Preparing The Narrative of Defeat

Having failed (miserably) to read and understand the arguments of the Conservatives when it came to the challenges to Obamacare, the Democrats and the LSM (but I repeat myself) were shocked to find that the high court did indeed appear receptive to those arguments, and dismissive of their own positions.

Now they are working on “Plan B.”

So far that plan appears to be claiming that a ruling against Obamacare would be a political, vice a judicial, decision and that it would mark an activist court…


Let It Be (Political)

Obamacare, politics, and the modern Supreme Court.

By Ross Kaminsky | The American Spectator -Special Report-

And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be

Democratic political strategist and organizer Robert Creamer claims that overturning Obamacare would make the Supreme Court the “most activist [and] partisan in modern history.”

Radical leftist MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says that the Obamacare decision “may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here.”

In short, supporters of President Obama and his de facto nationalization of the health insurance industry are setting the table to blame the impending destruction of Obamacare, or at least its core “individual mandate” provision, on politics.

The Court’s decision may indeed be political, but not in the way the left suggests.

The most reasonable claim of Court partisanship is against Elena Kagan who should have recused herself from this case due for involvement in the Obama administration’s legal defense strategy for the law, and for her e-mailed glee at the law’s passage. In any case, the idea that conservative judges appointed by prior presidents would rule based on partisan politics is liberal paranoia.

But if Democrats want to say the decision is partisan politics, I say — quoting another famous leftist — Let It Be.

Let the constitution at long last return to speaking words of wisdom to the “broken hearted people” of America suffering under the Obama regime’s many petty tyrannies.


Indeed, and read the whole thing…


Underwater Homeowners or Just Spoiled Homeowners?
"Widespread system failure here — and a deplorable absence of truth"
  • jim_m

    I’m sure the 0bama admin is looking at how they can enact obamacare by Presidential Fiat.

    • LiberalNightmare

       Is it too much to ask for our president to drive an American car?

  • Hank_M

    Such short memories (or stupidity) from the left.

    So if the SC strikes down Obamacare, or as the brain dead supporters call it, The Affordable Care Act, it’s due to politics on an activist Supreme Court?

    Really, how do they keep a straight face?
    Isn’t this the same democrat party that applauded the activist Supreme Court in Roe V Wade and other rulings?

    I know Obama, the dems, and the MSM (sorry, I repeat myself) love to have enemies to attack. But at this rate, we’re going to need a score card to keep track of them all.

    In the meantime, someone please call a  wambulance for Obama and the dems.

    • Gmacr1

      Actually no score card is required.
      1. Democrat that is a party doctrinaire? Not on the list.
      2. Enviormentalist that supports “Green Tech”? Not on the list.
      3. OWS participant/Supporter? Not on the list.
      4. Memeber of the MSM? Not on the list.

      See how easy it is to ID people not on the “Enemies List”?

  • Don’t get cocky.

    • Well, @MaggieW65:disqus, I present the following for your consideration.

      The court met in chambers last week to vote the case.  This is done with only the justices present, and they don’t traditionally talk about their decision.  The senior justice on both sides proceed to assign the opinion for their side of the decision to one of the justices who voted with them, and the results are not announced until the opinions are completed and ready for publication.  If done right, even the clerks helping with the opinions don’t know which is the prevailing opinion.

      Given the flurry of preparation by the left and the LSM (BIRM), I suspect one of the new members may have “inadvertently” let slip the result of the vote…

      Then again, it could just be that the Tea Readers of the Court have a strong feeling in the matter.

      We may never know.

      •  Unfortunately, one of the votes that would have been necessary to strike down either the mandate or the entire law, is Justice Anthony Kennedy, who suffers from multiple judicial-personality disorder.

        There is no way to tell whether the Kennedy that questioned the government’s lawyers so intensely during oral arguments will prove to be the same one that showed up to vote in conference.

      •  THAT is why no one should get cocky.

  • GarandFan

    “Robert Creamer claims that overturning Obamacare would make the Supreme
    Court the “most activist [and] partisan in modern history.”

    TRANSLATION:  When rulings are in our favor, they are JUST.  When rulings are against us, it’s JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

    • 914

      Further translation:  They are hypocrites..

