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

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

.
Thank you, BruthaMan. I still can’t believe he/she said that . . . . . .

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 8:58 PM

What time is the ruling supposed to be announced?

Thanks,

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

10 a.m. EST

Dark Star on June 27, 2012 at 8:59 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 | Delete | Delete and Ban

Roe v. Wade was about killing our babies.
Obamcare is about killing our parents.

God, please make this stop. Please?

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

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

Actually, it was a 7-2 decision on stopping the recounts.

But it was important, as it enabled George W. Bush to replace Rehnquist and O’Connor with Roberts and Alito.

Steve Z on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 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

You missed the point entirely. Many past Presidents have criticized the Supreme Court to achieve political goals or highlight beliefs. Reagan did so repeatedly. But under Reagan, no member of the court decided to lash out at Reagan, and both this country and Court were better for it.
Supreme Court justices are not running for election and ultimately cannot further the Court’s objectives by taking sides specific political debates.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

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

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

When are they going to start protesting their lily-white, fellow Democrats, who aren’t making the O’ajj to Charlotte to pay homage to their Black Jesus (h/t David Axelrod)? And, why is Black Jesus only getting 3 days when Billy Jeff and Lurch got 4 days? ‘Dem be white boyz. Raaacist!

BTW: According to Steve Israel, the head of the DCCC, Democrats running for reelection should stay home in their districts lest their attendance at the O’ajj “could turn off independent voters.” Now, if attending the O’ajj, whose purpose is to renominate Barack Obama, might turn off independents, why would Democrats think that those indies are going to vote for the Black Jesus in November? Anyone?

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

10 a.m. EST

Dark Star on June 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Thank you.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

No law trumps the Constitution, leftards.

And if you really want to see an apocalypse, just give Patches Kennedy a six pack and put him in a car. Look out, Park Service!!!!!

Blake on June 27, 2012 at 9:03 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 embarrassing. I wish I were black so the embarrassment would carry some weight. I can’t get further than American, but as such, watching these guys mill about in confusion, thinking their show is still being watched — all the old rules they are trying to play by — and to boot, they are the self-appointed representatives of black people in America. Blacks are like you?

C’mon.

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 9:03 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

I don’t see how they help themselves by doing this. What it makes me think is that perhaps we should be very careful in the future about allowing black people to occupy positions of authority, since once they have the job no one is allowed to hold them accountable without being called a racist. By walking out, solely because a black man is being held accountable, they diminish him and themselves.

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 9:04 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

[reply not specifically aimed at Bishop]

That’s how they (usually) do it. Incrementally. You get tired. They don’t.

They just keep the pressure up, and every small move ratchets things in their direction. Over a period of years, it becomes significant. That’s why “compromise” always seems to mean “OK, so we’ll do it mostly your way”. That’s why they’re called “progressives”.

They’ve been doing this for the better part of a century, and if you look how far the country has been pushed off its axis, you’ll have to admit that it’s been a successful strategy.

Lately they just got greedy, and over-reached. That, and the fact that the dwindling supply of OPM (other people’s money) is starting to become hard for the herd to ignore.

Now isn’t the time to get tired.

bofh on June 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Actually Heaven on my mind

Think Obama as Jesus, Rahm as Judas.

Just that song… NOT trying to equate Obama to Jesus. However, after a few beers, I can totally see him with his Jesus complex and Rahm running off to Chicago

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Now, if attending the O’ajj, whose purpose is to renominate Barack Obama, might turn off independents, why would Democrats think that those indies are going to vote for the Black Jesus in November? Anyone?

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I got nuthin’.

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 9:09 PM

10 a.m. EST

Dark Star on June 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Thank you.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

You’re welcome, but I just realized that we are on Daylight Savings Time right now (I hate DST, btw), so I should have written EDT, but whatever — I’m sure you figured it out. :-)

Dark Star on June 27, 2012 at 9:09 PM

making the O’ajj to Charlotte

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Heh. Saw what you did there!

bofh on June 27, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Somebody correct me if I am remembering incorrectly, but didn’t Obama say Roberts should have been filibustered? I know he at least voted against him. You know what they say about payback.

txmomof6 on June 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM

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

Yep. Politico is a daily sh!tburger, as one of their former employees said.

slickwillie2001 on June 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM

And then came 2000 and the court’s 9-0. 7-2 and 5-4 decisions that made George W. Bush the president of the United States…

FIXED.

