Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RJ

Constitutional Contempt - "Donald Virrilli goes down with the grace of a deer in the headlights."

Rate this topic

9 posts in this topic

The stunned and disbleieving left, the Liberals and the Progressive liberals aare all puking in their sinks and toilets because the Supreme Court Sissy Slapped the crap out of them, because their mindset caused them to believe that the Constitution was yesterdays news ans will be replaced with something more modern.

 

Yeah Right! :mad:

 

 

Constitutional Contempt

 

By W. James Antle, III on 3.29.12 @ 9:30AM

 

 

Why the Obama legal team struggled at the Supreme Court.

 

 

After three days of arguments before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration and its supporters have been found in contempt. Not of the court, but of the Constitution.

 

 

Twenty-six states and the National Federation of Independent Business challenged the constitutionality of President Obama's signature piece of domestic legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The sophistries on which the Obamaphiles relied to defend their health care power grab were perhaps best summarized by Slate legal columnist Dahlia Lithwick: "That the law is constitutional is best illustrated by the fact that -- until recently -- the Obama administration expended almost no energy defending it."

 

 

That lack of energy came back to haunt them Tuesday when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli turned in a stammering, barely coherent performance worthy of the public defender in My Cousin Vinny as he struggled to articulate a constitutional defense of Obamacare. The arguments went only slight better for Verrilli yesterday. The administration seemed ill prepared to answer even basic, predictable questions about the law's constitutional basis.

 

 

Like Nancy Pelosi, when pressed to square the federal government's actions with the Constitution, the Obama legal team could only reply, "Are you serious?"

 

 

For at least five of the nine Supreme Court justices, the answer appeared to be yes. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote, seemed skeptical of the commerce clause justification for the individual mandate. He recognized that the mandate to purchase a specific product fundamentally altered the citizen's relationship with her government, informed Verrilli that he had a "heavy burden" of proof, and questioned whether the government could create commerce in order to regulate it.

 

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, as is his wont, went even further. "One way or another, Congress is going to have to reconsider this," Scalia said. "Why isn't it better to have them reconsider it in toto?" Even the liberal justices, who spent much of the oral arguments trying to save Verrilli from himself, heaped scorn on the Obama administration's argument that the individual mandate is a tax, except when it isn't.

 

 

A major point of contention was that the government could identify no principle that limited the powers it asserted. Why can't Washington compel people to eat broccoli, buy burial insurance, or carry cell phones from which they could call 911? There was no obvious answer, suggesting that the administration sought to dress up a general police power -- which the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution explicitly denied the federal government -- in the language of the commerce clause.

 

 

Indeed, the issue goes far beyond health care. For decades, members of the elected branch of the federal government have barely pretended to adhere to the document to which they swear an oath. They do not consult the Constitution when they seek to accomplish their policy goals. They do not recognize its clear limits on their power.

 

 

While liberals have been most comprehensive in their rejection of enumerated powers, preferring instead to use the Constitution as a battering ram against Christmas trees in the town square, this constitutional amnesia has been a bipartisan affliction. It manifested itself among the center-right policy wonks who toyed with the individual mandate since the 1990s. It was seen in the unchecked growth of government even when Republicans are in power.

 

 

Even advocates of relatively activist government in the context of the times believed that constitutional amendments were necessary to prohibit such obvious economic activities as slavery and the sale of alcoholic beverages. Defenders of the health care reform law did not even bother to cite evidence that the people who ratified the Constitution intended to delegate to the federal government the powers the Obama administration claimed.

 

 

Instead you have Lithwick asserting that "all the conservative longing for the good old days of the pre-New Deal courts won’t put us back in those days as if by magic." And New York Times legal columnist Linda Greenhouse mocking Paul Clement for calling the individual mandate "unprecedented" in his legal brief (as if precedent has never been considered in a court proceeding before). And the solicitor general pleading for deference even as he cannot point to one enumerated power that would validate his argument.

 

 

The American republic was founded on the idea that the federal government possesses only the powers granted to it by a supermajority of the people and the states. Ratification of the Constitution and its amendments is the process by which that supermajority gives its consent. This once-basic notion of governance was relegated to the fringes. It is now returning to the mainstream.

 

 

Obama's solicitor general was caught flat-footed not because he lacks legal skills. He is part of a political culture that has never thought seriously about the Constitution, has never thought that our masters in Washington need to beg the people for any permission beyond their vote every two to six years, and has regarded the doctrine of enumerated powers as a pre-New Deal relic. The Washington conventional wisdom has long been rooted in constitutional contempt.

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts may yet be reluctant to overturn a major act of Congress by a narrow 5 to 4 vote. Anthony Kennedy could get out of bed tomorrow and decide that the individual mandate is the greatest thing since Roe v. Wade.

 

 

But no matter how the Court rules, the bedrock assumptions of constitutionally limited government have returned to the mainstream of American political discourse. The Constitution is back. If we can keep it.

 

 

What say you all concerned with Zimmerman vs. the NBPP??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise considering their leader, President Obama considers the U.S. Constitution a charter of negative liberties and an obstacle to implementing his agenda. :dismay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well written article RJ, and I agree with it. I don't like the idea of gov't telling anyone what they have to buy. I also like that it's a balanced article, in that it mentions both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just hope we're not counting our chickens before they hatch... nothing would surprise me.

 

I must admit, in spite of the beating given ACA advocates in Court this week, I will be shocked if the SCotUS overturns the ACA.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember guys, we're only 1 supreme court judge from going down the rabbit hole. it's really imperative to get a republican president before the next judge retires or croaks. I mean, Sotomayor and Kagan don't even pretend to hide their disdain for the document they swore to uphold. Hell, Ginsburg publicly said it was basically no good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, in spite of the beating given ACA advocates in Court this week, I will be shocked if the SCotUS overturns the ACA.

 

What good is served giving the admin lawyers a beating if the ultimate result is going to be "well, what you did is just fine, peachy fine... feel free to do more" ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What good is served giving the admin lawyers a beating if the ultimate result is going to be "well, what you did is just fine, peachy fine... feel free to do more" ?

 

i think it will be 5 to 4, maybe even 6-3 against the indivual mandate but the problem is (levin spoke about this last night) it's not the court's job to unscrew the rest of the legistlation. because of that, it almost has to be an all or nothing premise. i'm paraphrasing but he said something like "a temporary congress and president sought to fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the central government".

 

For everyone's sake, the SCOTUS needs to toss this entire monster. Let's hear about and disucss true free-market based solutions. What made America great wasn't copying other countries. Why do we want to copy what France or Norway do? Why not let's do something new and innovative? Something that makes a real shining example of greatness that will propel us through the next 230 years and beyond as the greatest country that ever was. We CAN provide the best quality healthcare for everyone without surrendering our liberty. I really believe that if we can get this right, and prove the nanny state socialists wrong, America will be an unstoppable powerhouse the rest of the world will seek to copy ( as they once did ) rather than us copying them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.