  • 914

    So the dems violated the  Constitution and over stepped their imagined authority for the umpteenth time in the last 5 decades..  There is no penalty so they will continue to do so.

    Obama and his do gooder minions should never be anywhere near a seat of responsibilty or power ever again. In fact, treason charges should be brought against the whole lot.

  • Gmacr1

    Don’t forget who bitch slapped them in his State of the Union address.
    Karma, payback and justice for all in one ruling wrongly interpreted by reporter as being ‘political’. What everyone forgets is that its just an opinion, one that can be contravened by law.

  • Commander_Chico

    The individual mandate does not look like a power the federal government has to me.  It was a pay-off to the insurance companies.

    It will be fun watching everyone scramble the day after the decision to propose new policies.  What will Obama and Romney say? 

    • I’d PREFER they go “Okay – we’ll try letting insurance companies work across state lines.”

      What I think will happen is a chopped up version of Obamacare brought around for a second try.  And again, they’ll try to push it through quickly so Obama will have a ‘win’ before the election – so fast that nobody will have a chance to read it, much less take the time to figure out whether it’ll do what it says on the cover.

      • LiberalNightmare

         No way he can put it thru a second time. Half of congress lost their job the first time they fell for it (or in it).

    •  Has someone hacked chicka’s DisqUs account?

  • Hank_M

    Today, Barack Clueless Obama said this:

    “Ultimately I am 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,”

    Then the president who has created more Czars than ever before, reminded reporters that
    conservative commentators, have complained about “judicial activism or a lack of
    judicial restraint,” that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a
    duly constituted and passed law.”

    I dunno. Might help if he actually had read the bill.

    • That (reading the Act) would resemble work, and if he didn’t read it before he signed it (malfeasance) , why would he do so now?

    • iwogisdead

      Or, it would help if he ever read the Constitution on which he’s supposed to be an expert. Congress is still granted only limited powers, regardless of the fact that it’s “democratically elected.”

      • jim_m

          Congress is still granted only limited powers,

        Yes, and it is exactly this that leads obama to claim that the constitution is deeply flawed.  He complains that it “Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you”.  He wants it to say what the government can do without your consent.

        It isn’t that obama is totally ignorant of the constitution.  It’s that he hates it because it keeps him from being a despot.

  • Hugh_G

    It’s pretty simple and it’s the same on both sides. Hate the result, activist Court. Like the result, just following the Constitution.

    The extremists of the right are hypocrites when it comes to the faux argument of activist judges.

    • Except in this case the extremist is the guy you want re-elected.

      • Hugh_G

        To call your current President an extremist is really funny. He a centrist democrat plain and simple. If you think that’s an extremist you’re just flat out off the mark. You certainly cannot like or agree with his policies but he ain’t no extremist.

        • jim_m

           Yes he is in the center of the democratic party.  That center is extreme far left with quite a few who have declared themselves to support communism.

        • Hugh,

          Although I do not like to use the terms “radical” or “extremist” (i.e.,”Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” ), my opinion of our current President is based on his voting record in the Senate.  The “Americans for Democratic Action” a liberal rating organization gave the then Senator a 95% rating.  That would tie him with Kerry and Boxer.  You may consider Kerry and Boxer to be “centrists,” but you are probably viewing them from the left.

          • jim_m

             In Illinois obama bottled up the born alive infant protection act in committee.  When he left it sailed through the dem controlled state senate and was signed by the dem governor.  That puts him far to the left of the entire Illinois democratic party.  He’s no centrist even in his own party really.

          • Hugh_G

            I don’t disagree with your interpretation of his voting record in the Senate but he is governing as a centrist. If you have any doubt and have some liberal friends ask them what they think.

          • iwogisdead

            My goofy brother thinks that anyone making more than a grade school teacher’s salary should have all of their money taken away and redistributed. He also thinks that everyone should drive a Yugo. I’m sure that Obumble looks like a centrist to my brother.

          • Hugh_G

            Genghis Khan or Mussolini would be too liberal to the likes of you..