Del Dolemonte on June 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Roe v. Wade was about killing our babies.
Obamcare is about killing our parents.

God, please make this stop. Please?

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

It might be about to. For the first time in decades, even more than when Reagan was in office, the Left is facing a hard fight. Their first authentic one, really.

In the 80s, every battle was in Washington, the political stage, and in the media. Back then, cable was more for entertainment and not news. The worst things got between people was a shouting match during lunch at work. Maybe an occasional fist fight/peeing contest in a bar.

Now, though, we have the Tea Party, wide expanse of like-minded communication though miles apart, and the entire world at our fingertips. It’s a wholly different world.

And the liblets HATE that.

For the first time, there is a chance to make it all stop. In a town of 5000, you might find 20 Conservatives. They used to be isolated. But, by the Net, they can reach for free another 20 Conservatives the next town over on a common place. And so on, and so on.

Whatever happens with O-care tomorrow, we Conservatives are nowhere near done–not by a long shot.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM

But under Reagan, no member of the court decided to lash out at Reagan, and both this country and Court were better for it.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

This country is never better for it when a President calls out the Supreme Court in a SOTU or threatens/attacks it before a major ruling…not even FDR did that with his court-packing scheme, which happened AFTER the Court struck down major New Deal laws.

This country is never better for it when a President decides to make recess appointments when the Senate is not and, pursuant to Article I, Section 9, cannot be in recess.

This country is never better for it when a President decides to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. (I’m sure that you will be content in the future should a Republican president refuse to enforce civil rights laws or laws guaranteeing access to abortion clinics. And, if you say, “Well, we’ll just do this and that and you’ll see what the Court tells him to do, blah, blah, blah,” as the founder of your party once said:

“(Chief Justice_ John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now…if he can.”

IOW, Justice Marshall and the Court had no military to enforce its ruling in Worcester v. Georgia that Native Americans had a right to federal protection against enforcement of unconstitutional state laws, but that sick POS, President Andrew Jackson did.

I don’t think that you would like such lawlessness in a Republican POTUS. I don’t like lawlessness in any politician and, if he has to be scolded for failing to uphold the oath to which he swore from the highest bench in the land to be told that he is out of control, then so be it.

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Heh. Saw what you did there!

bofh on June 27, 2012 at 9:09 PM

~~wink, wink~~

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Whatever happens with O-care tomorrow, we Conservatives are nowhere near done–not by a long shot.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Coming from Politico I would consider it a badge of honor to represent the “Lost Honor” they see. The Constitution is now, and will always be the guiding light for our country.

hpk1942 on June 27, 2012 at 9:20 PM

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

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

He criticized them first.

Del Dolemonte on June 27, 2012 at 9:21 PM

What an idiot. Brings “lame” to a new lameness.

There are several decisions I disagree with, but I respect them just the same. Kelo v. City of New London comes to mind.

Obviously, Libbies only believe in “rule of law” when it fits their purpose. But then, we knew that.

Feckless SCoaMFs.

ProfShadow on June 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Key West Reader on June 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM

We still have a vote and our Constitution. We can reach fellow Conservatives all across America with a few keystrokes long as we have the Internet.

We are not, and never have been, alone as the liblets keep trying to tell us. They are the minority, though they hold the colleges and MSM. The Net is their bane, their poison. We conservatives always have fellows for backup, more in droves than does the Left.

And the liblets HATE that.

Ah, such a sweet revenge! ;)

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:25 PM

This has got to mean that the msm Dems (but I repeat myself) have heard from their snitches in the WH that the entire Obamacare debacle will be thrown out. So now to salvage any chance of their candidate winning in November they must paint the SC as extreme. They did this with Citizens United. That didn’t work and this won’t either.

neyney on June 27, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Why do I keep seeing

| Delete | Delete and Ban

on some folks’ posts?

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I don’t see how they help themselves by doing this. What it makes me think is that perhaps we should be very careful in the future about allowing black people to occupy positions of authority, since once they have the job no one is allowed to hold them accountable without being called a racist. By walking out, solely because a black man is being held accountable, they diminish him and themselves.

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Only applies to Democrats. They’d never do that for a Republican.

Count to 10 on June 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Supreme Court justices are not running for election and ultimately cannot further the Court’s objectives by taking sides specific political debates.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

While that is true at the Federal SCOTUS level, in fact the Supreme Court Justices in Florida who tried to steal the election in that state for Algore in 2000 by rewriting Florida election law (from the bench after the election was completed, mind you!) were in fact elected.

