Bad news from Politico columnist: Our Supreme Court has lost its honor

posted at 8:05 pm on June 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

Just a little preemptive strike from the left on the eve of the big announcement. If the mandate goes, you’ll be slogging through concern-troll sewage like this for the next week. Might as well put your hip-waders on now.

This is the same guy, by the way, who once dismissed scientific polling as tantamount to “magic.”

For much of modern times, the court has been seen as being above politics. This was very important as a balance to its vast power. Even though justices were appointed by political presidents and approved by political senators, their own politics was to be suppressed.

We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.

And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States…

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court “gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law” which amounted to “a boon for Republicans.”…

At this writing, I do not know how a majority of the justices will rule on Obama’s health care plan, which was passed into law by Congress. Two branches of government have spoken, but their speech is but a whisper compared with the shout of our high court.

The die was cast in 2000. And it would take the most dewy-eyed of optimists to expect the court’s decision to be anything other than political.

Er, no, it’s not the “signature” of the Roberts Court to overturn the work of legislatures, although you’ll hear that repeated ad nauseam in the din of whining if things don’t go the left’s way tomorrow. On the contrary, as of 2010, the Roberts Court was less likely to overturn statutes and precedents than any Court over the past 50 years. And as Jonathan Adler notes, in some high-profile cases where the Court has struck down laws recently, they’ve done so by siding with the left’s position. (Boumediene is the most obvious example.) The reason Simon’s under the impression that they’re cutting a swath through the U.S. Code is because the left has decided that the Citizens United ruling is the font of all political evil and because they’re now staring into the abyss of seeing their biggest progressive “achievement” in decades tossed thanks to the constitutional novelty that is the mandate. Come to think of it, the Court did engage in a bit of “activism” lately by tossing most of the new Arizona immigration law, and yet that’s not mentioned in Simon’s elegy for statutes cruelly and dishonorably culled by an overreaching Court. How come?

Also, is it true that “For much of modern times, the court has been seen as being above politics”? I recall plenty of pants-wetting about politicization in the mid- to late 90s when the Rehnquist Court made a brief feint towards limiting Congress’s Commerce power before seemingly forgetting all about it. And although it was before my time, I know that many conservatives thought the Warren Court was hewing to a political line in its decisions more often than not. My hunch is that the Court tends to be seen as “above politics” when it has a few heterodox members in the Kennedy mold who aren’t always predictable along ideological lines. You saw some of that with the Burger Court and the early Rehnquist Court as liberal dinosaurs like Brennan and Marshall clashed with conservatives like Rehnquist and Scalia while more centrist justices like Powell and Stewart broke the stalemate. When you’ve got a Court with a stable, fairly ideologically solid majority, you’re going to hear the “politicization” charge more often. When you don’t, you won’t. Which reminds me: When was the last time a Democratic appointee played the Kennedy swing-vote role on the Court by siding occasionally with conservatives? Run through the list of justices and you’ll find plenty of post-war examples of Republican appointees voting liberal — consistently so in the notorious cases of Brennan, Stevens, and Souter. Who’s the last Democratic justice who proved to be something more than an almost entirely predictable liberal-voting hack while on the Court? I think you have to go back to Byron White — a JFK appointee who landed on the Court 50 years ago. So much for “above politics.”

Speaking of predictable hacks, here’s Chris Matthews warming up his “is this a new Dred Scott?” routine for tomorrow, just in case. And Patches Kennedy is warning of some sort of tea-party apocalypse if the law is upheld, which is not untrue if you define “apocalypse” in terms of “massive voter turnout.” Exit quotation from Timothy Carney, weighing the consequences of left-wing epistemic closure: “The truth is we’ve entered an era where many liberal commentators are willing to dismiss any argument as illegitimate just because they don’t like it.” 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

And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States…

Stopped reading right there…

Odysseus on June 27, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Happy mandate-mas eve!

rbj on June 27, 2012 at 8:08 PM

The Dems politicians have lost their minds..

Thank me

Electrongod on June 27, 2012 at 8:08 PM

If the mandate goes, you’ll be slogging through concern-troll sewage like this for the next week. Might as well put your hip-waders on now.

heh — “week?”

