“Is Obama trying to sway the Supreme Court?”…
…asks Atlantic writer Russell Berman:
…[Obama’s] decision to champion his signature achievement in such pointed terms just weeks before the high court’s ruling is due raised the question of whether Obama was trying to jawbone the justices at the 11th hour.
…“It seems so cynical,” he said, “to want to take coverage away from millions of people; to take care away from people who need it the most; to punish millions with higher costs of care and unravel what’s now been woven into the fabric of America.”…
The speech came a day after the president, in response to a reporter’s question, commented directly on the case before the justices…”Under well-established precedent, there is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case,” Obama said. “This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up,” he added…
[In 2012, Obama had] sharply warned the Court not to rule against his healthcare law the first time around. “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said then.
So of course he’s trying to influence the Supreme Court; the question itself is rather absurd, because the answer is clear, despite Harvard law professor Charles Fried’s statement to the contrary, “I can’t imagine it’ll make any difference, and I can’t imagine he thinks it’ll make any difference.” Fried has a particularly impoverished imagination if he can’t imagine the latter, because Obama has made it crystal clear from the very first days of his presidency that he thinks his powers of persuasion (coupled, although unmentioned by him, with powers of arm-twisting and/or threats) are extraordinary. What’s more, it’s fairly clear from the way the opinions were written in Sebelius that something had persuaded Justice Roberts to change his mind at the last minute, whether it was mere persuasion, pressure, or (as some theorize) blackmail.
But persuading the justices (or one justice, which is what I think it boils down to) is only one motive for Obama’s words. Another motive is to undermine the public’s regard and respect for the Supreme Court—particularly when it disagrees with Obama, or when it takes away an entitlement of any sort that has been “woven into the fabric of America.” He’s not talking about the law there or an interpretation of the law, he’s saying that nothing once given can be taken away, and that the liberal/left agenda for America should be unstoppable no matter what the law says.
There’s more, too. When Obama speaks about SCOTUS he’s also donning the mantle of his “constitutional scholar” background, harking back to when he taught Con Law at the University of Chicago long ago. He has discussed that history enough that he assumes the listener will remember that he’s not just speaking as president but as someone who is supposed to be an expert on the matter. Of course, that doesn’t ever stop him from misstating the law, because in fact the “well-established precedent” about the interpretation of the wording of statutes (which is what King v. Burwell involves) tends to fall on the side of invalidating the federal subsidies, although there’s plenty of room for argument (there always is, with lawyers). But pretending that the law is obviously in favor of the Obama position is just that, pretense.
[NOTE: See this, this, and this, for examples of the legal arguments against Obama’s position.]
That which has been woven into the fabric of America, warp and woof, – extraordinarily apt those two words; warp/SCOTUS, woof/Obama — over the last fifty years is entirely irreconcilable with what the Founders had fabricated. Though I haven’t any long term hope, nevertheless, I should like to see that part of human nature that would pull on a loose thread and unravel the checkered mess, assert itself.
They might as well asked “Who is trying to sway Hastert” back several years ago.
They didn’t do so, for obvious reasons.
And what does the GOP establishment do? They pass funding for Obamacare and for illegal immigration, and they are eager to pass Obama’s secretly negotiated trade agreement that alters immigration law (allowing Obama to bypass Congress).
neo, I don’t want to hear another word from you that being critical of RINOs is counterproductive. Not another word.
Steve:
Don’t simplify what I’ve said.
I never said being critical of RINOs is counterproductive. I am often critical of RINOs, and in general I don’t support them when there is a credible alternative.
I can’t stand Jeb Bush, for example.
But once a RINO is nominated and is running against a liberal Democrat (the term is redundant, in most cases, since there are very few moderate Democrats), I will vote for the RINO and consider that those who don’t are acting in a way that’s counterproductive to the conservative cause.
I’ve explained why I say that many many times, so I’m not going to go into it again. If you don’t want to hear another word, close your ears.
