By - March 29, 2012

Black Robes and Liberty

The “Affordable Heathcare Law” (in quotes because it is anything but affordable) has been the main focus of the media of late.  The mainstream media seem to concentrate on the justices they believe may be “open minded” with respect to Obamacare.  The stories have been aimed at Justices Kennedy and Roberts, because the media see some of Roberts’ questions as possibily favoring the law.  These two justices are believed to possibly have the same open mindedness as Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer.

The mainstream media have been figuring on Alito and Thomas’ decision against the law, but  thought Scalia might vote in favor of the law, since Scalia looks at laws from all angles with respect to it’s constitutionality.  Hopes were dashed when the media got a hold of Scalia’s constitutionally fair questioning.

What has been intentionally overlooked in this story are the four Justices who’s votes were set in stone before this case ever got to their desks.  How does this indicate they have “open minds”?  Of course the lamestream media is going to glorify the role that, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer play.

While most of the Justices are asking pointed questions germane to the case, to include Justice Breyer, Kagan is helping the Solicitor General Verilli argue his points.  As Verilli stumbles around with his points Kagan begins to make the points for Verilli.  At the end of the love-in between Kagan and Verilli, Scalia ends the conversation with his point: “We’re not stupid”, responding to Verilli’s assertion that Obamacare is necessary because everybody eventually needs health care.   Pundits feel Scalia was berating Verilli but I feel he is responding to both Kagan and Verilli, after all is Kagan still the solicitor general or is Verilli?  The exchange is as follows:

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERILLI: To live in the modern world, everybody needs a telephone. And the — the same thing with respect to the — you know, the dairy price supports that — that the court upheld in Wrightwood Dairy and Rock Royal. You can look at those as disadvantageous contracts, as forced transfers, that — you know, I suppose it’s theoretically true that you could raise your kids without milk, but the reality is you’ve got to go to the store and buy milk. And the commerce power — as a result of the exercise of the commerce power, you’re subsidizing somebody else –

And this is especially true, isn’t it, General –

VERRILLI: — because that’s the judgment Congress has made.

KAGAN: — Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?

Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you’re young and healthy one day, but you don’t stay that way. And the — the system works over time. And so I just don’t think it’s a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think — a problem I think is important to understand

We’re not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and — and need the money now.

Other quotes from the Justices include:

Anthony Kennedy:“The government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act. And that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Antonin Scalia: ‘‘The federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do?”

Sonia Sotomayor: “I like cupcakes!”   OK, she didn’t actually say that, however her comments were no more intelligent.

This case began with arguments respecting the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867, which states the Court will not hear a case with respect to taxes until the tax is levied, which won’t be until 2015 for Obamacare.  On this day Verilli argued the Individual Mandate is a penalty not a tax, to get around the Anti-Injunction Act, then the very next day Verilli argued the Individual Mandate IS a tax, because the government can not penalize the citizens for inaction, but can tax the citizens.

Any one of the Justices that do not find the government’s bi-polar arguments as a reason to strike this law down are suspect in their intelligence anyway, but I guarantee Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg will rule in favor of this law.  This case more than any other proves the difference between Constitutionalist justices and liberal justices.  Constitutional justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) rule exclusively on the merits of a law with respect to the Constitution which isn’t always the way Conservatives would see it.  A liberal/progressive justice (Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor) is solely an appendage of the liberal/progressive/socialists wing of the democrat party.

This is one very important reason to get rid of Obama in November.  Anybody who is solidly behind a republican candidate who does not become the general election candidate, has to get fully behind whoever that republican is in the fall.  More important than who the republican candidate is, will be getting rid of Obama and turning back the socialist tide that is currently rolling.  If Obama gets another term, the Supreme Court will be lost to the socialists and as Obama has put it to the Soviet prime minister Medvedev “I will have more flexibility”.


Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Leave a Reply