          • iwogisdead

            I think we have just seen the “Hugh G corollary to Godwin’s Law.” Impressive.

          • PBunyan

            Not by the classic definition of the word, but by it’s current usage Mussolini was a “liberal” without question.  I’m not sure what would be considered leftist about Genghis, but if he were alive today you guys would probably consider him an ally.

          • jim_m

             Ghengis Khan was a brutal dictator who ruled by force and violence.  He’d be a darling of the left today.

          • PBunyan

            Oh, yeah you may have a point.  Of course that’s more true of the “liberals” from the past like Stalin and Mao.  Modern liberals at least tried using the media and education system.  Of course now that that’s failed, we just need a crisis and Obama and activate Directive 10-289 and then we may get to see his inner Genghis.

            Now what could cause a crisis, like say race riots…hmmm….

          • Well, let’s see…

            Mussoliini described himself as a socialist and fascism (a term he coined) as a logical extension of socialism focusing on nationalism vice internationalism.  Furthermore, Fascism was not considered a creature of the right until the Communists declared it to be so (as their ideology condones no enemies to their left).

            It thus follows that Mussolini is indeed too liberal for any thinking person familiar with the actual history.

            The Ghengis Khan simili has already been more than adequately addressed by jim_m.


        • Your own words named him an extremist, fool.

          It’s pretty simple and it’s the same on both sides. Hate the result, activist Court. Like the result, just following the Constitution.

          The extremists…

          Or is it your contention that “Hate the result, activist Court. Like the result, just following the Constitution.” isn’t extremist when it comes from someone you support?

        • LiberalNightmare

           If you pull my other leg, it plays jingle bells.

    • Need to get that projector bulb changed, it’s starting to dim…

      • Hugh_G

        You know better than that and you know I have a valid point..

        • He just keeps it hidden under his “Obama 2012” hoodie.

    • Hugh,

      My understanding of an “activist” judge is one that makes law instead of determining whether a law is constitutional.  If the SC judges find that “parts” of the law are constitutional and pick and choose those parts, that would be judicial activism.  However, if they find that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and because the law did not contain a severability clause, toss the whole law, that would not be “activist.”  If you say that this is being “activist,” is there an instance when they can find any law, “unconstitutional?”

      • Hugh_G

        That must be why 3 Supreme Cout Justices here in Iowa were not retained last year after a massive campaign by rightwing Republicans. Their sin? Up holding the constitutionality of gay marriage.

        The real problem with this issue of “judicial activism” is that there are a frighteningly
        Large number of people who don’t understand basic civics and the role and function of the judiciary as a separate and equal third branch of government. So when they see a result they don’t like they call it judicial activism.

        • The real problem with this issue of “judicial activism” is that there are a frighteningly large number of people who don’t understand basic civics and the role and function of the judiciary as a separate and equal third branch of government. So when they see a result they don’t like they call it judicial activism.

          That certainly describes President Obama. 

        • jim_m

           It is highly doubtful that when the US or any state constitution was written that anyone would have thought that same sex marriage would have been mandated by those documents.

          Thank you for a good example of Judicial activism and the appropriate response to the same.

          I will remind you that the issue of slavery was addressed by the 13th and 14th amendments.  You want same sex marriage?  Go write an amendment.

          • Hugh_G

            You prove my point you numbskull.

          • jim_m

             What point?  That we should not use the mechanism in the constitution to amend it but that instead we should have judges decide when society has changed and make that decision for us?

            Glad to see you are consistent in your support of despotism.

          • Hugh_G

             It is the duty of the judicial branch to interpret the constitution. In Iowa it did and held that not allowing same sex couples violates our equal protection amendment. That’s their role and duty numbskull.

            As I said numbskull, you prove my point. You ought to try and take a basic civics course.

          • jim_m

             I grew up in Illinois and really don’t care much for studying the Iowa constitution.

            It still does not change the validity of the point that voting out the judges was not wrong.  You’re just mad that the voters stood up and took action against judges they felt were out of line.  That is in the Iowa Constitution apparently too.  Seems like you only like certain parts of that document.  Being a little hypocritical again aren’t we?

