The American Spectator : Judges Clash with Voters on Mandate

Text Size

Political Hay

Judges Clash with Voters on Mandate

By W. James Antle, III on 11.14.11 @ 6:09AM

A death panel for limited government, brought to you by the living Constitution.

Last week, two-thirds of Ohioans voted against letting the government force people to buy health insurance. The measure passed by a greater margin than the collective bargaining initiative, which grabbed most of the headlines, failed. Ohio’s state constitution now rejects the individual mandate central to both the president’s federal health care program and the Massachusetts law on which it was partially based.

The vote was a rebuke to Barack Obama, who needs Ohio’s electoral votes in order to win a second term, and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), an Obamacare supporter who is also up for reelection next year.

Less directly, it also sends a message to Republican presidential frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who have both championed mandate-driven health care policies in the past. Romney pointedly declined to endorse the initiative during a recent Ohio campaign swing.

Yet the very same day, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the president’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The anchor of the 2-1 majority opinion was Judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican appointee with a long history in legal conservative circles. In fact, we can get a good idea of how important the decision was to liberals based on how much they played up Silberman’s conservatism.

The Washington Post called him “the conservative judge who upheld health reform” despite a “lengthy history of conservative legal thought.” Sort of like a marathon runner who broke records despite a lengthy history of debilitating illness. The New York Times described Silberman as a “stalwart of conservative jurisprudence.” The Atlantic referred to him as a “conservative icon” and “one of America’s most feared conservative judges.” The New Republic celebrated “How conservative judges just provided the most authoritative legal defense for Obamacare.”

We are reminded that Silberman has served Republican presidents dating back to Richard M. Nixon. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W. Bush. (Silberman co-chaired a presidential commission investigating the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was far kinder to Bush than any independent commission was likely to have been.)

It is hard to think of a better illustration of the disconnect between the Beltway and Middle America, the American people and their black-robed masters, than last Tuesday’s contrasting health care votes in Ohio and Washington, D.C.

Of course, something isn’t unconstitutional merely because it’s unpopular. But the most striking thing about this decision handed down by a stalwart of conservative jurisprudence is how little it had to do with the Constitution as ratified.

Instead Silberman frankly acknowledged the difficulty of squaring this assertion of federal power with an original understanding of the commerce clause, observing that the Framers “obviously intended to make a distinction between interstate and local commerce, but Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century has largely eroded that distinction.” He noted that the Obama administration “concedes the novelty of the mandate and lack of any doctrinal limiting principles.” He even allows that affirmation of the mandate could “turn the Commerce Clause into a federal police power, at the expense of state sovereignty.”

In summary: the elected branches of the federal government have been invoking the commerce clause to assert powers not delegated by the Constitution for years. The Supreme Court has mostly let them. Tough luck.

Here is an example of how abandoning the idea that we have a federal government of limited, enumerated powers has left the American people with a federal program they do not want, that the original Constitution gave Congress no authority to enact, and that they cannot afford. Obligations are being imposed upon future generations which they did not freely choose, cannot pay for, and cannot get out of.

Each new precedent knocks down the remaining limits on federal power. Not even Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court case cited as justification for the mandate, actually forced anyone to buy wheat. Even the two limits on commerce clause regulation Silberman recognizes — when the impact on interstate commerce is negligible or wholly nonexistent — will eventually fall away in the zeal to give Congress unfettered power to “forge national solutions to national problems.”

There is a second lesson to be learned here. Much of what passes for conservatism doesn’t limit the federal government, much less conserve anything. People who are interested in conserving things, like limited government and the political inheritance of the Founding Fathers, shouldn’t simply settle for hoping the Republicans they vote for appoint the right judges.

Republican presidents have given us Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. If we’re not careful, their judges will also give us a permanent individual mandate.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (73) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

RJ| 11.14.11 @ 7:06AM

Excellent commentary.

From my own experience, I had three Constitutional law classes from three different professors in law school. Only one thought it necessary to read the Constitution and most of the faculty viewed that professor as eccentric. Instead, professors, judges and attorneys view Constitutional law as case opinions and when you read the opinions from the New Deal era to today, you often notice there is no connection between the Constitution and the judicial opinion.

