Today marks the final round of arguments for and against Obamacare in the Supreme Court, and the suspense is killing us. Because it's unlikely that there will be a bigger or farther-reaching legal decision made in our lifetimes.
The stakes go way beyond healthcare and can be basically boiled down to this question: does the government have the absolute power to control how and what Americans buy (not just healthcare, but everything) and, if that's the case, is there any limit on government control over the individual at all?
If you think we're overstating the case, then consider the statement by Chief Justice John Roberts that if Obama's legal team prevails, "all bets are off" in terms of the way government can seize control of our lives.
With our Constitutional freedoms so clearly at risk, you'd think that this would be a slam dunk nine-to-zero ruling for the court. But instead, the expectation is that four Justices will vote for Obamacare, four Justices will vote against it, and just one "swing" Justice, Anthony Kennedy, may ultimately be the sole person to determine the future of our country and the citizenry's relationship to Washington's new progressive overlords.
That, in and of itself, is a terrifying proposition.
As is this fact: if the Obama team wins its case, then the members of the Supreme Court can pack their bags and toddle home for the last time. Because their only job is to interpret the Constitution... and the Constitution will be no more.
=
33 comments:
It could be the Trayvon Martin Memorial Health Care Act, because it will be D.O.A.
A socialist-criminal president, a gutless, venal congress and lifetime-appointed judges answerable to no one. Gee, what could go wrong?
Let's all hope that a "wise latina woman" will be able to see the inherent threat...
Stilton, you have in no way overstated the importance of this decision. Our entire system of government truly hangs in the balance.
If Obamacare stays intact, we will add one more ponzi scheme to our national debt. Better hope your children and grand children learn to speak Chinese.
Heh - suppose they required everyone to buy a handgun. Just WATCH the heads explode!
@TrickyRicky: It would be much, much worse than just another Ponzi scheme. As indicated, it would be the final knife in the back of this great experiment - which is, frankly, already down and bleeding alarmingly.
Interesting, though, that justice Ginsburg did point to social security as a justification as "one generation funding the prior". This horrible precedent may very well upset the scales as ACA is simply everyone who has a job funding everyone who doesn't. (Notably, SS was not supposed to be as deeply into generational theft as it currently is - thanks to Johnson for that one. And you can thank Wilson for the whole concept of stealing directly from your paycheck, FDR for the concept of such theft being the income for another whole class... It's hard not to hate progressives - and, particularly, democrats - when you review history. They've been hard at destroying this country for well over one hundred years.)
Still watching. Also interesting all the revelations popping up around the Zimmerman/Martin incident. Particularly, with the left's outcry about the Republican responsibility that Zimmerman is a registered Dem with a CCW. What a contradiction! And the indication that Martin was not the docile lamb the MSM has been portraying. Again: if you're paying for a newspaper, your giving aid and succor to this country's enemies.
AAAAHHHHHHHH I hate this @#$%ing comment interface!
@Proof- Ouch!
@Angry Hoosier Dad- When you put it like that, I guess we have nothing to worry about.
@Pete(Detroit)- Well, her decision should at least be better (by her own estimation) that that of the white males on the court.
@TrickyRicky- I truly believe that to be the case. If the government gets the power to order us to buy whatever is best for the state (and the politicians)- or force us to buy whatever commodity or tchotchke that others want but say they can't afford - then we will have no meaningful freedom in our lives.
@Earl- The only Chinese they'll really need to know is "Yes, master."
@Stan da Man- Unfortunately, if the Left sets precedent with a winning ruling from the Supreme Court, then the greater likelihood is that handgun sales will be stopped entirely because their use could be argued to have an economic impact on emergency rooms. Really.
@Emmentaler- Leave it to Ginsburg to throw that idiocy into the ring. Citing Social Security as a legal precedent makes it sound like Ginsburg is endorsing lying to the public about benefits, stealing every red cent of the money citizens put into the program, and enslaving future generations of Americans who had no voice in the decision process.
Regarding Zimmerman/Martin, I personally have no idea who was absolutely to blame for what happened - so on that issue, at least, I can only wait and watch. But I have very strong opinions about the craziness and evil unleashed by those who want to benefit from this sad incident.
And on a technical note, I hate this comment interface too. So far, there are no signs that Blogger will ever let me turn back time and return to the simpler comment method that just worked. Think of it as an ongoing metaphor for America.
