go along are be held in “contempt”, and end up like Gingsberg, just a vote for anything liberal and nothing else.

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I cannot agree with anyone who thinks that the 4 liberal justices would invalidate the mandate or any other portion of this law. Hell, these 4 were determined to coach Virrelli from the bench – did everything possible to make his arguments for him.

Besides, the liberal justices understand perfectly well that Obama can better demagogue a 5-4 decision against him, especially when none was a female jurist.

It’s going to be very ugly, because Obama will make it so. But he’ll lose as many votes as he gains from a sustained attack on the Court. Independents and seniors won’t like it at all.

matthew8787 on April 3, 2012 at 11:23 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Pure straw. The real question is, what will ObamaCare do with them? Or more accurately, NOT do with them. Rationing and QOL panels will decide they are too expensive to treat. This happens everywhere in the world that there is government mandated health care.

This “law” isn’t about health care, it’s about insurance coverage, which is a private choice, and none of the government’s business. The “human element” to this, which Obama refers to, is the liberty to NOT be told how to spend one’s money.

Any attempt to step beyond that line is a tyrannical encroachment upon liberty, and must be opposed with all force.

Freelancer on April 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I fully expect Obama will relive one of those “FDR moments”.

There was Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, U.S. v. Butler, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., and Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo.

All cases where “New Deal” legislation was struck down by the SCOTUS, often with the three liberal leaning justices, Louis D. Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo and Harlan F. Stone, in the majority.

J_Crater on April 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Just want to knock that grin off the pic.

taternuggets on April 3, 2012 at 8:53 AM Has the other one.

Texyank on April 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments. – Toobin

It is EXACTLY the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgements. Marbury v. Madison established this.

The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of the government, not subservient to politics (theoretically, anyway).

By his logic, it would be easy to see that Roe v. Wade was the same overreach. Actually, it was worse. It created a “right” where no “democratically elected Congress” had passed a law.

So, Mr. Toobin – you can’t have it both ways. Which is it?

Pablo Snooze on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

What I find most troubling about this, is that the progressives are tryi g to lay the ground work for a democratically elected court. They used a similar tactic to get senators to be elected, or doesn’t anyone remember that senators used to be picked by their state legislatures.

uncommon sense on April 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

By Obama’s logic, the Supreme Court should not have overturned segregation laws, since after all they were popular with voters in the South at the time.

The real case which is the precursor which allows the Supreme Court to overturn popular laws because they are unconstitutional is Brown v. Board of Education. The situation is exactly the same as now: A law which (at least in Obama’s imagination) is popular with the public, and which was passed by a majority of our elected representatives, is nonetheless thrown out in toto by the court because it is unconstitutional.

Libs love Brown v BoE. What they suddenly hate is its precedent.

Zombie on April 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I think it may have gone down 7-2, with a couple of lib justices recoiling in horror at the notion of a GOP executive branch with unlimited power. Remember, to libs we conservatives are “bitter clingers” and worse.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM

My thinking as well. Although I highly doubt it, a 7-2 decision is possible. Kagan is going to vote to upheld no matter what; in a perfect world, she would be the lone dissenter.

Certain lib justices know that Republicans can use a Mandate precedent to implement federal school vouchers, which they’ve been fighting for 30 years. In sending your child to an out-of-state private/religious prep school, that’s interstate commerce.

In their minds, better to nip this in the bud, rather then give Republicans a future opportunity to stick it Democrat interest groups, like lawyers and teachers unions.

Jurisprudence on April 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Toobin: “For example, the Justices had no trouble upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which used the [Commerce Clause] to mandate the integration of hotels and restaurants.”

Excuse me, but there is a big difference between telling a business it cannot deny service to a customer because of his race and forcing people to be customers. Following Toobin’s logic, the government can force me to go on vacation and stay at a hotel when, in fact, I might prefer staying home and performing home repairs, or not taking a vacation.

Colony14 on April 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Toobin, proving he is still annoyed that the Court ruled against Al Gore’s Florida recount shenanigans, concludes, “No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either.”

Colony14 on April 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Toobin does make one valid point: “If the Court acts in line with the sentiments expressed by the conservatives last week, it could curtail the policymaking options of Congress for a generation.” (That would be a good thing—although Toobin clearly believes the opposite.)

Colony14 on April 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

In their minds, better to nip this in the bud, rather then give Republicans a future opportunity to stick it Democrat interest groups, like lawyers and teachers unions.

Jurisprudence on April 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Tort reform by diktat. That would sting. Rush today seemed to think that Zero’s behavior is down to being a thug, but how does that explain all the other people out trying to push the same orchestrated meme? That started Sunday.

Also Rush caught this:

Another reason people think he got a leak because of this faux pas here. “As I said, we’re confident that this will be over…” Uh, uh, uh, ” that this will be upheld.”

Did you catch that, Mr. Snerdley? Here play that again. Play the sound bite three here just from the top again.

OBAMA: As I said we are confident that, uh, this will be over — that this will be upheld.

RUSH: Uh, uh! Ooh! Ooh! Some people are thinking, “Well, it’s on his mind that it’s been overturned and he doesn’t like it.”

Is anyone else having trouble with the site loading slowly? The video ads are killing me here and I have a decent rig.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Also Rush caught this:

Another reason people think he got a leak because of this faux pas here. “As I said, we’re confident that this will be over…” Uh, uh, uh, ” that this will be upheld.”

Did you catch that, Mr. Snerdley? Here play that again. Play the sound bite three here just from the top again.

OBAMA: As I said we are confident that, uh, this will be over — that this will be upheld.

RUSH: Uh, uh! Ooh! Ooh! Some people are thinking, “Well, it’s on his mind that it’s been overturned and he doesn’t like it.”

Is anyone else having trouble with the site loading slowly? The video ads are killing me here and I have a decent rig.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM

So far, no problems with HotAir loading.

As for that insightful catch by Rush, that, in the mental care world, is called a Freudian Slip. Obama has probably learned by leak that the Mandate is going to be struck down.

It’s now a matter of getting the Democrat-appointed Justices in line; it would be awfully hard to spin that the Constitutionalists on the bench are right-wing radicals if the decision was 6-3 or 7-2. He may also be trying to influence if the whole of Obamacare is struck down, or parts of the law are saved.

Jurisprudence on April 3, 2012 at 4:24 PM

A few cases from FDR’s day that sound awful familiar …

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress’s power under the commerce clause.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was “but a means to an unconstitutional end.”

Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), is a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to “regulate Commerce. All mines were required to pay a 15% tax on coal produced. The act was not mandatory, but mines that complied would be refunded 90% of the 15% tax.

J_Crater on April 3, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4