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM

… but upheld the Constitution.

darn it.

Lawrence on June 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM

“The truth is we’ve entered an era where many liberal commentators are willing to dismiss any argument as illegitimate just because they don’t like it.”

ding ding ding

cmsinaz on June 27, 2012 at 8:10 PM

The left is absolutely losing it these days.

tom daschle concerned on June 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Wow, it’s still Bush’s fault.

vcferlita on June 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM

I’m having a pre-emptive drink in honor of SCOTUS. May they uphold the Constitution and sink Obamacare. I will be drowning my sorrows if they don’t.

Philly on June 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM

These guys can’t resist the temptation to publish this garbage before the decision? I’d say they might end up being embarrassed, but I don’t think that’s possible.

forest on June 27, 2012 at 8:12 PM

I know – blame Booosh for overturning Obamacare. Loons.

Philly on June 27, 2012 at 8:12 PM

If it goes down, I’ll be more than happy to wade through sewage, the likes of which would put Andy Dufrain’s Shawshank sewage slog to shame. (How’s that for alliteration)

TxAnn56 on June 27, 2012 at 8:12 PM

So courts must overturn voters’ decisions….for the sake of democracy ofcourse, right ?

burrata on June 27, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Crocodile Tears for our dear liberal progressive bleeding heart socialist pigs. :(

Rovin on June 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

“…In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court “gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law” which amounted to “a boon for Republicans.”…”

Translation: In McCain-Feingold, unions were exempt from the law. And we all know who the unions invariably finance, don’t we?

If there was a ‘boon’ for the Republicans, it’s that thing of which liberals always claim championship: Fairness and a level playing field.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Here it is, take it to the bank or the slot machine of your choice:

Mandate killed, 6-3, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan, dissenting.

No severability and entire bill goes down 5-4, same three plus Sotomayor dissenting.

TXUS on June 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Can’t wait to see the tears of our deadbeat brethren fall. Big ol’ crocodile tears. Monster mule tears.

If there’s anything I’ve learned over the last twenty years, it’s that democrats are going to cry when they *are* in power and when they *are not* in power. They are going to whine, b!tch, moan and complain whether they win or whether the lose.

Having that basic understanding, I’d much rather listen to them whine when they lose.

Buy stock in Kleenex.

BruthaMan on June 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Politico is just hoping that they have served their master well enough to get an Executive Order establishing the MSM as “necessary” and thus eligible for a special EX funded bailout. Other wise they and a lot of their like minded brethren are going to be fighting for the minimized number of press jobs left. They sure won’t be able to survive in the private sector as the majority of them have no other skills.

Betenoire on June 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Soon enough the fascists will call for the SCOTUS to be abolished.

I’m tired of this. So tired. So very very tired. Tired.

Bishop on June 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM

So nervous for tomorrow.

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM

O-care is going down, and the tears of the Progs will be sweeter than those of the ginger kid who ate his parents at the chili cook-off on that South Park episode. I’m going to be drowning in so much schadenfreude it just might turn me into a German.

Boogeyman on June 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Over at Ace, he seems to be confident from the way Politico is spinning tomorrow that SCOAMF has been tipped off and he’s going down hard.

Dear Lord, let it be so.

Rixon on June 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I remember these same clowns writing articles a month ago saying if Obamacare is overturned it’s a victory for Obama. So shouldn’t they be applauding Roberts in their pre-emptive hogwash?

fogw on June 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM

So HC ruling is at 9:15 Eastern – when is the Holder vote?

I have to become a person I hate and bring my phone so I can check to see what happens.

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM

TxAnn56 on June 27, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Indeed:

“The country crawled to freedom through five hundred yards of sh*t smelling foulness I can’t even imagine, or maybe I just don’t want to…when the ACA was overturned…”

catmman on June 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

So HC ruling is at 9:15 Eastern – when is the Holder vote?

I have to become a person I hate and bring my phone to my training/meetings so I can check to see what happens.

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States…

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures.

Yeah, about that….