And many of them were easily re-elected the next time they ran after their failed coup.

Del Dolemonte on June 27, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Why do I keep seeing

| Delete | Delete and Ban

on some folks’ posts?

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban | Delete and Ban and Whip Like A Dog

They’re stealth banners for HotGas and all of them should be excised like tumors from this site for their duplicity.

Bishop on June 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

And then came 2000 and the court’s 9-0, 7-2 and 5-4 decisions that made George W. Bush the president of the United States…

FIXED.

Del Dolemonte on June 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM

The first 2000 SCOTUS decision (9-0 against Algore) was against the West Palm Beach Democrat “voting officials” as I recall.

The 7-2 and 5-4 ones were against the All-Democrat Florida Supreme Court, whose Justices are elected.

Del Dolemonte on June 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

So will we be serfs or citizens tomorrow?

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

They are being weighed by the gods. :)

(It’s a glitch in the software update.)

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

So will we be serfs or citizens tomorrow?

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM

We will be as free as we assert ourselves.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Speaking of predictable hacks, here’s Chris Matthews warming up his “is this a new Dred Scott?” routine for tomorrow, just in case.

Dred Scott would be ruling the mandate constitutional.

NotCoach on June 27, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Why must we pretend that justices are not political? We’re fooling ourselves. Of course justices have deep seated ideologies that more or less hew to the political left or right.

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Indiana just passed a law that it is legal to shoot a cop if the cop is illegally invading your home.

I don’t know what all that portends, and I would suggest no one go running for a gun right away if it’s a cop. But a lot is going on here against government intrusion.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I don’t think that you would like such lawlessness in a Republican POTUS. I don’t like lawlessness in any politician and, if he has to be scolded for failing to uphold the oath to which he swore from the highest bench in the land to be told that he is out of control, then so be it.

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Your entire response was the most inspiring words I’ve read in a long time. Makes me proud to be an American. Very well stated.

BruthaMan on June 27, 2012 at 9:38 PM

The good old days when Supreme Court justices didn’t specifically call out and criticize the President.
bayam on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

When you have a president who’s suing states and ignoring federal law then it shouldn’t be too surprising. Besides, if you’re referring to Scalia in the Arizona decision his comments were on point and completely relevant to his dissent.

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Why do I keep seeing

| Delete | Delete and Ban

on some folks’ posts?

LtGenRob on June 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

On yours I see:

| Delete | Delete and Ban | Report to AttackWatch

slickwillie2001 on June 27, 2012 at 9:39 PM

RE: Chrissy: When you publicly declare man-love and it goes unrequited after 4 years (really–how many nights has Chrissy spent in the Lincoln Bedroom under Obama), you’re an abject failure.

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:40 PM

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM

You live in Canada, why should you care? I guarantee you most of us don’t give a rat’s a$$ what pot smoking Canadian judges are doing.

NotCoach on June 27, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Liberals: if the court doesn’t invent federal powers not stated in the Constitution that no previous administration has has then the system is broken.

What do liberals believe is the limiting principle on the federal government?

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 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

.
You missed the point entirely. Many past Presidents have criticized the Supreme Court to achieve political goals or highlight beliefs. Reagan did so repeatedly. But under Reagan, no member of the court decided to lash out at Reagan, and both this country and Court were better for it.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

.
You’re going to have to document Reagan’s criticism.

“Ronaldus Magnus” would never have done anything like BHO calling out the “Supremes” in a State Of The Union speech.

Nope, I reject your premise that any other President (short of FDR) has openly criticized the SCOTUS in the same way that “The One” has.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

What do liberals believe is the limiting principle on the federal government?

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

When they have chested the pinnacle of “Dr. Seuss According to Marx.”

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:45 PM

What do liberals believe is the limiting principle on the federal government?

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Necessity?

Which is Spandex.

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM

chested=crested

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM

From article:

Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bush’s behalf in Florida in 2000.

Will someone tell poor Roger Simon about Barack Obama and Elena Kagan? I would do it but I hate to see a grown man cry.

jangle12 on June 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

BruthaMan on June 27, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Thanks. Let us hope we are still proud tomorrow at this time.

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM

We should take comfort – using Obama’s example the next Republican president can just refuse to enforce any of the provisions in O-care!

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM
.

