ObamaCare to the Supreme Court

From Politico:

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.

The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election…

I can’t see how the individual mandate can be ruled constitutional…but, I guess we’ll see.  It’ll either wipe out Obama’s signature issue right in front of the 2012 election, or provide ammunition for Obama against those of us who argue it is unconstitutional.

Stay tuned.

20 thoughts on “ObamaCare to the Supreme Court

  1. Cluster September 26, 2011 / 9:19 pm

    I am surprised the Obama regime is doing this. Either way the ruling goes, it’s a lose lose for Obama. If it passes, polls still say that many people don’t want it, and it will be a messy and contentious implementation. It it doesn’t pass, which is the odds on favorite, Obama will surely not be reelected. Obama should drag this out until after the election, but I thank him for not doing that.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 26, 2011 / 9:35 pm


      There is a strategy here for Obama…perhaps he’s thinking he’ll get a SC approval? I don’t know…

  2. RetiredSpook September 26, 2011 / 10:13 pm

    When it gets to the S.C., we might actually find out what’s in it.

  3. Ryan S. September 26, 2011 / 11:20 pm

    Well, one thing we can see from past actions is that Obama does NOT have a firm grasp on reality. Perhaps he just really DOES think that its obvious it will be decided in his favor.

  4. dbschmidt September 27, 2011 / 12:18 am

    Or, wait for the flapping monkeys to get their marching orders, this is to stir up memories of how the SC “stole” the election from the Goreicale and how they are now (you know them evil, racist, homophobic justices) going to steal health care from all the poor and powerless just before an election.

    • neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 7:59 am

      civil – state disobedience….JUST SAY NO, and dont pay into it.
      Elect state legislatures who tell the barry & larry show to shove it PERIOD!!

      • Thomasg0102 September 27, 2011 / 8:22 am

        you’re like governor wallace when they ordered integration of schools.

        stand at the gate and vow not to follow the law…..only to step aside and follow the law like a wimp.

        fake marine, when it’s declared constitutional, you will do as the law says or get fined.

        deal with it.

      • tiredoflibbs September 27, 2011 / 7:58 pm

        so tommy-boy, when obAMATEUR blasted the SC for their ruling (and did not accept it) on Campaign Finance being unconstitutional he was wimp for doing so?

        Then we await your post criticizing him with the same tone and language.

        Fat chance….. from a drone.

    • neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 8:01 am


      Oh yeah, media matters – soros is sending out the call as I type.

  5. neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 8:49 am

    thanks tommyturban

    Or, wait for the flapping monkeys to get their marching orders,
    Oh yeah, media matters – soros is sending out the call as I type.


  6. neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 8:53 am


    you’re like governor wallace aren’t you?

    silly iranian…..
    GW was a DEMOCRAT, the KKK wing of the democrat party.

    Im a REPUBLICAN, like MLK, and Lincoln.
    do try to learn about America sasan.

    • Thomasg0102 September 27, 2011 / 9:54 am

      you do realize that the party ideologies switched around 1930’s right?

      you can’ be this stupid can you fake marine?

      you being like MLK and Lincoln is a joke. You’re just like Wallace and just like other Dixiecrats.

      • Amazona September 27, 2011 / 2:05 pm

        You do realize that you know absolutely NOTHING about the ideologies of either party, right?

        Hell, you can’t even enunciate an ideology that explains your positions as hinted at in your silly posts. All you can do is attack and call names, but never bother to base anything on anything even resembling an ideology.

        All you can do is slurp up toxic Lefty KoolAid and then spit it out here. Your stale old terminology is a clue, Sasan.

        You cannot explain the ideology of the Left, or the Right, now or at any time in our history. All you can do is wallow in your pathology and pretend that you are posting something relevant.

    • neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 12:40 pm


      GW stood in the school house door in the 1930″s?
      whod a thunk that.
      Southern DEMOCRAT segregation, and the KKK ended in the 1930’s?
      for an iranian you sure know a lot about the US………….NOT!!

    • neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 12:45 pm

      Wallace disapproved vehemently of the desegregation of the state of Alabama and wanted desperately for his state to remain segregated. In his own words:

      “The President (John F. Kennedy) wants us to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-Communists who have instituted these demonstrations.”

    • neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 12:53 pm

      mmmm mmmmm mmmmm

      The party’s first president, Abraham Lincoln, issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, the height of the Civil War, squelching any chance that the European powers of the day would intervene in the conflict in favor of the Confederacy. With the stroke of his pen, Lincoln destroyed the last real hope the Confederacy had for a victory.

      Soon after the war ended, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that, among other things, abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection and due process and addressed blacks’ right to vote.

      In the late 19th century, Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South couldn’t pass Jim Crow laws fast enough. Those Democrats created a nearly century-long, legal racial caste system that relegated blacks to the lowest educational, political, economic and social strata. I have family members who grew up under Jim Crow. To hear them tell it, it weren’t no joke.

      And let us not forget that during the same period it was Democrats throughout the United States who organized and ran America’s premier terrorist organization – the Ku Klux Klan.

      And speaking of the Klan, remember the great Democrat President Woodrow Wilson? After a screening of D.W. Griffith’s paean to the Ku Klux Klan, “Birth of a Nation,” Wilson, turned-movie critic, said of the film: “It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

      Needless to say, the NAACP had a different outlook. After its viewing, the civil rights organization was mortified to the point of launching a nationwide protest in 1915 against the film. The group was equally appalled by President Wilson’s comments and it launched a public protest against him.

      Before we move on, one more thing about President Wilson. He was the president who led our nation into WWI with the ringing declaration that it was to make the world “safe for democracy.” In Woodrow’s mind, though, “democracy” applied to everyone except those annoying little dark-skinned people in America who are always clamoring for civil rights. In 1913, Wilson introduced segregation into the federal government.

      Yes, dear readers, the man who is worshipped as the utmost “progressive” (where and by who have you heard that term used lately?) of his time allowed federal officials to segregate “toilets, cafeterias and work” areas of various federal departments.

      It was left to Wilson’s successor, Republican Warren G. Harding to scrap the segregation policy. And Warren G. didn’t stop there. In 1922, Harding delivered a bold speech in Birmingham, Ala., (A Democrat stronghold that was later known by blacks as “Bombingham”) in which he called for black equality. Up to then, no U.S. president had ever spoken so forcefully about civil rights.

      Harding was elected in 1920. Funny thing about the Republican Party platform that Harding ran under. It called for federal anti-lynching legislation. Guess which party didn’t? If you said Democrat, go to the head of the line.

      Moving on, in answer to the burgeoning civil rights movement in the ’50s, it was Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South that placed the Confederate battle flag on their state capitol flags. It’s an issue that continues to inflame racial passions even today.

      In 1957, Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, called out his state’s National Guard to prevent the integration of Central High School in Little Rock. In response, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to the city to escort nine frightened black teens into the school past riotous mobs inflamed by Faubus’ defiance of a federal court order. Faubus was a Democrat. Eisenhower was a Republican.

      On June 11, 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to block its integration. Wallace was a Democrat. Now, I grant you, John F. Kennedy was the Democrat president who federalized the Alabama National Guard and ordered its units to the university to force its doors open to black students. But it’s not generally known that the then-Sen. Kennedy – with an eye on the Democrat presidential nomination for 1960 – voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the law that really got the ball rolling on federal civil rights legislation.

      And it was Kennedy’s brother, Robert, who in 1964 assisted the FBI’s efforts to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by approving the wiretapping of the man considered the heart and soul of the civil rights movement.

      And to think at one time you could find in black homes across the nation what I used to call the Black Person’s Trinity: chintzy, black-velvet portraits of JFK, RFK and Dr. King painted side by side.

      As far as other important civil rights legislation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would never have became law if not for Republican senators and congressmen whose overwhelming support offset extreme Democrat opposition.


  7. bardolf September 27, 2011 / 8:56 am

    “I can’t see how the individual mandate can be ruled constitutional.” -Mark

    This is a win-win situation. Declared constitutional by the Robert’s Supreme Court and we find out that bloggers like Mark are not the constitutional thinkers they imagine themselves to be. Declared unconstitutional and we find out that Obama’s being President of the Harvard Law review was just a beauty contest.

    • neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 9:18 am


      1. wrong
      2. correct.

      more like an AA contest than beauty though.

      • bardolf September 27, 2011 / 9:55 am


        Do you think that reading a few law books from Barnes and Noble is equivalent to going to law school?

      • neocon1 September 27, 2011 / 11:27 am


        in barry’s case Id hire the barnes and noble lawyer rather than the alinsky, marx, mao one.

Comments are closed.