Since Roberts was a Bush appointee, I don’t think it was the Roberts court that made George W. Bush the president.

Oh, and the Roberts court has overturned less legislation than prior courts.

Oh, and the 2000 SCOTUS didn’t make Bush president, they just put a final stop to Gore’s attempts to litigate and recount the results in Florida until it came out the way he wanted. The people who just couldn’t accept that decision then launched their own recount effort, and found out Bush won after all.

Maybe it’s Politico that keeps losing….

tom on June 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

The waiting is the hardest part.

redridinghood on June 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Just a little preemptive strike from the left on the eve of the big announcement. If the mandate goes, you’ll be slogging through concern-troll sewage like this for the next week. Might as well put your hip-waders on now.

Actually, AllahP., if Roberts pulls another leftist boner here, I will be tuning out of EVERYTHING until election day. I don’t need this crap. I mean, if ObamaCare is upheld, we, as a nation, go broke.

So I will tune out completely if Roberts screws us over again. With the sole exception of Mark Levin’s radio show. That will be all I need to stay informed on the political firestorm that 2012 promises to be.

And if Obama wins in 2012? We not only go broke, but it’s all over. We are toast. We will be the generation that ultimately failed the Founders. It will every man for himself, and there will be no need to waste my waning years on news media of ANY sort.

minnesoter on June 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures.

excerpt: Politico

.
Here’s the deal, Jeff.

We settle it by Supreme Court or (un)Civil War.

It’s not the job of the Legislature to “redistribute goods and services”.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Can you just imagine what it will be like in November..?

d1carter on June 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Striking down the 20+/- year old law DOMA law would be fine for the douches of the left though.

jukin3 on June 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I don’t worry about carnival barking garbage like Matthews.
I worry that this President will go full mental because he can’t play healthcare God anymore- or worse, just ignore the ruling.

jjshaka on June 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM

So HC ruling is at 9:15 Eastern – when is the Holder vote?

I have to become a person I hate and bring my phone so I can check to see what happens.

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I’ll have to wake up really early tomorrow for that ,
hey maybe I just won’t sleep tonite….I hope it will be worth it .

burrata on June 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Thursday June 28, 2012 – when TINGLES turn to TREMORS –
Sweet Chrissy is going to have a very, very, very bad day tomorrow :)

Pork-Chop on June 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM

From what I keep seeing, while we’re in a sweat over this thing the Left is suffering dehydration.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:24 PM

When it goes down, I will be watching MessNBC instead of FOX… more tears, ash poured on heads and torn garments.

Boogeyman on June 27, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Scott Rasmussen just said on The Factor the law is so unpopular that it will disappear whether SCOTUS overturns it or not.

Philly on June 27, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Does Simon want a little WHINE with that cheese?

GarandFan on June 27, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Thursday June 28, 2012 – when TINGLES turn to TREMORS –
Sweet Chrissy is going to have a very, very, very bad day tomorrow :)

Pork-Chop on June 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM

There might be some weeping and gnashing of teeth. I hope I’m not weeping or gnashing. I don’t enjoy those.

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Here it is, take it to the bank or the slot machine of your choice:

Mandate killed, 6-3, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan, dissenting.

No severability and entire bill goes down 5-4, same three plus Sotomayor dissenting.

TXUS on June 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

.
Love your take, but I can’t reach a “bookie”.
(ding dang darn dang drats darn dang . . . . . . .)
.
.
Would there be a “Vegas line” on this?

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

The die was cast in 2000. And it would take the most dewy-eyed of optimists to expect the court’s decision to be anything other than political.

The difference, of course, being (leaving aside the Flordia SCOTUS’s party line vote and the fact that Jesse Jackson said that Bush won Florida) that a narrow plurality of US voters wanted Al Gore to be President, while a large majority of US citizens wants Obamacare overturned.

HitNRun on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I’ll have to wake up really early tomorrow for that ,
hey maybe I just won’t sleep tonite….I hope it will be worth it .

burrata on June 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I have training starting at 8 Central time for two hours. Going to drive me nuts sitting there.