You're right @Stilton, this is a big week for America, weather most Americans realize it or not. The courts decision on this issue will fundamentally define our relationship with the Federal government for the rest of our lives. If they rule that the commerce clause permits this, there are absolutely no limits what-so-ever on federal power over individual citizens. By this standard, there's nothing that I do from the moment my eyes open in the morning that can't somehow affect "interstate commerce", and thus must be regulated, taxed or outlawed.
I have been doing my best to scare liberals with what this actually might mean to them. For example, they endlessly whine about the "government in the bedroom". Well, Ms. Fluke is literally inviting it into hers.
You see, for socialism to have a modicum of a chance at success, it requires accountability from all its participants. And within a state, there little difference between "accountability" and "coercion". This is the part that the hippie leftists either don't get, or dare not talk about
Fortunately for freedom-loving Americans, it didn't look good for the Administration yesterday, as the court's supposed swing votes were asking some rather critical questions regarding the whole "commerce" aspect of the thing. On the audio I listened to, it appeared as though Obama's Solicitor General was a deer in the headlights.
I also loved the "If it's a tax, why didn't they call it a tax" exchange. This is "law" people, it's language is supposed to be concise and without ambiguity. If you can't master the basic definitions within a language, there's little point in going further.
And you're right @Stilton, if this law stands, there will be relatively little for the Supreme Court to do in the future; most future cases will be on trivia.
@John the Econ- I, too, was encouraged by the questioning yesterday, but there's no way of knowing how much of that was just posturing.
By the way, one of the reasons that I injected the Trayvon Martin case into today's cartoon was because it annoys me that the story of the shooting is getting a lot more airplay than the Supreme Court deciding the fate of our nation. I guess that's too "complex" a story for the MSM - especially since they have a vested interest in not reporting what's actually happening in that courtroom.
I will continue to hold out minimal hope that this Court, might be capable of doing something to uphold the Constitution. After all, even under FDR, the Court finally grew some cojones and tossed out many of his straight out of the USSR/Nazi Germany/Fascist Italy programs. Of course that upset him greatly, but in those days, even some Democrats could read the handwriting on the wall, and wouldn't let him get away with the court packing scheme. (Another frightening reminder of why this election will be so very important).
I hope they strike this monstrosity down...if not, Alito, Roberts and Scalia have probably just added future infringements to be added to US Code.
As for including Trayvon Martin, given that the Administration started marketing "steal" this hoodie for Obama 2012 ... will the Solicitor General show up in his dress up version of the Obama Hoodie for closing arguments?
I still don't understand why Kagan hasn't recused herself. (Well, actually I do understand why. What I don't understand is how she is getting away with it.)
She was obama's Solicitor General while the health care law was written and passed. She claims she wasn't involved, but there are indications that she might have been.
Talk about being above the law...
@elcedar- I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule, and that scares the hell out of me.
Regarding the Trayvon Martin reference in the cartoon, it was also there because I feel like there are NO depths this administration won't stoop to in order to get what they want.
@CenTexTim- Kagan seems like the very definition of judicial conflict of interest - yet there she sits, feigning impartiality. Anyone wondering how she's going to vote...? I didn't think so.
I wonder if our healthcare will wind up like in Great Britain, where Alan Turing was discovered to have a condition (homosexuality) which the gov't had a preferred treatment for (estrogen supplementation) with a few nasty side effects (growing man-boobs, suicide). Yup, being forced to buy meds can be loads of fun fun fun!
@Stilton, it's little mystery why the MSM loves the Trayvon story and is doing its best to ignore the Supreme Court. For one, Trayvon perfectly serves the liberal narrative of a racist America. They also hate people dressed as thugs being "profiled" as thugs. (unless they are in their gated communities) And they know they need these people riled up if Obama is to have any chance come November.
And they also know that what goes on at the Supreme Court is over most people's heads, much less their own. They see it as little more than a group of people anointed to dispense "justice" than a group of learned individuals endowed with a sacred responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens under the Constitution.
@Anonymous- Yesterday I was reading an article in a British newspaper about who should have their healthcare rationed more: the overweight or the elderly. Currently, the elderly get the shaft (cancer patients over 75 are unlikely to get life-saving treatment), but others argue that obesity is self-inflicted so heavyweights should go to the end of the line. These ARE the debates we'll be having here soon: medicine WILL be rationed - severely - and the question will be who is blessed by the government to receive it.
@John the Econ- As you point out, there's no mystery attached to these things. I'm just sad that it's so easily accepted by so many people.