Time for the obligatory….
“Nice Constitution you got there. Would be a shame if somethin’ were to happen to it…”
neo, I am not simplifying. I am sure you will welcome all the criticism of Romney then. Like you did in the past. Not.
Steve:
You are absolutely simplifying (not to mention the fact that you are also incorrect) when you say I have said that being critical of RINOs is counterproductive. I never said it nor do I think it, and in fact I engage in such criticism myself.
I have said that not voting for them in the general if they are in fact the nominees is counterproductive. And it is, and I will continue to say it.
What’s more, I entertained tons of criticism of Romney on this blog. I continued to say, however, that despite his flaws (some of which I acknowledged and some of which I did not agree were a correct representation of his views) it was counterproductive not to vote for him in the general, since he was the nominee, and since his opponent was the leftist Barack Obama.
What is unclear about that? Nothing, but you continue to misrepresent what I’m saying.
And by the way, I’ve seen not one thing that has transpired since Obama’s second election that changes my mind about Romney and voting for him. Nor do I think (as I stated at the time), that he is a RINO. I think he is more conservative than people gave him credit for, although not nearly as conservative as someone like Walker and definitely not as conservative as Cruz.
I am proud of my Romney vote, and to all conservatives who didn’t vote for him in the general (not the primaries, the general), I repeat: counterproductive.
And that’s a mild word for it.
If this were a case about any other statute, it would be open and shut. When a statute is unambiguous, you don’t re-interpret it. This statute says “state exchanges,” state exchanges it is.
It’s only because of Barry O and the Progressives that this is even an issue.
When words have no definition and the rule of law means only what the messiah wants, we live in a dangerous time. There will be blood, lots of blood followed by who knows what.
If Roberts really cares about the reputation of the Court and his place in history, he will stand up to BOzo. If the “who ya gonna believe, Barack or the lying Gruber’s truthful statements” defense works, the Court will be a joke and Roberts will be despised by everyone on the left and the right.
If the states DON’T have to ‘mirror’ the DC policies to get matching funds — for 0care…
Then they have a killer argument that they don’t have to ‘mirror’ OTHER DC policies and structures to get matching funds.
Folks, THIS ^^^ has been the entire source of super-creep from DC to every state house in the nation.
Congress writes a ‘giving law’ and then stipulates that ONLY those states mirroring DC formulations can get Federal monies.
Barry Soetoro is BREAKING that linkage.
That linkage covers virtually the entire LBJ/ war-on-poverty welfare state. That’s how LBJ structured virtually EVERY Federal expansion during his presidency.
And not just his: Carter’s — okay — every president’s administration.
&&&&&
As expected, every where you turn — whenever you turn — Barry is expanding his writ.
Congress just can’t roll over fast enough.
The intellectuals liked Roberts over Harriet Miers.
Is it, perhaps, because the Left found Roberts easier to subvert?
The questions the retard “intellectuals” never asked themselves before, acclaiming themselves at the intellectual top, their pride shall be their Downfall.
Barry’s merely prepping the battleground should SCOTUS rule against him. How dare they? If the state exchange rule stands, Barry’s ginning up the urban yutes to create massive riots and civil unrest.
All according to the ‘fundamental transformation’ plan.
Please, God, guide Chief Roberts to make amends for the thoroughgoing disaster of his original Obamacare decision.
Steve, I’m with you. Neo, your argument that it’s counterproductive to NOT vote for RINOs when they are the only choice makes no sense, regardless of how many times you repeat it. The GOP as a majority in two houses have in fact gone along with everything Obama wanted – they make a lot of noise about minor differences and hold things up until they get them, but the majority of what Obama wants he gets. That was true when they were a minority, but they made a show of trying to oppose what he wanted, knowing full well they were operating from a position of political safety, and their act was nothing more than a show for the sake of the people who are easily fooled into believing they were/are sincere.