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Praying tonight. Although my prayers are not worth much, I’m still going to pray for our Nation and for my parents.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Will Humpbot come out and play with us tomorrow :O

burrata on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Progressives like Matthews HATE America and the way it was founded.

Can you imagine what America would have been like if someone like Wilson or FDR had been the first President?

Dear God, please have the same kind of mercy on us tomorrow, and November 6th.

PappyD61 on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I’m turning in early tonight. I normally work into the early morning hours (self employed, work at home), but I want to be up and fresh to see this on TV.

And I have no illusion that Obama, being the narcissist marxist he is, will pull some sort of “go it alone” stunt shortly after the announcement to defy the ruling. He has no respect for the Constitution, the separation of branches or anything else that doesn’t involve him getting his way.

He knows he’s lost, he knows there are not enough lies that can be told to win re-election, so he’s going for broke.

BruthaMan on June 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Going to drive me nuts sitting there.

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Less than 13 hrs to go ,
let the countdown begin ;-)

burrata on June 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Heh. Who woulda thunk? Liberals dislike serious competition…

Valkyriepundit on June 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM

They sure won’t be able to survive in the private sector as the majority of them have no other skills.

Betenoire on June 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM

.
Nope, not hardly.

And, AMEN. : )

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Translation of Politico: “Why, oh, WHY, can’t those justices hate the Constitution like WE do?”

Warner Todd Huston on June 27, 2012 at 8:31 PM

My hunch is that the Court tends to be seen as “above politics” when it has a few heterodox members in the Kennedy mold who aren’t always predictable along ideological lines

Your hunch is typically overthought, AP. The Court is seen as “above politics” when it toes the liberal line. This is because liberals are not political; they see the world objectively as it really is. ////

HitNRun on June 27, 2012 at 8:31 PM

It’s so obvious that Politico is simply redefining the word “honor” for its own purposes. Such a desperate tactic.

Aardvark on June 27, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Praying tonight. Although my prayers are not worth much, I’m still going to pray for our Nation and for my parents.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

What? They’re totally worth a great deal. Even if it has to go down the other way, you have totally made room for a little dispensation.

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Longing for those “good old days…”

Wait, isn’t that what conservatives do?

Drained Brain on June 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Might as well put your hip-waders on now.

Allah, I think you you going to need some chest waders on this. I have an extra pair (neoprene) if you need some.

upinak on June 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM

If it goes down, I’ll be more than happy to wade through sewage, the likes of which would put Andy Dufrain’s Shawshank sewage slog to shame. (How’s that for alliteration)

TxAnn56 on June 27, 2012 at 8:12 PM

..probably should make it into the HG vernacular! May I appropriate it (with attribution, of course), ma’am?

The War Planner on June 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Here it is, take it to the bank or the slot machine of your choice:

Mandate killed, 6-3, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan, dissenting.

No severability and entire bill goes down 5-4, same three plus Sotomayor dissenting.

TXUS on June 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

That’s the way I’ve been thinking, but AP and his Eyoreish posts have been dragging me down.

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I look forward to finishing off a delicious meal of Lefty Fear this evening, with a big’ol bowl of Lefty Despair covered in Socialist tear-duct sauce tomorrow for dessert.
.
.
.
Pennywise was right…they taste so much better when they’re afraid.

a5minmajor on June 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

It’s times like this that I get a glass of good scotch, sit on the deck watching the lake, and listen to some VOLBEAT.

Bishop on June 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Two branches of government have spoken, but their speech is but a whisper compared with the shout of our high court.

Segregation, abortion, interracial marriage, public education, environmental laws, gun laws, handling of hazardous waste, line item veto, etc., etc., etc.?

The Court overrules laws put in place by “two branches” of government (President & Congress at the Federal level, Governor & Legislature at the state level) ALL. OF. THE. TIME.

Why don’t you idiots go back to whining about what the mean, old Supreme Court did in Lochner?

I loved laughing at the idiot in the White House and the rest of you over that one. You would have thought that the entire name of the case would have set off alarm bells for you “dimocrats”: Lochner v NEW YORK, but nooooooo…

6 inches of water. Head first.