I don’t think that you would like such lawlessness in a Republican POTUS. I don’t like lawlessness in any politician and, if he has to be scolded for failing to uphold the oath to which he swore from the highest bench in the land to be told that he is out of control, then so be it.

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM

.
Your entire response was the most inspiring words I’ve read in a long time. Makes me proud to be an American. Very well stated.

BruthaMan on June 27, 2012 at 9:38 PM

.
Dittos.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Necessity?

Which is Spandex.

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM

You would NEVER say that if you have the women I have wearing Spandex who should never be seen in Spandex. Not even in private.

Not in front of a mirror.

GOD would need eye bleach…

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:50 PM

So much for “above politics.”

Isn’t that kind of a dead concept when you’ve got a lawless President who selectively enforces the law, deliberately breaks his oath of office to further his radical agenda (F&F to attack the 2nd Amendment), and leaks stuff to friendly news outlets for political purposes?

Happy Nomad on June 27, 2012 at 9:52 PM

What do liberals believe is the limiting principle on the federal government?

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

When they have all the money and make all the rules.

Happy Nomad on June 27, 2012 at 9:54 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

As someone who’s very confident about the mandate getting shot down, and who also believes that Holder is going to be getting his tomorrow, I’ll tell you that I am going to take a walk tonight, at midnight, along the Mississippi River here in NE Minneapolis, where I’ll be lighting off some fireworks, in a case of what you may say is premature celebration! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 27, 2012 at 9:54 PM

GOD would need eye bleach…

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:50 PM

lol — I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying spandex was necessity, I was saying necessity is like Spandex — or I just misunderstood you –

– but now I’m too disturbed to try to think this out or explain, and I’m going to go imagine pretty flowers until I feel normal again. :)

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 9:55 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

.
You missed the point entirely. Many past Presidents have criticized the Supreme Court to achieve political goals or highlight beliefs. Reagan did so repeatedly. But under Reagan, no member of the court decided to lash out at Reagan, and both this country and Court were better for it.

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM

.
You’re going to have to document Reagan’s criticism.

“Ronaldus Magnus” would never have done anything like BHO calling out the “Supremes” in a State Of The Union speech.

Nope, I reject your premise that any other President (short of FDR) has openly criticized the SCOTUS in the same way that “The One” has.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

No he just appointed the guy who is going to screw you over tomorrow

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 9:56 PM

What bunk. The Supreme Court has always been political. Marbury v. Madison was seen as a controversial and political decision in its time. President Jefferson criticized CJ Marshall, and warned of justices becoming despots. And FDR was so ticked at the SCOTUS not rubber-stamping all his New Deal legislation in the 1930′s that he threatened to increase the number of justices and pack the court with hand-picked judges who would do his bidding.

And it would take the most dewy-eyed of optimists to expect the court’s decision to be anything other than political.

LOL. Unless the libs manage to scrape together a majority and rule to uphold the law in its entirety, right Toobin? Then it won’t be a political decision at all; no, then it’ll be a fair and judicious and totally non-partisan outcome, the legitimacy of which no reasonable person could ever question.

Typical liberal hypocrite.

AZCoyote on June 27, 2012 at 9:59 PM

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

Which is exactly the job of the SCOTUS as the founders envisioned.

It’s not supposed to be “easy” to pass laws – and that is why the founders placed so many checks and balances in the system.

SCOTUS acting political? LOL – as if the Founders didn’t count on EXACTLY that!!

HondaV65 on June 27, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Necessity?

Which is Spandex.

Axe
on June 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM

.
You would NEVER say that if you have the women I have wearing Spandex who should never be seen in Spandex. Not even in private.

Not in front of a mirror.

GOD would need eye bleach…

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:50 PM

.
My deepest sympathies and condolences.

I hope you recover from the “experience”.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM

GOD would need eye bleach…

Liam on June 27, 2012 at 9:50 PM

.
lol — I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying spandex was necessity, I was saying necessity is like Spandex — or I just misunderstood you –

– but now I’m too disturbed to try to think this out or explain, and I’m going to go imagine pretty flowers until I feel normal again. :)

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 9:55 PM

.
Oh, my sides hurt . . . . . . . what a life !

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:06 PM

I wouldn’t expect many on the left to take these judicial “setbacks” as reason to at least consider the possibility that some of their grand ambitions actually run counter to the principles laid out in the Constitution, let alone the spirit of the nation’s founding. But it sure would be nice.