Sadly, most people view the Supreme Court as a super legislative body. This view destroys the primary purpose of the Constitution which places limits and restrictions on government. Once the governing class feels free to eliminate restrictions placed on them, the Constitution becomes a dead letter. During my career, I have witnessed "the law" becoming much more subjective and discretionary. As such, the United States is no longer a "rule of law" nation, but is governed by edicts issued by government officials; America has become a lawless society.

bluemount| 11.14.11 @ 5:43PM

Probably this same "conservative" judge took the same "un-Constitutional" Constitution classes as you. Is all of this the reason why one Congressman (forgot name) laughed when asked if the Constitution was followed when passing laws by Congress.

RJ| 11.14.11 @ 6:26PM

I don't remember the laughing incident, but Nancy Pelosi said "Are you serious?" when questioned as to whether Obamacare was constitutional. Clearly, the Constitution is not held in high regard by many elected officials. We need to remove those people from office.

To some extent, law schools attract and promote the belief that lawyers and judges are the elite and best able to rule over the uninformed public. Another factor is that power is usually abused. It is indeed rare to find a leader who respects the limit of his authority; George Washington being the most notable.

The Constitution is a marker on the limits of government - a warning to the public. If we do not hold elected officials to account in honoring the limits of their authority, we lose our freedoms and our way of government. Unfortunately, we have been losing them since the Progressive era.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 10:36PM

How quaint the notion of following the Constitution. It would be a useful argument except for the fact the Conservative/Republican politicians choose to follow the Constitution when it suits their purposes, and not to follow it when it stands in their way.

RJ| 11.15.11 @ 1:44AM

There is a lot of hypocrisy in politics and there is too much politics in judicial circles. Nonetheless, the principle of a supreme law which sets boundaries on government authority is key to protecting our individual liberties. May God Bless the US Constitution and may her citizens stand by it.

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.14.11 @ 7:16AM

"A Government of The People, by The People, and for The People, shall not fade from the Earth." (or, something to that effect)
I don't recall the word "JUDGE" in there.

I don't understand why everyone was so surprised by Silberman's vote. He's not the 1st Old Fool, nominated by a Republican, to turn to The Dark Side. He's not the 1st Conservative to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Ed Schultz used to be on the Right. And, the other guy on MSNBC, the one that looks like he might be about a half a Chromosome over the limit - Joe Scarborough - used to a Conservative Republican, representing a Trailer Park Community in Florida. I think we can all see what the Daughter of the Old Polish Jew Hater, Mika Zbrezinski, having her under the table, the entire show, has done to his resolve, and to his principles.

My question is this: Why even have these decisions? This Court says THIS. And then, That Court says THAT. Now what?
None of these decisions means anything. Especially with the Rogue Regime that is in power, now. A Federal Judge TWICE, denied the Muslim Mulatto's Drilling Moratoriums. He did it anyway. He Rules by Fiat, these days. The Constitution be damned. (Bill Buckley once said that he would rather be Governed by the first 100 Names in the Boston Phone Book, than by the people in Washington. Such Wisdom) But, I digress.

Where is the Supreme Court? When will they get off their asses and go to work? Methinks that they have become too enamored of their own reflection in the mirror. They are SUPREME, after all. 9 Exceptional Men and Women ruling over the Great Unwashed. If you close your eyes, you can almost see them on their royal Poop Box, sitting Regally, as they await their Royal Wiping from one of their Servants.

Some of our Founding Fathers FEARED the Court. Jefferson. Madison. Adams. I don't remember. The idea that the Will of the People, could be overturned by so few, was anathema to them. And it was compounded by the lack of foresight in giving them a Lifetime Tenure. So much can happen in a Lifetime. So many things can change. So many temptations. The passage of time wears away at a Man's resolve. He grows tired, and more readily succumbs to the Siren's call. Such are the ways of The Dark Side. The LEFT.

GOD help us.

Mike Rogers | 11.14.11 @ 8:16AM

The dark side, indeed.
Evil stalks the land, and its name is "the left".
The left have been able to steal the color of the righteous for their standard (the rest of the world recognizes red for socialists and blue for conservatives), but they are still the people of the left hand path (sinistre).

Boar Hunter| 11.14.11 @ 12:19PM

I wish more people on this site were capable of the elegant, gentlemanly prose you possess.