Lochner had NOTHING to do with the Federal government nor the Commerce Clause. It involved the right to contract and a “duly-constituted law” passed by elected officials in Albany.

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Roger Simon is getting ripped up biggtime on his own site.

Simon, the “Chief Political Editor” who holds himself out as “non-partisan, fair and balanced” is preaching to the rest of the world about “honor”?

Delusional.

TRANSLATION: “When the court rules for Neo-Marxist values such as the slaughter of tens of MILLIONS of babies, we Liberals REJOICE. When the court rules to uphold the constitution and keep governement from over-reaching, we Liberals wail and howl then curl up into a ball of furious thumb-sucking.”

ruthlessontogeny:
This is the most MONSTROUSLY biased article I have ever read on Politico. Roger Simon – was I COMPLETELY wrong in thinking you held a pretense of balance and objectivity? This piece is so offensively one-sided I implore the Politico editorial staff to remove it. This piece does as much damage to Politico’s honor and reputation as a putatively “even-handed” source of media as anything that may or may not affect the Supreme Court.

As a social conservative, I find it ridiculously myopic that Mr. Simon goes only as far back as Bush v. Gore to see the mark of politics on the Supreme Court. The most obvious case of justices legislating from the bench happened 30 YEARS before that case – Roe v. Wade. Widely considered poor jurisprudence, even by liberals, Roe v. Wade set the standard for justices implementing their preferences for the country by overturning laws instituted by elected bodies.

Mr. Simon, SHAME SHAME SHAME on you! And all this BEFORE the decision is even reached! I have a permanently different opinion of you now. You are not worthy of being described as “balanced,” “even-handed,” or “objective” any more. Do not characterize yourself as such. You are a PARTISAN, and you have announced yourself as such today.

Politico – PLEASE REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.

How’s that for “honor” Roger?

Rovin on June 27, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I remember the last time the Supreme Court ruled against a sitting President and lost all its honor.

Oh, the outrage, the hand wringing, the non-stop analysis of how the Supreme Court had become so political, and the on-going discussions of how we needed to seriously look at making changes to minimize the political nature of the court.

You guys remember that, right?

ramrants on June 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States…

I always love how they quote the 5-4 and conventiently l;eave out the 7-2 decision that state the Florida Supreme Court acted unconstitutionaly (equal protection clause) which in turn led to the 5-4 ..

Had the FLSC acted properly the USSC wouldn’t have likley been involved.

Toobin is a bit of an arse again

theblacksheepwasright on June 27, 2012 at 8:38 PM

…look at Tinkles and the other two men in that clip!…and all I ever hear..is how ugly liberal women are?…Please!
Our a$$… with a couple of infected ingrown hairs on each cheek…looks better than that!

KOOLAID2 on June 27, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Here it is, take it to the bank or the slot machine of your choice:

Mandate killed, 6-3, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan, dissenting.

No severability and entire bill goes down 5-4, same three plus Sotomayor dissenting.

TXUS on June 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I hope you’re right but I see that goblin Kagan telling them if they throw the whole bill out or the mandate then you will interfere with the President’s election. Would that make a difference ?

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Holy Cow!! Sneak Preview!! This isn’t good at all!!

Justice Roberts will make the majority ruling that overturns Chisholm v. Georgia and results in eliminating the U.S. Supreme Court’s ability to declare anything unconstitutional!!

Varchild on June 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I anticipate O-care to stand 6-3. I totally mistrust SCOTUS to be anything except politically neutral, as the Constitution intends from it its adoption.

The Justices read the morning papers, of course. It can’t be forced upon them to be sequestered from all outside influences, like to a jury. Hence, the veiled and often-open threats in the MSM against their personal characters, legacies, and everything else short of their very lives.

Liberals browbeat, and the Justices are simply human beings.

While I hope O-care is tacnuked by the Court till it glows, I regret to seem a downer and say I don’t think SCOTUS has the guts to buck Ofama.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM

That’s the way I’ve been thinking, but AP and his Eyoreish posts have been dragging me down.

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

AP’s just trying to harsh your mellow. Don’t let it bring you down!

