I heard something interesting yesterday regarding the Obamacare legal wranglings.
As we all know already Obamacare has been declared unconstitutional and he is breaking the law by implementing any part of it. It's pretty obvious to me that he is doing this because it's so massive and has so many different pieces that unraveling it once it's in could take decades.
What I didn't know before and heard yesterday on the Monica Crowley show is that it's probably a NO WIN situation for Obamacare.
Kennedy is the swing vote but most of the time comes down on the side of interpreting the constitution instead of rewriting it like the lefties. However even if Obama somehow got his vote it could still be a 4-4 tie because Kagan might be forced to recuse herself. Apparently as solicitor general before her nomination, one of the last cases she argued in front of the court was Obamacare. If it ends in a 4-4 tie then the last federal ruling becomes the law of the land.
This is why Obama isn't going straight to the supremes. He's hoping to get to a friendly circuit court that might do his bidding (can you say activist 9th) before it gets kicked upstairs.
14 comments:
both kagan and thomas will probably have to recuse themselves. funny that you left that out.
the cases can't go "directly" to the supreme court. each case has to go to its respective circuit court and however they rule, each will likely then proceed to the supreme court, which will either grant or not grant a writ of certorori --- basically stating they will take on the case -- which will probably happen.
what you also fail to mention that two courts have already affirmed the law as constitutional and two courts have ruled all or part as unconsitutional. one court ruled there was no severability and vinson ruled that there was.
if you want links to the actual decisions i can send them to you. but vinson's is 78 pages. not sure you could make it through that many words. you need seem to need them digested and spit out in small, easily digestible bite sizes for you by the fox news corporation.
Thomas wont have to recuse himself because there is no reason to, what Anita and libs are hoping to do is is paint tThomas' wife's work with the Heritage years before Obamacare as a conflict, which is a stretch at best.
Kagan wont recuse herself, despite directly arguing the legality of Obamacare before the SCOTUS because shes a liberal activist judge.
And as far as Obama is concerned, it comes as now surprise that he would so readily break the law, he had made it clear that laws that he doesnt agree with dont apply to him and that the judicial is there to serve at the pleasure of the president.
he hasn't broken the law. the laws are being challenged. that's all. once a final decision comes down from whichever highest court takes it on, then the plan will be revamped. and probably a better plan will come out of it. one that provides healthcare to all.
Have you gone mad woman?
A federal judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. The continued implementation is breaking the law.
Now it may turn out that this ruling is overturned, but unfortunately for you we live in a nation of laws not a nation of wait and see until you get the law you like, so until there is a further ruling on this matter, your president and your party are breaking the law.
Now isnt this about the point you start distracting from the issue and blame Bush.
Anita Please spare us your unqualified opinion of what is going on. Facts are facts no matter how much you would like to change them. Mark Levin is a constitutional lawyer and an EXPERT and authority on the law. he read the entire decision. I heard him read and explain the relevant parts and it is very clear. The president is breaking the law. FACT
Everyone knows that this is going to the supreme court. FACT
There is certainly precedence for skipping any other courts before it gets to the supremes. FACT
Obama is stalling for the following reasons. He knows it's unconstitutional, he doesn't care about the constitution, he wants to redistribute wealth through the health care law, and he knows he will lose. NOT FACT but you know i'm really smart so I'm probably dead on with that.
do i really need to explain the separation of powers concept to you?
congressed passed a law. it is a law until it is ruled to be either illegal or unfair to the general population.
two justices confirmed the constitutionality of the law. one justice ruled that only the mandate portion of the law was unconstitutional and therefore if the mandate were to be removed, the law would be constitutional. another justice (Vinson) ruled that the mandate inextricably "inextricably bound" to the overall law and therefore the entire law was unconstitutional.
The Pensacola ruling is headed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. The Richmond ruling is already in another conservative venue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond. The Lynchberg ruling is also being considered in Richmond.
The 6th Circuit in Cincinatti is considering the decision handed down by Judge Steeh in Detroit.
So, there you have it. Lots of decisions going round and round.
The Administration has every ground to go on with business as usual on this law until a final decision is made.
And, by the way, I personally hope the mandate is ruled both unconstitutional as well as severable from the balance of the law. That will open the door to what the administration wanted in the first place, a public option.
Oh, and with Mark Levin being a "constitutional lawyer" does not make his word law. There are liberal and conservative lawyers just as you have liberal and conservative judges and lawmakers and, for that matter, people.
His is just one opinion of many.
anita Levin didn't read HIS opinion. He read the COURTS decision.
If you want to explain the law to me then answer the question.
Is the last opinion the law?
If your answer is no then you're either stupid or you're a liar.
If your answer is yes then you must admit that the president is breaking the law. Which means that your last comment reveals you as a hack and a liar.
Either way you don't look very good.
Levin read one of the court four court decisions and wrote his take on that opinion (I believe Levin was writing his take on the Vinson opinion), and Levin, a conservative, wrote his take on the decision from a conservative point of view.
there are four court opinions floating around at this point. two saying the law is constitutional, one saying the law is constitutional if you remember the mandate and another that says the entire law is unconstitutional because of the mandate.
that is why our court system is a tiered system. BECAUSE the last opinion is the law and the court of last resort is the supreme court, so there is a long way to go until this is finally decided.
you can't pick and choose which decision you like best, unless of course you are a supreme court justice, which last i heard neither of you are.
Levin didn't WRITE anything he READ the LAST OPINION which declared that the law is unconstitutional.
Let ME explain the law to YOU anita because clearly you don't know anything about it.
It doesn't matter how many opinions are floating around or which way they ruled. If 10 million judges opinions sided with Obama and then 1 judge THE LAST ONE TO HEAR THE CASE goes the other way then THAT OPINION is the law.
Now that I've explained the law to you, do you understand and agree that Obama is breaking the law?
It's ok to say it...Everyone who's reading these comments already knows you're wrong and I'm right.
You can admit it...I know it will hurt for a minute but at least you'll be able to look at yourself in the mirror.
i didn't say he WROTE an opinion. i said he wrote ABOUT an opinion. and you LINKED to what he WROTE about that OPINION.
anyone who is sane will read what i have written and understand what it is that i'm saying.
anita why are you ducking it? You're only making it worse.
Let's put Levin aside for a minute.
I have explained how the law works to you. You either understand that the current ruling is law or you don't.
If you don't understand that then I can't help you and you're not smart enough to debate me.
If you do understand that then you must agree with me that the administration is breaking the law.
This is not a matter of opinion or nuance. It is very black and white.
So are you too dense to understand the law or do you want to admit that I'm right and you're wrong?
i think you are too dense to understand the law.
Well there you have it.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew about you.
Good Day.
Post a Comment