Blacklake on June 27, 2012 at 10:07 PM

I hope you recover from the “experience”.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Ha! — You probably aren’t a grown man if you don’t have something to shudder over. :) I suppose it’s the same for women.

“I still have nightmares over what I did for that Klondike Bar.”

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Does Simon want a little WHINE with that cheese?

GarandFan on June 27, 2012 at 10:08 PM

The pigs started squealing loudly well before the butcher was scheduled to enter the pen. Now, the day before, they are hysterical and shrieking uncontrollably. In some cases something warm is tingling down their legs.

farsighted on June 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM

bayam on June 27, 2012 at 9:02 PM
.

You’re going to have to document Reagan’s criticism.

“Ronaldus Magnus” would never have done anything like BHO calling out the “Supremes” in a State Of The Union speech.

Nope, I reject your premise that any other President (short of FDR) has openly criticized the SCOTUS in the same way that “The One” has.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

.
No he just appointed the guy who is going to screw you over tomorrow

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 9:56 PM

.
Tomorrow’s not here, yet.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:11 PM

No he just appointed the guy who is going to screw you over tomorrow

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 9:56 PM

You have been negative for days. You must be a Moby. NO Conservative is this negative..not even AP.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I hope you recover from the “experience”.

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM

.
Ha! — You probably aren’t a grown man if you don’t have something to shudder over. :) I suppose it’s the same for women.

“I still have nightmares over what I did for that Klondike Bar.”

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 10:07 PM

.
Were you on “Fear Factor”?

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Just heard RINO John Thune on Greta.

He said that the GOP will respect the Court regardless of it’s decision.

Ummm… don’t know about you guys, but if that Court decides to allow a bunch of bureaucrats to make our medical decisions including whether we’re worthy of life-saving treatment then I’ll be damned if I’m going to “respect” those clowns wearing robes.

Frankly it should be 9-0 striking down the whole thing and there’s no excuse to hyping up the decision to the very last minute like a bunch of media whores!

LevinFan on June 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Dr. Milton Wolf (Obama’s conservative cousin) Obamacare must die a political death.

redridinghood on June 27, 2012 at 10:19 PM

As someone who’s very confident about the mandate getting shot down, and who also believes that Holder is going to be getting his tomorrow, I’ll tell you that I am going to take a walk tonight, at midnight, along the Mississippi River here in NE Minneapolis, where I’ll be lighting off some fireworks, in a case of what you may say is premature celebration! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 27, 2012 at 9:54 PM

There’s an idea. You folks that live in fireworks states should set some off tomorrow at dusk if the beast is slain tomorrow morning.

slickwillie2001 on June 27, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Only applies to Democrats. They’d never do that for a Republican.

Count to 10 on June 27, 2012 at 9:26 PM

The DU folks are anxiously waiting to see if Allen West joins them (CBC) on the House steps. As if… The more mature of the DU commenters thinks they should all pull down their pants and moon the House to show their displeasure.

Night Owl on June 27, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Were you on “Fear Factor”?

listens2glenn on June 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Metaphorically speaking. I call it “The 80s” :)

Axe on June 27, 2012 at 10:21 PM

It is shaping up to be a GLORIOUS day tomorrow.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM

slickwillie2001 on June 27, 2012 at 10:20 PM
What do you know-Spawn just bought some fireworks for next week.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Cool.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Individual Mandates would be upheld but the court would greatly weaken them to the degree it makes them a huge political liability. They will rule that citizens cannot be taxed to cover the cost of health insurance for the individuals who are forced by the government to have health insurance. They will rule that mandates cannot be funded from any other government programs such a medicaire, medicaid, and social security.

They will rule that insurance companies would not obliged to take patients with pre-existing conditions and they will rule that insurance companies would be not obliged to cover children until the age of 26.

They will rule that companies cannot drop the healthcare coverage of their employees for a fee because the government did not define where the fee would go.

In other word if the above happens then Obamacare is effectively finished.

mnjg on June 27, 2012 at 10:26 PM

It is shaping up to be a GLORIOUS day tomorrow.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM

I wish I could share your optimism but I don’t trust Roberts and Kennedy after that way that made Az a de facto amnesty state.