Teaghan| 11.14.11 @ 2:39PM

Yes indeed.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 10:38PM

Nice poetry, however, just like all propaganda, it is not based in fact, but emotional wishful thinking. I always wondered how you all accepted the Commie color Soviet or Chinese Red for the Red (Communist) States of America

RCV| 11.14.11 @ 11:44AM

I'm sorry, Timothy, but you must never have read the Federalist Papers on the whole rationale of a constitutional republic. It was 'the will of the people" that the Framers acted to guard against, to prevent our republic from degenerating into what the French revolution eventually did. A constitutional republic is one with limits on the "will of the people" and the Federalist No. 78 cogently explains why it is necessary to have an independent judiciary, with life tenure, to monitor that tension.

Al Adab| 11.14.11 @ 12:30PM

RCV:
As well as the Federalist, read the records of the ratifying conventions of the several states. It then becomes clear what "the people" thought the document meant. Clear language and original intent, not a living paper.

RCV| 11.14.11 @ 2:47PM

Al Adab: that's a different debate.

Quartermaster| 11.14.11 @ 7:28PM

It's the same debate and it is all embodied in original intent.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 10:43PM

We don't know, nor will ever know the true original intent of the writing of the Constitution. The framers purposely hid their deliberations, the states notwithstanding, to avoid such debates in the future. They wanted us to take the Constitution as it was written, not what transpired in getting to that written word. And, they were quite right in this, knowing full well that the Constitution is only a framework within which to guide us, not Gospel to live by. Original intent is no different than "life begins at conception" - it is a construct of propaganda to persuade others of some non-existent underlying truth to your position.

Redstateboy| 11.14.11 @ 3:04PM

wonderful parlor esoteric bs RCV.. Here's a Fact. 1 State - ONE! - My State of Tennessee will have to pony up 142 Million EXTRA dollars for our portion of HusseinCare every year for 7 straight years!!! And We get off lucky?! States like: The People's Republic of CA., NY, and IL?? Their portions (and they're already bankrupt!) is in the Billions!!! So take all your Liber-ul BS, your Constitution this and your Constitution that.... THERE'S NOT ENOUGH F'N! MONEY!!

RCV| 11.14.11 @ 3:47PM

Then have the elected representatives of the People repeal the law that they passed in both houses of Congress and that the President, elected by the People, signed.

George S| 11.14.11 @ 4:39PM

And the Tea party uprising at all those town hall meetings arose out of a grateful populace thanking their elected representatives for keeping their campaign promises for mandated health insurance.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 10:45PM

I thought the 2010 election was all about creating jobs? Don't you think all those extra billions will create jobs? Or was that a bait & switch ... campaign on jobs, but once elected "oh we really didn't mean it" ... ?

Redstateboy| 11.14.11 @ 5:22PM

RCV: Yeah... right.. the "Corn Husker Kickback"? the "Louisana Purchase"? all the backroom, behind closed doors crap that went on.. and you're good with this? And like a good little Liber-ul... you side stepped the question.. where's the F'n money come'n from to pay for this? You?!! As for me..? I'm tapped out.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 10:48PM

You pay less in Federal taxes than you have since the 1950's. Petition your State to reduce your State taxes - that's where you have suffered, not Federal taxes. Perhaps you should petition your employer for a raise if you are that tapped out. Where do all their profits go? Seems they have plenty of cash on hand... just not giving it to their loyal employees. Oh, that's right, TN is not a union state - oh, too bad, you lose. You work at the whim of your employer .. yeah, I would move North if I were you.

VBMax| 11.14.11 @ 8:08PM

I don't acknowledge Obamacare as a valid law of the land. It was "passed" with chincanery and bribery.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 10:49PM

Hahahahaha ... point to one law that wasn't ... how naiive you are.

George S| 11.14.11 @ 4:28PM

The part of Federalist 78 that has always caught my attention is: "...there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." That means if judges act like legislators (ordering tax increases or directing tax dollars towards school districts) or executives (bestowing rights to enemy combatants, preventing the enforcement of immigration laws) then the checks and balances of a constitutional republic go out the window.

A better refresher on liberty is Federalist 41. Skip down to the paragraph that begins with "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation[,]" then tell me if what Madison had in mind was the legitimacy of ObamaCare.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:01PM

What stands out for me in Federalist 78 is the phrase " the legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. " And, so, the legislature (Congress) has prescribed the individual mandate as a rule to regulate the healthcare of the citizens to the public good. This point, and only this point, is what the Supreme Court has decided to hear and rule upon.

carnot| 11.14.11 @ 10:56PM

you..of course...leave out the cultural assumptions implicit in the Federalist Papers. most of which do not apply to today's judiciary.

martin j smith| 11.14.11 @ 7:44AM

Judges who make decisions affecting hundreds of millions of people most of who oppose Obamnacare ( for instance )may believe they know what is "best". But by ignoring the will of the voters alienate voters from another branch of government-the judiciary. Voters then see judges not as fair minded but as political hacks working on the basis of their personal ideology or political connections. This only not only alienates voters but angers them as well.