BruthaMan on June 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I anticipate O-care to stand 6-3. I totally mistrust SCOTUS to be anything except politically neutral, as the Constitution intends from it its adoption.

The Justices read the morning papers, of course. It can’t be forced upon them to be sequestered from all outside influences, like to a jury. Hence, the veiled and often-open threats in the MSM against their personal characters, legacies, and everything else short of their very lives.

Liberals browbeat, and the Justices are simply human beings.

While I hope O-care is tacnuked by the Court till it glows, I regret to seem a downer and say I don’t think SCOTUS has the guts to buck Ofama.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Yea I think Roberts and Kennedy bail Obama out because they are so righteous

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

It’s times like this that I get a glass of good scotch, sit on the deck watching the lake, and listen to some VOLBEAT.

Bishop on June 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Sounds grand. What is VOLBEAT?

minnesoter on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

I regret to seem a downer and say I don’t think SCOTUS has the guts to buck Ofama.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I hate to say it, but I’m pretty sure they don’t care any more about severability than Obama does about contract law.

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Longing for those “good old days…”

Wait, isn’t that what conservatives do?

Drained Brain on June 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM

The good old days when Supreme Court justices didn’t specifically call out and criticize the President. It’s hard to understand why any member of Court believes that he or she should participate in a public and political discourse.

It doesn’t matter which justice exhibits that type of behavior. It diminishes the Court’s traditional image as above the fray of daily politics and Roberts should have no patience for it.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Socialist left: Whaaaaaahhhhh. If it doesn’t go the way of communism it’s an ACTIVIST COURT! Damn Bush and those nasty evil freedom loving conservatives!!!!

Wolfmoon on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Folks on here seem pretty confident the SCOTUS will overturn. I’m not so hopeful. I think they’ll parse it out to the nth degree. Which means an even bigger mess down the road trying to get rid of what remains. With the law but not the mandate, expect single payer to be the next war cry for the left. They never stop.

idalily on June 27, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Can you just imagine what it will be like in November..?

d1carter on June 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Can’t wait!

VegasRick on June 27, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Politico says? Honor?? How the hell would they know?

Eren on June 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I have to agree with the author that the court has lost its honor, but totally disagree as to when that happened. Dredd Scott, Wickard v. Filburn, Roe v. Wade, Boumediene, Kelo v. New London… It’s amazing that there is no honor (or even common sense) with judges and lawyers.

RoadRunner on June 27, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Just got back from DU, they believe Scalia should be impeached, and they don’t think it should wait until he goes completely mad and starts flinging feces on his office walls.

The Congressional Black Caucus is planning to walk out of the house tomorrow. They will hold a press conference during the contempt vote, to remind everyone that those obstructionist republicans are not working on jobs for the American people.

There was more, but I had to leave. They make me sick.

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Volbeat? Nice.

the new aesthetic on June 27, 2012 at 8:46 PM

The good old days when Supreme Court justices didn’t specifically call out and criticize the President. It’s hard to understand why any member of Court believes that he or she should participate in a public and political discourse.

It doesn’t matter which justice exhibits that type of behavior. It diminishes the Court’s traditional image as above the fray of daily politics and Roberts should have no patience for it.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

You mean like when Obambi called out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union message?

RoadRunner on June 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

So, instead of simply expanding the Medicaid rolls to include more hard-up uninsured people, Obama and his cronies went the unconstitutional federal mandate route, forcing all of the American people, via the silly putty extension of the Commerce Clause, to purchase a product from a private company.

For their illegitimate move and obnoxious hubris, they must be smacked down.

profitsbeard on June 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM

The good old days when Presidents didn’t specifically call out and criticize the Supreme Court justices.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Fixed that for you, free of charge. I know how you liberals like the “freebies.”

BruthaMan on June 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

SCOTUS seems, since the 20th Century, to leave a lot of decisions open-ended as if you dodge the matter at hand for someone else to later deal with it.

And you have NO idea how odd it seems for me to use the term “20th Century”. *L*

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:49 PM

gophergirl on June 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Spawn usually leaves for work around 0920-I’m working tomorrow too but my shift starts later-and he would love to hear the pronouncement before he leaves. FREEDOM!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2012 at 8:49 PM

The Congressional Black Caucus is planning to walk out of the house tomorrow.