LevinFan on June 27, 2012 at 10:27 PM

No he just appointed the guy who is going to screw you over tomorrow

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 9:56 PM

You have been negative for days. You must be a Moby. NO Conservative is this negative..not even AP.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Heheh I don’t know who moby is

I work in the healthcare industry my livelihood is at stake with this as well as my children’s freedom. Yes I am negative at this point. I started my career working for a cigarette company, Clinton killed it, now I’m in healthcare Obama will kill it with this.

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM

What do liberals believe is the limiting principle on the federal government?

gwelf on June 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Their Imagination.

a5minmajor on June 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Just heard RINO John Thune on Greta.

He said that the GOP will respect the Court regardless of it’s decision.

LevinFan on June 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Two points LevinFan:

It was Greta’s show not really a news program. She is Jerry Springer without (usually) the DNA testing of who the daddy is. She is the female Geraldo Rivera. She is tabloid.

Secondly, what would you have Thune or any other elected official say on the eve of the ruling on Obamacare? That if it didn’t go the way they want they’d ignore the decision or work against it? Please think about that question a while before responding. Our whole society is based on the rule of law. That has been tested quite a bit with Obama’s selective enforcement of the law and ignoring key aspects of the Constitution. If elected officials start going on the air with comments about not respecting co-equal branches of government, where does it all end?

Happy Nomad on June 27, 2012 at 10:30 PM

plainly obvious that the ‘Journo-List’ is still operational. Took them 24hrs to organize but here it is, on several simultaneous fronts, a coordinated smear putsch. They even got 7th Circuit judge Dick Posner in on the scam.

rayra on June 27, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Sorry I posted so late, I’ve been weeping for the last 5 or 6 seconds.

KrebsCyclist on June 27, 2012 at 10:31 PM

LevinFan on June 27, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I prefer optimism. I’ve been pessimistic enough for a while now. If they don’t kill it, then severely Conservative Romney and a conservative House and Senate have to defund it. Mitt says that he will do away with it. If he’s the guy all of the severe Mittbots have told us his is, then, we’ve got no worries, right?

But, I’m believing that it dies tomorrow.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Dr. Milton Wolf (Obama’s conservative cousin) Obamacare must die a political death.

redridinghood on June 27, 2012 at 10:19 PM | Delete

Nope, policies that are unconstitutional should die, no matter how many voters agree or disagree with them and we need the SC to make it clear to everyone that this thing is unconstitutional. Obamacare must die a judicial death!

Valkyriepundit on June 27, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Heh. Heh. Yep, you do. I worked in the Healthcare Industry for 7 years and sold Health Insurance for 2. It dies tomorrow.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Bottom line is Roberts knows conservatives — who hate the law — will accept it being upheld and go away peacefully, and democrats — if they lose — will go scorched earth. That’s always been the case, always will be the case. Conservatives act with dignity, accept the rule of law, and get screwed over and over again. Democrats smash and destroy, and get what they want. Some people call this “terrorism,” and it works.

Rational Thought on June 27, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Heh. Heh. Yep, you do. I worked in the Healthcare Industry for 7 years and sold Health Insurance for 2. It dies tomorrow.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I hope you’re right, i pray you’re right

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 10:37 PM

They will rule that citizens cannot be taxed to cover the cost of health insurance for the individuals who are forced by the government to have health insurance.

mnjg on June 27, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Question not before SCOTUS. They won’t rule on it.

They will rule that mandates cannot be funded from any other government programs such a medicaire, medicaid, and social security.

Question not before SCOTUS. They won’t rule on it.

They will rule that insurance companies would not obliged to take patients with pre-existing conditions and they will rule that insurance companies would be not obliged to cover children until the age of 26.

Question not before SCOTUS. They won’t rule on it.

They will rule that companies cannot drop the healthcare coverage of their employees for a fee because the government did not define where the fee would go.

Question not before SCOTUS. They won’t rule on it.

They don’t rule on things they don’t grant cert for. And I am not aware of any asking for certification from SCOTUS on any of the above.

NotCoach on June 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM

FDR attacked the Supreme court and at least in part successfully, this President and his minions are trying hard to make the false claim that the court should give in to the liberal intimidation they’ve applied.

Any reasonable person might make the rightful conclusion that opposite of their desires is probably the right course. Certainly giving in would compound future harassment.

Moderation? I don’t think that’s applicable. Anytime.

