Let the Excuse-Mongering Begin!
A few headlines for you from today and yesterday:
Why the health-care law might stand at the Supreme Court
In Defense of Don Verrilli: Why the Solicitor General Actually Did a Great Job Defending Obamacare
Obamacare’s Supreme Court Disaster
Why the Obamacare Verdict Won’t Have Any Effect on the 2012 Election
These headlines aren’t from PJ Media or Reason or the Washington Times. No, they come from the Washington Post, The Nation, The New Republic, Mother Jones, and then TNR two more times. I should mention that TNR has been in all-hands-on-deck crisis mode trying to prop up ObamaCare. But, really, it’s no more than a cold washcloth on the forehead of the victim of a very nasty fever.
Needless to say, this isn’t how presumptive winners talk.
UPDATE: I almost missed A.B. Stoddard, wearing Eu de Desperation, arguing that “Appeal Helps Obama.”
OH, FINE — ONE MORE: The Doyle McManus subhead claims, “The president chose a mandate to avoid a tax hike. Now that decision has put his healthcare law at risk.”
I usually just blame it on the Bossa Nova.
“It’s a plane wreck.” Toobin at CNN.
Wow, A.B. really stepped in it this time. 1) Upholding the law is just going to fire up the base for repeal. 2) Striking it down is just going to show how radical this administration is, that we need to replace it, and if it’s 5-4, phew, elections have consequences and we need a Not Obama in there to make sure the next S.Ct. nominee isn’t a far left radical. Ginsburg is kind of old and not in good health, is she?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Current_justices
Scalia is 76; Kennedy is 75; Ginsburg is 79; Breyer is 73. Ginsburg had a bout with cancer, didn’t she?
So, the reality is that there are possibly four SCOTUS nominations at risk during the next term. Two of them centrist or conservative. Giving those nominations to Obama would doom this country.
Thanks. Yes she did, on a personal level I am glad she’s recovered.
Today in TNR:
The Constitution: How this little known or understood 18th century legal document gets in the way of so much progress.
Folks like by LeftHandedMan at Daily Kos and James Caville are trying to paint a possible striking down the whole law as the Republicans “owning” the resulting dysfunctional healthcare regime, but it is nothing of the sort. This was plainly the Democrats fumbling the ball on the 1 yard line. It was the Democrat Senate that removed a severability clause put in by the House. The Democrats had 60 Senators and a huge majority in the House that, even if it was for a short period, was able to pass any plan allowed by the Constitution. It was the Democrats who passed a constitutionally flawed bill that is poised to be struck down by the SCOTUS.
How is this the fault of Republicans ? Oh. That’s right, Progressives are never wrong, merely brain damaged.
Doesn’t mean the Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) won’t work their damnedest to spin it this way.
And it may very well work. Obama will demagogue this to the hilt, telling his base that he needs to be reelected so that he can appoint more “reality-based” SCOTUS judges. After all, it will be the neanderthal, right-wing, stupid conservative judges who struck down this massively enlightened bill.
And the Democratic leadership will do their very best to pass the resulting mess off to the Rs and say “Now what? We passed a law to ‘fix’ the healthcare problem. Your guys overturned it, so now you get to fix it.” And of course, the “do-nothing” Republicans will be lambasted by the MSM for not being able to fix it.
It’s gonna be all-out war. The Progs will pull out every stop possible to win.
this is the court that gave us kelo v new london. don’t count on winning until the ruling is published.
Doyle McManus is correct. The Democrats didn’t want to pay the price for being tax raisers, and so came out with the unconstitutional Individual Mandate, instead. It’s going to cost them, and it should.
BTW, if you want some enjoyable reading, I collected a “Conservatives Best of” from the Tuesday transcript on my blog. Just start at the top and scroll down.
Good stuff on your WeBlog.
It is interesting how really, the Justices were arguing the case, using the lawyers as proxies. The points were scored when the government could not adequately respond to challenges, whereas the other side (the Respondent?) could.
They are going to blame Verrilli, especially if some of the liberal Justices decide that they are going to vote it down. “Well, the government simply could not adequately make its case. Whatever I might personally think, I have to consider the case brought before me.”
Verrilli is going to have to leave the country for awhile to avoid the heat. He’ll be getting death threats. There should be a blog just to publish them, because all of the threats will come from the Left. It will be an ugly fest.
If this law goes down, Clement will never have to buy his own drinks again. Stephen Green will be green with envy.
While I have very little use for Romney, another term for Obama makes my sphincter open up, especially when it comes to appointments and not just the for Supreme Court either. The entire executive branch needs a steam clean and we also need to start manufacturing DDT again.
In public I’m going to proclaim my love and adoration for “Flipper” in hopes of giving him “coat tails” for the House and Senate. I really, really want to see a Majority of Tea Party type in the Senate. IIRC a Gingrich aide said, “We need to run against Obama with the candidate we’ve got not the one we want.”
I don’t understand this insistence on arguing the case in the newspapers and on blogs. They don’t really think their readers get a vote, do they?
Is it possible they think that by massaging their reporting, they might affect the outcome. Do they?