Your argument contends that things will be even worse for conservatives — for example federal court appointees — if we don’t vote for the RINOs. I will give you that much in the past, but I don’t know that it’s true to a great extent anymore with the current leadership. If results are what you measure success by, voting RINO every election is a failure. What you end up doing is perpetuating a cycle of losses, with the consolation that your losses would be worse. Outside of the federal court appointees, you would hard pressed to show where the RINOs have created any significant oppostion to the left’s cultural and economic changes in the last 20 years.
You can argue all day long that not voting for a RINO is counterproductive, but you can argue from just as strong a position that voting for a RINO is unproductive. Your strategy has proven to produce more RINOs, but it’s not resulted in turning the left back. And that is what the RINOs want, to produce more RINOs. They’re not idealogues, and therefore not conservatives. They’re politicians interested in remaining politicians.
If you honestly believe that voting for McConnel and Boehner has been a win, what does a loss look like?
What has Obama failed to screw up that he promised he’d do? Everyone here agrees he’s not finished — what has been productive for a conservative by voting those clowns in again?
When you contend that things would be worse if we didn’t vote for RINOs, you’re basically asking those who disagree to disprove a negative propostion, and it’s not a very convincing argument. History is not on your side in this case, at least not when you look at the way the leadership has managed to concede every point to Obams. Making matters worse, they lecture the conservatives who stand up and call him out, and work hard to marginalize them and purge them, lest they get in the way of more losing, which they characterize as “doing what’s practical”.
And I agree with you, Jeb Bush is a douche. But you’ll vote for him anyway.
stalord, I second your motions, all of them!
stalord, frog:
I’ll tell you what a loss would look like.
Much more legislation like Obamacare, only involving many other arenas of life. No RINOs voted for Obamacare, and none would have proposed it in the first place, and if there had been more of them Obamacare would not have passed.
In addition, if a Republican (even a conservative) president were to be elected, and Democrats controlled both houses with a super-majority, they could pass anything they wanted and the president wouldn’t be able to veto it because they would override his veto. Therefore a Republican president would be powerless. They would also be able to block any conservative president’s appointments to the Supreme Court or other federal courts, and that would have enormous consequences as well.
RINOs aren’t good for much, but they certainly aren’t going to block the appointments of a conservative president.
What’s more, RINOs caucus with the Republicans (including the conservative Republicans) rather than the Democrats. With RINOs helping Republicans gain majorities in one or both houses, Republicans are able to control committees and legislation (bringing it to a vote or blocking it). But with Democrats in charge (which only takes a simple majority), Democrats are the ones who do control things.
I cannot understand how a conservative person would prefer Democrat control of Congress to even the flabbiest RINO, because it is a myth that they are the same. They are not the same.
Primary any RINO you wish. But once the RINO is nominated, a vote for the RINO is always better than a vote for the Democrat. This seems so obvious to me that it is like saying 2 + 2 = 4. We’ve argued this many many times to no avail, so I know I’m wasting my time trying to convince you. But that’s the way I see it and nothing I’ve seen or heard—NOTHING—has even remotely convinced me otherwise.
One more thing—the “current leadership” is not forever. The answer to changing the current leadership is NOT electing more Democrats (although I suppose that changes the leadership by putting the likes of Pelosi and Reid, or their Democratic successors, in charge). Changing the current leadership while keeping the legislature in Republican hands involves primarying RINOs and getting more conservatives in there, but retaining the RINOS when that doesn’t work and the RINOs are nominated, in order to retain the Republican majority. The composition of the Republican majority needs changing and then the leadership of the Republicans in Congress will change; they will elect more conservative leaders. But how can they do that when they lose the majority of the House and/or Senate? It makes no sense, unless you’re looking to have conservative Minority Leaders. That’s a difference that makes no difference.
Elections are not the solution to America’s problems, nor will it get rid of the original problem, the Left.