          • Hugh_G

            Not a bit. The voters had the right to do whatever they wished. But the truth of the matter is that the campaign against them was funded and organized by right-wingers. The Justices, much to the dismay of many of us, did nothing in terms of campaigning. But the issue was one issue only.

            You again prove your ignorance about civics. Equal rights is a given in any state constitution.

          • jim_m

             I see.  SO the voters have the right to vote whatever way they want but the influence of conservatives in the election was wrong.

            SO what you are objecting to is the strength of conservative influence in the electorate and that seems to be what you define as some kind of failure of civics.

        • Hugh,

          I don’t understand your response.  Whether or not 3 Iowa SC Justices were retained or not does not seem to pertain to “Judicial Activism.”  If the 3 justices did practice “judicial activism” and “made” law  or if they “interpreted existing law,” the reaction of the electorate is not relevant. 

          • jim_m


            Who cares if they were voted out because the electorate wanted judges that were all blue eyed?  Or bald?  The voters can use any standard they choose to decide how to cast their votes.

            Hugh is just another leftist that wants to take the voter out of the equation.  The left wants to be able to force any law they want down our throats and not have to face any repercussions.  Of course they don’t think that way about the GOP. 

            Welcome to the Republic Hugh.

          • Hugh_G

            Gee Jim how do we force those laws down your throat? The last time I checked we have a legislature (a divided on in Washington) who are elected not appointed by the big bad “Muslim”  and “non-citizen” you so detest.

          • jim_m

             Don’t put words in my mouth that I have never said. I have never contested obama’s citizenship and I have never said that he is a muslim.  You can more likely find my questioning whether or not he has any faith at all. 

            If the quality of your argument is stating falsehoods about your opponent and making slanderous attacks against them then I don’t  believe that you are very confident in your own arguments.

          • Hugh_G

            It is in the context of the discussion about judicial activism. Some on the right saw what the Justices here in Iowa did as just that and then organized a massive campaign against them crying “judicial activism.” They won simply because the Justices did not actively campaign – a big mistake on their part.

            I guess what I’m trying to say is that one side or the other gets a result they don’t like, rather than analyzing why the Court decided what they did the easier out is to cry “judicial activism.”

          • iwogisdead

            Oddly, even though Genghis Khan and Mussolini are too liberal for me, most “equal protection” decisions I know of do not seem like “judicial activism.” Not even the decisions following Brown v. Board.

            I am bothered when the court finds implied meaning in the Constitution–like the implied right of privacy. That’s what I think of as judicial activism.

        • PBunyan

          “function of the judiciary as a separate and equal third branch of government” 

          That, to use a term our useful idiot friend Jim Jay seem to love, is sophistry.

          They are “separate” but “equal” in one sense, but the powers granted to each branch of our government are not equivalent.  Each has very different powers.  When one branch starts exercising the powers of the other branches, or simply acting upon powers which they don’t have, that is what I think most on the right would define as activism.  You leftists seem to define that word fundamentally differently.

          Did you hear the Maxist, idiot, “constitutional scholar” today? 

          an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress

          Mabye Biden is the smart one after all…

          • jim_m

             I don’t use the term sophistry that much and I am not a useful idiot.

            In fact my ex would say that useful is the last thing that I am.  😉

          • jim_m

             Or did you mean to refer to Jay?

          • PBunyan

            D’oh!  Sorry I meant Jay.   Believe me there is no similarity– It was just a brain fart.

          • jim_m

             No sweat.

        • Non sequitor.

  • Vagabond661

    A lot of sound reasoning on both sides. So the question remains: Was it the Lady or the tiger?

  • herddog505

    So, what follows?  Let’s assume that SCOTUS tosses the law, either in whole in in significant part.  Barry and the left throw a tantrum about “judicial activism”, burn Mr. Chief Justice Roberts in effigy, riot, and do the things that the left normally does when they don’t get their way.

    Then what?  Will Barry implement ObamaCare anyway through executive order or his czars? Ignore the ruling?  Try another court packing scheme a la FDR?  Or will this be another legend in the left’s book of lies like the 2000 Bush / Gore decision?