DTOM| 11.14.11 @ 7:56AM

It is supposed to by "Government of the people, for the people, BY the people."

Don't Tread on Us!

Al Adab| 11.14.11 @ 11:46AM

What needs to happen, and just did in Ohio, is for the States to exert their sovereignty and opt of of the mandate. How many are currently involved in the suit? is it about 33? The States need to stand strong and make clear that no matter what the courts may rule, they simply will not play this game. If that sounds like nullification then so be it, but a refusal to submit to tyranny is the final bastion of Liberty. "Hier stadt ich, ich kann nicht anders."

VBMax| 11.14.11 @ 8:12PM

Nullification is a perfectly valid response to oppressive legislation.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:04PM

Good Luck with that one ... it was tried in 1860.

TrueBlue| 11.15.11 @ 7:31PM

I'm guessing you're referring to the Civil War. The only thing that made that war legal was that the South attacked Fort Sumter. If they had not done that the Union states would have been doing something quite illegal, that's why war wasn't declared until the attack on the fort occured.

The Constitution is a WILLING contract between the states to form a federal government for mutual protection, a single currency, and a single face to deal with other countries in the world. That's why they had to get all of those states to agree to sign the it in the beginning, any that didn't sign would have opted out of the country's formation. "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." U.S. Constitution, Article VII

Several states even included their right to secede in their state constitutions, to reaffirm the fact that they can leave whenever they want, backed by the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:03PM

You really don't know the Constitution do you ? That phrase came from Abraham Lincoln, who by all accounts started the divergence from "original intent" of the Constitution.

Nancy in NC| 11.14.11 @ 8:11AM

There is a reason the Judicial Branch is listed third in the Constitution...they are to be the weakest of the three branches of government.

It's amazing to me that many believe Supremes are appointed for life. Reading the Constitution states otherwise.

Too bad we can't get more folks to read "The Ruling Class", the wonderful little treatise of how we have gone off the track of liberty and down the road to serfdom by allowing our elected servants to become our masters. The media feels entitled to mold our thinking and decide on who will be our leaders.

I am very afraid for the future of this Nation.

Mike Rogers | 11.14.11 @ 8:18AM

We must strengthen our states and keep on sending good men to DC. We must be prepared to replace those who succumb, and demand in turn that they replace judges, and even remove presidents who do not strictly uphuld and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.
Obama, remove thyself!!

Mike Rogers | 11.14.11 @ 8:21AM

Oh, and we must demand the overturn of the Seventeenth Amendment above all else.
We can and must control our state legislatures: They can and must appoint senators as our (the states') ambassadors to DC.
The current situation of nationally elected senators (and don't think otherwise) pits our small contributions against the likes of George Soros and the SEIU.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:05PM

The elected Representatives of the United States brought you the Healthcare Affordability Act - enough said... the rest is theoretical mumbo jumbo propaganda ... so shut up.

TrueBlue| 11.15.11 @ 7:33PM

True, they did. That's why a good deal of them were voted out of office at the next election, people obviously didn't agree with the decision.

Mike Rogers | 11.14.11 @ 8:11AM

Remove them!
Judges "shall serve during good behavior".
Confirmation hearings should be fought over strict constructional reading of the constitution, and judges who stray outside those limits shall be removed.
It is also high time for states to read the Tenth Amendment very strictly and act in concert to strike down the great bulk of federal law.
It is also time for renewed study of the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that our god-given rights and the bill of rights are enforced against the states, but nothing more.
None of the clauses of the constitution should be stretched the way they have been in the past century, and even the Fourteenth Amendment should be limited to its intended purpose.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:06PM

Blah, blah, whine, whine ...

Tenn Slim| 11.14.11 @ 9:05AM

Each State will undoubtedly reject the Obamacare Health mandate. In the end, each individual, who has the opportunity to vote with his/her pocketbook will decide.
2012 Electioneers hope that the opportunity to repeal the whole law will occur. I say, don't hold your breath.
The actual 2012 election may or may not occur. IF NOT, then we are over the abyss. A distinct possibility.
Semper FI

Boar Hunter| 11.14.11 @ 1:05PM

Unfortunately, the chances "each State will undoubtedly reject the Obamacare Health mandate" are slimmer than people might think. Even if the states reject it, do you doubt Obama will seek every unscrupulous method at his disposal to force its implementation? Can we count on Republicans like the cowardly, traitorous rat John Boehner?