Ya gotta love Darth Vader Ginsburg (not). She did exactly what was expected of a super-lib. She used a bankrupt, failed, boondoggle of a government program to justify implementing an even bigger boondoggle of a government program. "This time it'll work, I just KNOW it will!"
I honestly don't see how BO-Care can survive this, but stranger things have happened... like BO getting elected in the first damn place!
And Kagan? I'm an old geezer with a memory like a sieve, but I would swear that, during her confirmation hearings, she promised she would excuse herself if BO-Care ever came up to the S.C. Did I dream this?
May the greater minds of the S.C. prevail, and may Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor have to eat crow! It's a shame it takes so long for them to hand down a verdict; the next several weeks are going to be unpleasant ones.
Double double, toil and trouble.
Constitution burn and the nation be rubble.
Can you picture who it is circling the cauldron?
I read some speculation in article comments on another blog--American Thinker, mayhaps--that the Supremes are inclined toward giving king nothing hussein an attitude adjustment for his public smackdown of the Supremes during his 2010 SOTU address, which would be an overturn of zero care. I'll tell ya, if zero care gets overturned, and that seems more possible than I have ever dared to hope, the lefty moonbats and all the usual liberal goons and enablers, including the MSM and unions, are gonna go nuts and strike out at everything and everybody in their path. Yes, there will likely be bloodshed, lots of it, over SCOTUS striking it down, instigated by Occupoopers and other loons. Yet, if struck down, it would rightly go down in history as the day that the Constitution, liberty, and common sense prevailed over the anti_American minority in this country, that unfortunately is currently in power. Color me daring to dream and hope that zero care does land on history's trash, nay dung, heap.
John the econ: I believe the ridiculous wordplay precedent was firmly set with the definition of the word "is" horsecrap.
Colby: I call this kind of justification the "liver" argument; the only reason you don't like it is because you've never had it prepared the "right" way... here, take a seat and be prepared to gag on it one more time.
Stilton: I've noticed a sharp increase in my doses of medical margarita over the past few days. Your blog today reminds me of the cause... and a clear indication of what promises to be a very bad weekend to come. With any luck, I will at the very least continue to be able to afford the premium type of insurance that covers rehab.
And as for the Martin incident, remember that the kid WAS wearing a hoodie... I've lost count of the number of times I've been shot at for this, so I figured it was time to hang it up and wear that uptight white folks flannel. Now people don't even seem to notice the crowbar.
Mike, there is NOTHING "uptight" about flannel - just ask Kurt Cobaine...
Bottom line, you wear the uniform, expect the treatment. That goes for firemen, cops, waitresses, hookers, pimps and wanna-be gangsta thugs.
@Colby- It's odd; Social Security has been held "legal" - but it's based entirely on lies and theft, both of which are illegal (that is, if lies are part of a contract - as is the case here).
Regarding your memory of Kagan, here's a quote from her confirmation hearings: "Seven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Ms. Kagan to promise that she would recuse herself from any challenges to the new health care law. Ms. Kagan would not bite, responding on Monday that she had nothing to do with the legislation, or a lawsuit challenging it. Nor, she said, had she ever expressed an opinion about either one. Ms. Kagan said only that she would carefully consider the matter if it arose, “consulting with my colleagues and, if appropriate, with experts on judicial ethics.”
In other words, she told them to blow it out their asses.
@Cookie- I can picture who it is perfectly.
@79firebirdman- There is cause for hope along with the almost unbearable suspense. If SCOTUS pulls the plug on the individual mandate, all hell is going to break loose - and I say BRING IT ON!
@MIKE PORTER- When the Dems claim they can make liver delicious for us, they don't use a cookbook - they refer to Portnoy's Complaint.
@Pete(Detroit)- Nobody deserves to be shot for how they dress, but people DO need to accept some responsibility for the image they're projecting. I haven't read how Zimmerman was dressed that night; did he LOOK like an upstanding crimewatch volunteer, or did he look like an unshaved troublemaker with a gun? I don't know, and all of these things could be factors in what eventually happened.
@ stilton
I too say bring it on. Jefferson's famous quote comes to mind.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure".
And methinks the tyrants are badly outnumbered by patriots, though a bunch of would-be tyrants including king nothing hussein himself, are currently in power. Hang a few traitors from a tall tree somewhere and the rest of them will get the message, loud and clear, that contrary to their agenda, it is still and always will be "We the people..."