    • Well, an executive order or series of such would open the whole CFR to being overturned…

      Go for it Barry.  No balls, not a hair on your ass.

    • Commander_Chico

      The ideal solution would be a practical solution to the health care issues providing an efficient system for basic care for all Americans without grandstanding or payoffs to special interests.

      Not going to happen in the current decadence.

      • Evil Otto

        Obviously, since you’ve written that, you have a plan ready to go, right Chico? I suppose it’s easier to whine that the perfect plan hasn’t been created than to say how such a thing would work in the real world.

        Not going to happen in the current decadence.

        Not going to happen at all.

      • Or with the current debt/deficit scenarios.

        Way things are going we won’t be able to pay attention, much less pay for medical care for all.

      • herddog505

        The devil, of course, is in the details:

        1.  What constitutes an “efficient” system?  Where EVERYBODY gets first-class care whenever they want it?  Or where somebody decides what care people should have to make the system “efficient”?  The former is clearly going to be expensive.  The latter relies on “experts” literally making life and death decisions about people’s health care in order to make the system “efficient”.

        2.  Define “basic care”.  Is this effectively limited to the sort of care that people got fifty years ago, i.e. some antibiotics and painkillers, basic surgery, bandaids, etc?  Or will it also include more modern (and expensive) things like various meds for cancer, diabetes and cholesterol management, MRI and PET scans, etc?

        3.  Do “payoffs to special interests” include paying pharm companies for their products, big medical firms for building / managing hospitals and clinics, and (of course) lawyers?

        I suggest that the US system is extremely “efficient” in that most people have very rapid access to world-class health care: even small cities and towns have EMT / paramedic services, pharmacies that stock most of the drugs that people might need for common illnesses (and, as we learned with the whole Sandra Fluke kerfluffle, many of those drugs are very, very inexpensive), urgent care-type facilities, medical parks with offices for everything from general practicioners to specialists, and hospitals that can treat anything but the most extreme or rare condition.  The problem is that all this costs a lot of money.

        As the old saying goes, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch: you can have an “efficient” system, or you can have a low-cost system.  Both you CANNOT have.

      • How about a system that lets people have responsibility for themselves and make decisions for themselves?

  • Pingback: Rob Horowitz: The Politics Rule Out Single-Payer Heath Care System – GoLocalProv | Best News Feed - Daily News Magazine()

  • ruthreyess

    If you don’t have health insurance and get sick, the tax payers have to pay for it anyway- so go get health insurance please- search online “Penny Health” and learn how you can get insurance at discount price.

    • When I get sick, I usually just get something OTC from Kroger and deal with it. No insurance forms, no bill to the taxpayers. Also no need for an online search.

    • When I get sick, I usually just get something OTC from Kroger and deal with it. No insurance forms, no bill to the taxpayers. Also no need for an online search.

  • ruthreyess

    If you don’t have health insurance and get sick, the tax payers have to pay for it anyway- so go get health insurance please- search online “Penny Health” and learn how you can get insurance at discount price.

  • 914

    “Preparing The Narrative of Defeat”

    Translation: “I blame Booooosh!!!”

    • herddog505

      Yeah, that’s definitely Barry’s MO: he’s always gotta blame SOMEBODY for his failures.  Heavens knows that they are NEVER his fault.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Apparently, some judges on the 5th Circuit didn’t like the President’s words so much:
    ” In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a
    federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom….
    The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such
    power, the lawyer said. The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
    The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes – and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
    Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, suggesting it wasn’t clear whether
    the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.”

    • An intelligent and competently educated person would have foreseen this pushback…

      • Walter_Cronanty

         I’m trying to remember a President, let alone our first post-partisan  President, who has so consistently shown such disrespect for the Supreme Court.  He, at times, acts extremely unPresidential. 

    • jim_m

       obama’s infantile outburst is an attack not just on the Supreme Court but the entire judiciary.  Even dem judges will not appreciate his telling them that they have no job to do.

      It’s just one more example of how obama believes that he should be allowed dictatorial powers.  We need to show him the door ASAP before he decides that he can ignore the 22nd amendment and that the court lacks the authority to tell him that he can’t.