The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Could The SCOTUS Prove Worse Than Nancy Pelosi?

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

Big Government links SCOTUSblog, and then BG concludes, emphasis mine:

Apparently, both Justices Scalia and Kennedy didn’t trust that Congress might be able to work out a new law that was actually Constitutional; Kennedy stated that asking Congress to do its job would be unrealistic unless the Court was speaking about “the hypothetical Congress.”
This, of course, is what the Obama Administration had in mind the entire time they were constructing a nearly 3,000 page bill. Nobody in Congress knew what was in it; the American public doesn’t know what’s in it; and now the Supreme Court seems wary of determining just what’s in it. If the Supreme Court rules the individual mandate constitutional, it won’t do so because the mandate is actually constitutional – it will do so because it believes that its coequal branch of government, Congress, must be forced to uphold its own constitutional duty and take an axe to this thicket of complexity. Unfortunately, that’s unlikely to happen.

In software terms, that seems like saying: “Well, the SQL Injection compromised the LAMP stack out in the DMZ, so we might as well give the attackers the rest of the network, too.”

A few quick points:

  • ObamaCare is an anti-American, un-Constitutional pile of hooey.
  • Its passage represented, at all points, such a dereliction of duty that any member of the House who voted ‘Yes’ on it, and hasn’t already been impeached at the ballot box by their constituents, merits impeachment. Also, any ideological tool on the Court that somehow writes an anti-Constitutional dissent in favor of ObamaCare merits impeachment; they must have been telling a ‘Made in Zambiniland’ form of truth when they testified before Congress.*
  • The SCOTUS should tell the 113th Congress to review the job the 111th Congress so disastrously punted. Also, Federalist 62, especially the part where Madison said It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. Surely, Madison wrote that precisely with creeps like the Wicked Witch of the West in mind. Turning Nancy’s ObamaCare abortion into something that doesn’t suck with an unholy vacuum is not the task of the SCOTUS.

Protein Wisdom sounds an ominous note here:

Again, to the left — the ideological ruling class left, as opposed to the useful idiots they keep about screeching for “social justice” in lieu of having to actually reach into pocket and pay for such things voluntarily — this battle was never over health care. That was but the facade. This was an attempt to fundamentally redefine the relationship between citizen and government. It was an attempt to build on the already flimsy sham that was Wickard in order to assert federal control over every aspect of our lives — and to do so while (perversely) claiming a Constitutional basis for doing so.
If it fails, we shouldn’t rejoice so much as begin asking how we ever got this close to living under soft tyranny in a country built on a foundation meant to protect us from what has become — and will remain — a predatory federal authority always looking for ways to expand.
And it seems that’s the case regardless of which Party establishment holds office.
The battle to retake the US is only beginning. And the truth is, it may already be lost.

Yes, the pre-Progressive Age America is indeed lost. Indeed, it may be that the Federal government has become as odious as the Parliament we held the Revolution to escape. May our second, pro-Constitutional revolution remain peaceful.

Update: linked by That Mr. G Guy.

*OK, clearly I’m spun up about this. We wouldn’t want an environment where the merest dissent triggers impeachment. However, as the Administration’s Solicitor General correctly points out, this is a Special Case. 😉

Update II: POH Diaries links, reporting that Nancy Pelosi is as certain of the outcome of the SCOTUS review as she is about the contents of her legislative progeny.


24 Responses to “Could The SCOTUS Prove Worse Than Nancy Pelosi?”

  1. polypolitical
    March 28th, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

    I don’t say this often without reservation on this blog, but, excuse my vulgarity, Smitty my boy, but Bravo, goddamn it.  Bravo.  You nailed this one 100% IMHO.

  2. Bob Belvedere
    March 28th, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

    Bravo to you and Jeff.  Well put.

    That Obamacare is unconstitutional and must be overturned is clear.

    That if it is this will be only a holding action necessary to allow us to fight many more other days is also equally as clear.