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 8:46 PM

As the famous poet chris rock once said “they know that you’re black”

VegasRick on June 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Let’s get ready to rumble!

the new aesthetic on June 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM

What time is the ruling supposed to be announced?

Thanks,

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I’m having a pre-emptive drink in honor of SCOTUS. May they uphold the Constitution and sink Obamacare. I will be drowning my sorrows if they don’t.

Philly on June 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM

If by chance it’s upheld, I for one will not comply. Let them throw me in jail for not abiding by a communist dictate. Might as well because if this is allowed to go through it means the government is our absolute master and we have no say whatsoever. We live at their pleasure.

I just can’t wait for these traitorous liberals that support the communist in chief to realize they are as screwed as the rest of us. Let THEM meet the death panels first please, so I can laugh my ass off at their tears.

Wolfmoon on June 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM

What time is the ruling supposed to be announced?

Thanks,

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM

They’re sadists. There are other rulings, and they’re going to announce them in reverse order of seniority.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Wolfmoon on June 27, 2012 at 8:51 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Always remember, We are a Nation of Laws. Not men.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Even though justices were appointed by political presidents and approved by political senators, their own politics was to be suppressed.

More shallow, intellectually lazy thinking from the Left with knee-jerk reactions to demonize those with whom they disagree. I hate to break it to Simon, but he is confusing “politics” with “ideology.” The Justices are not political — that is the whole point of being appointed for life; i.e., it is axiomatic that the Justices are not “political” as they don’t have to worry about getting re-elected. But they do have judicial ideologies — as they are supposed to and as they have always had in each & every Court since the SCOTUS was founded & the first Chief Justice John Jay was appointed. How else — on what basis — are the Justices supposed to decide cases? Opinion polls? Ha! Now that would be being “political.”

I don’t know when having an ideology — a core set of beliefs — became a bad thing, but, like so much from the Left, it is a canard. Now, Simon obviously doesn’t agree with the ideology of all of the Justices (neither do I & I bet I agree with the ones with whom Simon doesn’t) but that doesn’t transform their individual judicial ideologies into “politics.” In fact, the very fact that the Justices are not political and have individual judicial ideologies is exactly the reason why it is important to elect Presidents & Senators who appoint Justices with ideologies with which we agree — but that doesn’t make the Justices themselves “political.”

Dark Star on June 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

The Congressional Black Caucus is planning to walk out of the house tomorrow. They will hold a press conference during the contempt vote, to remind everyone that those obstructionist republicans are not working on jobs for the American people.

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Man, they are going all out on this. I look forward to the day when the really damaging FF data comes out so it can be rubbed straight into the faces of the racists in the CBC.

Bishop on June 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

They’re sadists. There are other rulings, and they’re going to announce them in reverse order of seniority.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

So, what is the estimated time? I’ve run a business for over 15 years and now have to have permission to leave the building to check my internet on my stupid phone. !

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Always remember, We are a Nation of Laws. Not men.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM

While it can be claimed we are mere men vs the law, we are FREE men.

Which comes first, which carries the most importance?

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Always remember, We are a Nation of Laws. Not men.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Until the president decides he chooses to no longer enforce the laws and no longer have the parts of the government enforce them anymore either…oh wait.

Betenoire on June 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM

So, what is the estimated time? I’ve run a business for over 15 years and now have to have permission to leave the building to check my internet on my stupid phone. !

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Starting around 10AM Eastern.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM

The good old days when Supreme Court justices didn’t specifically call out and criticize the President. It’s hard to understand why any member of Court believes that he or she should participate in a public and political discourse.

It doesn’t matter which justice exhibits that type of behavior. It diminishes the Court’s traditional image as above the fray of daily politics and Roberts should have no patience for it.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

I see you were at DU too. Is it okay for a President to call out and criticize the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address?

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Volbeat? Gah! Devil music, I say!

E.L.O – Dont get me down, much better.

Thanks Brothuman

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3