It is still my hope that impeachment proceedings begin against king nothing for treason and high crimes and misdemeanors. After impeachment and removal from office, everything he has ever done, all laws, appointments, and executive orders, will be null and void
Stilt, I’m so cynical & jaded, I don’t think they’ll decide who gets healthcare between the elderly & obese, but, rather, voter registration cards and campaign donation lists.
Oh, so that’s how you spell ‘chotch-key’!
@SJ - The reason the media are giving so much attention to the Trayvon "got shot because he attacked a guy who was armed" Martin case is precisely because it serves as a great distraction from the Obamacare case.
@79firebirdman- I'm hoping all of our goals can be accomplished at the ballot box instead of the more kinetic methods suggested by Jefferson. But there's no question that when he referred to "natural manure," he accurately described the current administration!
@SC- I'm not sure if you're cynical or simply a bit ahead of the curve in realizing how the currency of healthcare with be the ultimate in government power. There's no need to kill your enemies if it's within your power to simply let them die.
How often do we hear Obama (and others) bitch about 80% of healthcare spending coming in the last months of life - and therefore, if we just cut back on those last few months we can save a bundle. But those are the months that people are fighting for their lives! Of COURSE that's when people spend the most on healthcare! But when the government is counting costs, your heart surgery won't be as useful to society as the 250 abortions which could be bought with the same money - so you won't get that life-saving surgery, and it won't be available to you at any price in the (no longer existing) private market.
And then let's consider the financial advantages to the government of letting the elderly die: they've already paid everything into the system they ever will... but will now be taking money out (LOTS of it) in Social Security and Medicare funds which aren't available. So the government gets a budget-balancing "twofer" letting old folks die while giving medical treatment to those younger folks who can still pay into the system for 50 years or so. Before they need to be eliminated too.
And yes, tchotchke is the proper Yiddish spelling of "chotch-key." Which is not to be confused with a "crotch-key" - an item which was worth its weight in gold during the days of chastity belts.
@Coon Tasty- I think the media is going for two birds with one stone: they're upping the "racism" story to support Obama's reelection - but the added benefit is that Obama can (more than) hint that racism is to blame if Obamacare is "shot down."
No matter what the decision in June brings, until the extreme scope of the Commerce Clause as established by
Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 is reset to that originally intended by our nation’s Founders, Americans have lost the limits imposed on Congress by the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution as well as the 10th amendment, which essentially nullifies our Constitution’s protection of individual liberty.
Even if SCOTUS totally rules against every aspect of Obamacare, Wickard v. Filburn provides the basis for the far left to regroup, learn from their mistakes and keep coming back.
Two people arrive at the emergency room at the same time. There is only 1 doctor on staff.
Patient A is 26 & 300+ lbs suffering from a diabetic seizure. She's toting a bag of cigarettes & ding-dongs.
Patient B is 65, otherwise fit & healthy, suffering injuries sustained by being hit by the car being driving by Patient A while she was jogging.
Which patient will the socialized system favor?
@John the Econ
You didn't mention their race or party affiliation.
@treefrog- Sadly, you're right. Whichever way the SCOTUS rules, it's going to be setting helpful guidelines for the Left's next attack on our liberties.
@John the Econ- I'd guess that the 65 year old is toast.
@Earl- Great point. I don't believe for a moment that the guidelines for who receives treatment (or how much, and of what quality) will exclude things like "politically favored" status. For instance, white folks need to go to the back of the line for 200 years to make up for slavery, right? (Think I'm kidding?)
Disgraceful stuff the MSM said about Dick Cheney and how he is too old to receive a new heart...all heart, aren't they? And they have the gall to call conservatives insensitive!
Looks like Spike Lee has stepped in it now; He tweeted to his quarter-million followers a Florida address that he believed was that of Mr. George Zimmerman. Unfortunately, it was not. Some poor retired couple had to flee their house after getting intimidating calls & letters, and the media converged.
When he was made aware of his mistake, he tweeted a correction with "Justice in Court". Really now? Seems to me that if he had really meant that, he wouldn't have broadcast the address in the first place, now would he?
The couple hired a lawyer and Lee quickly settled the matter. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but I have little doubt that Mr. Lee just bought those people a much nicer vacation than the one they've been having.
There's no way anyone can argue that this was not a message specifically intended to create, at a very minimum emotional distress to its victims. (Intended or not) Unfortunately for the poor people who lived at that address, Mr. Lee's aim was very poor; kind of like your average gangsta shooting off his gun in the hood and taking out innocent bystanders instead of intended victims.
When can I expect to see Spike Lee brought up on "hate crime" charges? When hell freezes over, I am sure.
Post a Comment