  3. ThePaganTemple
    March 28th, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

    I’m hearing a lot of crap that makes me wonder if they’ll overturn it or not. I’m very much afraid Kennedy will make it 5-4 in favor of Obamacare. I think his concern is throwing the whole law out just by ruling on one aspect of it, what Scalia calls “the heart” of the bill. For that matter, I’m not too sure about Scalia. But more than likely it will come down 5-4 one way or another. Newt seems to be suffering from the delusion that the bill will be ruled unconstitutional by possibly a 6-3 or even a 7-2 decision. That would be nice, but I think Newt, like a lot of others, are reading way too much into some justices in their propensity to ask “tough” questions.

  4. Adjoran
    March 28th, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

    Whoa, there, folks – y’all need to wait on the lynch mob, Sharpton’s stolen all the rope anyway. 

    Scotusblog is an excellent resource on the Court, they do great reporting.  However, I don’t think their track record of predicting tough decisions is any better than anyone else’s.  If there is anyone to worry about among the conservatives, it is Roberts, not Kennedy, for my money.

    My gut feeling is there WILL be a surprise, though:  6-3, with Breyer joining, at least against the mandate.  Just a hunch.

  5. Adjoran
    March 28th, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

    Regarding impeachment, that’s a practical impossibility and it is silly to even talk about it.  The way to stop leftist activists from wreaking havoc from the bench is by winning elections.  If they are not appointed, they can’t be confirmed.

    I just wish those who throw all these “I’m done with the GOP and I won’t vote for their nominee” tantrums would think long and hard about that before they do something irreparably harmful to the country by mistake.

  6. smitty
    March 28th, 2012 @ 8:44 pm

    The three ladies banding together, to accuse the boys of sexism? Verily, ‘twould amount to enough irony to construct a battleship, if we, you know, actually built such anymore.

  7. SCOTUS Doesn’t Trust Congress To Write Coherent Law « That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    March 28th, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

    […] Smitty brings up some good points about SCOTUS and the arguments made by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Seems like every time Verrilli opens his mouth, the Supremes’ get a chuckle out of his argument or lack thereof. A few quick points: […]

  8. Mahtomedi
    March 28th, 2012 @ 10:23 pm

    The fact that the decision will even be  close (5-4, 6-3, whatever), tells us that we are not far from the end of  Western Civilization itself.

    Robert Bork once opined that the Left may be the ‘legitimate child’ of the West.  I think he was correct.  Scary.

    Is Democracy really ‘mob rule’?  Inmates running the asylum??  The anti-christ???  It’s likely even worse.

    Ancient Greece had a similar…., well, nobody reads history anymore.  Head.  Sand.  Bury.

  9. ThePaganTemple
    March 28th, 2012 @ 10:55 pm

     I’d be ecstatic if it was a 6-3 decision against Obamacare, but I think that’s so unlikely its almost not worth speculating about it. I think its more likely one of the conservative justices would go off the reservation and vote to uphold, unfortunate as that would be.

  10. Obamacare: Nancy Pelosi Has 'No Idea' If It Will Be Upheld - The POH Diaries
    March 28th, 2012 @ 11:02 pm

    […] News reports that back in 2009, Pelosi scoffed at the very idea that the mandate wasn’t Constitutional. Funny how time and reality changes things, isn’t that right, Madam former Speaker? On […]

  11. McGehee
    March 28th, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

    You’re going to stick to claiming the irreparable harm isn’t neing done by those promoting the Etch-A-Sketch? Good luck with that.

    Seriously dude, you sound worried. Being a self-identified rube isn’t fun, is it?

  12. McGehee
    March 28th, 2012 @ 11:36 pm

    A 6-3 ruling is a 2/3 majority. That isn’t close.

    Okay, it’s closer than it should be, but that’s in a universe where the law never would have passed, because the Democrat majority that passed it wouldn’t have existed.

    Come on: SPEAKER PELOSI. That little hint about the end of Western Civilization happened FIVE YEARS AGO.