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?
Antonin Scalia

Speakup on June 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM

No he just appointed the guy who is going to screw you over tomorrow

Conservative4ev on June 27, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Who? Kennedy? Don’t be too dour on Kennedy. He has a fierce libertarian streak and is much more conservative on Tenth Amendment issues than on issues like abortion and gay rights. Read his recent ringing defence of Federalism in his opinion for the majority in United States v Bond. Also, recall this from the oral arguments:

“[Obamacare] changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way.”

Several of the amicus briefs filed by libertarian think tanks and, IIRC, Mark Levin’s law firm made this precise point and Kennedy seemed to be almost reading their briefs verbatim on this issue.

Kennedy also joined in the majority on United States v Lopez and United States v Morrison, cases that involved the Commerce Clause and activity not economic in nature. Furthermore, he specifically stated in oral arguments in March that the Commerce Clause had never been used to regulate economic INactivity, which is what the individual mandate is.

Resist We Much on June 27, 2012 at 10:43 PM

NotCoach on June 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM

They can rule on any sentence in Obamcare even if some points were not argued before them during the oral arguments…

mnjg on June 27, 2012 at 10:44 PM

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

Nah. 1 branch of government spoke and some in another branch bowed down. The remaining to reach a majority were threatened, conjoled and finally BRIBED.

Now, I’d like to remind you that all three branches of government are constrained by a frequently forgotten document which lays out the very foundation and responsibilities of these branches of government. Unfortunately, currently two branches of government have ignored the US Constitution, the will of the people they represent and finally their oaths of office (which are not partisan) which swears to uphold the US Constitution. This is why the final and third branch of government has been called into play. Had the first two branches upheld their duties and responsibilities, the third branch could be silent.

katablog.com on June 27, 2012 at 10:46 PM

“Click the image to watch.”

NO

Eph on June 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM

minnesoter on June 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

My sentiments exactly.

Cleombrotus on June 27, 2012 at 10:50 PM

They can rule on any sentence in Obamcare even if some points were not argued before them during the oral arguments…

mnjg on June 27, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Look, I am trying to refrain from calling you ignorant, but you clearly have no idea how SCOTUS does business. They grant certiorari (I incorrectly said certification above) on specific questions and make their rulings addressing only those questions they granted cert for.

* Granted, the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services [11-400]), cases consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument.

* Granted, the constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida, et al.), two hours of oral argument.

* Parties directed to brief and argue whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398), one hour of oral argument. (That order appeared to be limited to reviewing whether that Act only bars states from challenging the mandate; the question of whether that Act bars private entities from challenging the mandate was raised in the Liberty University case, and the Court did not grant that petition.) (UPDATE: It appears, on a closer reading of the grants, that the Anti-Injunction Act will be explored as a limitation on challenges to the mandate by either private individuals or states.)

* Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services case, 11-400); one hour of oral argument.

NotCoach on June 27, 2012 at 10:51 PM

I remember back in 2000 when the SC ruled to stop the recount in FL.

The democrats finally lost their minds. They just totally gave in to their extreme hate-filled dark side.

2000 was the turning point, imo.

If the SC completely throws out the law, ( I dont think they’ll throw it all out) the reaction will be nuclear on the Left.
The network spin of “it’s really a VICTORY for the Won!” will not register with the Lefties in the blogs.

Holy crap, just wait till Nov if Obama loses.

B Man on June 27, 2012 at 10:52 PM

You have been negative for days. You must be a Moby. NO Conservative is this negative..not even AP.

kingsjester on June 27, 2012 at 10:11 PM

You must believe that HondaV65 and ddrintn are not Conservatives, then. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 27, 2012 at 10:54 PM

I remember back in 2000 when the SC ruled to stop the recount in FL.

The democrats finally lost their minds. They just totally gave in to their extreme hate-filled dark side.

2000 was the turning point, imo.

If the SC completely throws out the law, ( I dont think they’ll throw it all out) the reaction will be nuclear on the Left.
The network spin of “it’s really a VICTORY for the Won!” will not register with the Lefties in the blogs.

Holy crap, just wait till Nov if Obama loses.

B Man on June 27, 2012 at 10:52 PM

And I remember being just as obsessed waiting for their ruling. In fact, I point to that election as my descent into political madness. I watched hours and hours of vote counting, and realized that right before my eyes…DEMOCRATS WERE CHEATING! It was simply unbelievable. Kind of like this is unbelievable — that we have come to a place where we don’t know how our Supreme Court will rule on forcing American citizens to enter into contracts with private companies under duress. Unbelievable.

Rational Thought on June 27, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3