  13. Adobe_Walls
    March 29th, 2012 @ 12:09 am

       First off hanging isn’t the only way to lynch somebody it’s just the most popular way according to Wikipedia it can be done by shooting or burning at the stake. Secondly rope isn’t the only medium one can be hanged with the hardware stores are full of extension cords for instance.
      Hoping the old cliche is true I say give Sharpton all the rope he asks for.
      The mandate is clearly unconstitutional by any objective standard and given the lack of a sever-ability clause it shouldn’t be possible for any part of the law to stand.

  14. Adobe_Walls
    March 29th, 2012 @ 12:17 am

    Romney should be hoping the mandate is upheld. When it isn’t someone in Mass. will file suit against the state’s mandate at which point Romney’s preposterous defense of his mandate based on states rights will be proven to be the nonsense that it is. That is one of the reasons why I’ve maintained from the beginning that Romney is the least likely to defeat Obama.

  15. Adjoran
    March 29th, 2012 @ 3:00 am

     What, me worry?

  16. Adjoran
    March 29th, 2012 @ 3:02 am

     There is a great difference between what the Constitution permits the federal government to do and what a state government may do.

    If your state decides you have to kiss the Governor’s rump, pucker up.

  17. Adjoran
    March 29th, 2012 @ 3:08 am

     My theory is that Breyer’s questioning, regarded by most observers as helpful to the government, was in fact him desperately trying to lead them to some argument he could seriously adopt.  I don’t doubt he WANTS to uphold the whole thing, but he is a more serious jurist than the others on the left, and is beginning to think of his own legacy.  I don’t think he wants to be remembered as a leftist rubber stamp.

    Breyer would love to uphold, but the government hasn’t helped him.  Just my gut feeling.

    Of the conservative block, I’d worry more about Roberts than Kennedy.  But if any of them defect on any part, it’s a sad and tragic day for our Constitutional Republic.

  18. Adjoran
    March 29th, 2012 @ 4:36 am

     So, you smell something fishy about that?

  19. ThePaganTemple
    March 29th, 2012 @ 8:47 am

     Breyer is full of shit. He might not want to be remembered as a rubber stamp, but that’s what he’s been his whole career, and has even taken his show on the road, speaking in public appearances and on cable news interviews giving the leftist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, interpreting the word “regulated” according to the modern meaning of the word. You know he’s got to be more intelligent than that, so he’s obviously just another fucking leftist shill, maybe just a few degrees better than Ginsburg, maybe not as good as Sotomayor, better than Kagan only by way of qualifications.

    If he’s changed a radio must have fallen into the bathtub with him. If you expect anything good from him you are probably going to be sorely disappointed.

  20. Bob Belvedere
    March 29th, 2012 @ 9:13 am

    That’s one of the things I like about you, Adobe: you do your research.

  21. Finrod Felagund
    March 29th, 2012 @ 9:39 am

    Hate to nit-pick here, but only members of the Executive and Judicial branches can be impeached.  Congressmen can be reprimanded, censured, or expelled, but only by the other members of their house.

  22. Pathfinder's wife
    March 29th, 2012 @ 11:33 am

    Bork was right.  And to a certain extent there is really nothing any one person can do about it (other than ride the wave).
    Societies and civilizations evolve, because they are made up of organic components — sometimes they take lesser forms than what they once were; sometimes they become indistinguishable from their original form.

    We are at a major evolution point in the history of Western civ., so it’s bound to be noticeable.  And, we can help to shift its present course — but it isn’t going to stay the same as what we remember it as; it can’t.
    Harold Bloom, that old curmudgeon, made some interesting statements that could be tied into this.  
    Although I’d say we have to look beyond Left/Right — this is a system wide occurance.

  23. The Constitution On Life Support: Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard « The Camp Of The Saints
    March 29th, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

    […] -Smitty is sounding unusually pessimistic here. […]

  24. Adobe_Walls
    March 29th, 2012 @ 11:05 pm

    A state can no more make us buy health insurance as restrict speech, congress just passed one the other day that will have the left and the right suing.