I guarantee California will support it. They support every perverse, self destructive agenda you can name. My wife and I, as well as all three of my sons and their wives (Small children excluded) will be discussing what state we are going to move to when we meet in December. Any suggestions for a lonely band of Christian, gun loving, God fearing conservatives?

I have lived and worked here all my life, I cannot allow my grandchildren to be raised in what has become one of the centers of evil for the entire country. My sons are an ex-marine, now policeman, another policeman and a Navy Nuke whose contract is up in less than a year.

We are all hoping to find a place to live where we can actually trust and stand with our neighbors, right now we are polite and courteous to everyone we meet, but, oh well you know the rest of that one.

Teaghan| 11.14.11 @ 2:44PM

Come to Virginia Boar Hunter. There are many places for you to replant your tribe here in this historic state. Just stay away from Northern VA!

Al Adab| 11.14.11 @ 3:06PM

Teaghan,
Who among the GOP field can win VAs electoral votes? Without them, alongside Ohio and FLA, the GOP loses.

Boar Hunter| 11.15.11 @ 1:00AM

I will add it to my look at list.

Indy| 11.14.11 @ 4:29PM

I don't think it is as simple as each state rejecting the mandate, even if (and that is a big IF), the structure will remain in place...the beast will live, we must work to repeal and replace with free market based solutions, don't rely on the courts.

Sadly, we are at the mercy of the courts and the 2012 elections. We need to elect more conservatives to the Senate / House, win the WH and elect strong governors / state legislatures. The majority of the voters are poorly informed, they fall for the 30 sec sound bites, many are pull the lever "D" or "R" so many don't bother to vote in the primaries where the best candidate should be vetted, if you sit out the primaries, you are more likely to end up with a Romney who is at best a weak RINO, a strong conservative Congress must be a priority - Boehner and McConnell as leaders spells more trouble for the Republic.

Occam's Tool| 11.14.11 @ 5:57PM

Boar Hunter:

Might I recommend the Dakotas? ND is having a major economic boom, and SD has no income tax. Both have nice people (ND's people are very nice), good churches, good hunting. ND (particularly Fargo and Grand Forks) is 2-3 hours from my spot.

Check out the ND vote on the insurance exchanges. The winters are cold (one can dress warmly) and there are occasional floods, but Fargo-GrandForks has a nice University corridor, good healthcare, and is decently Conservative. If you get serious, let Ken know and we can get in touch.

Good luck and take care.

russel| 11.14.11 @ 7:31PM

Well Boar Hunter , here in Wyoming we welcome those of your persuasion . Not so much the panhandlers and freeloaders who've come to take advantage of our generosity ( Michigan comes right to mind ) . Ca. not so much because those relocating still hve a fragment of a business they'd like to keep . What fears any state is the influx of pilgrims who could change the dynamic of why a place is comfortable , thriving and friendly . We say if they ruined it , they should live in it .

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:07PM

Go to Texas - the Governor needs you.

Konnie| 11.15.11 @ 12:13AM

Hello, Texas! Not Austin, unless you're a lefty, (you could handle the suburbs) but anywhere else. South Texas is humid, but you could probably handle DFW area. No state income tax, you will live in a mansion if you can sell your CA home.

VonMisesJr| 11.14.11 @ 9:19AM

In terms of restoring the Constitution, this is not a conservative idea, but a libertarian idea that adheres to reactionary thought. Reactionary refers to looking to the past for Utopia. This is what Strict Constitutionalist desire in this realm.

In the traditional meaning of the word, Conservative means to conserve. So the Judge is being conservative in reinforcing the unconstitutional usurpation of states rights we see in all three federal branches, the media and academia. So we must be careful in the words we use, since as Rush says: "words mean things."

buckeyeman| 11.14.11 @ 9:36AM

Our nation lost it's soul with Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. Perhaps our only hope now would be for individual states to DEFY these unconstitutional federal incursions. Otherwise we are lost. I have gold in Switzerland and cash in Anguilla. Good luck to all you other schmucks. Good bye to the land of freedom which exists no more.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:10PM

It hasn't existed since the Transcontinental Railroad was built ... where have YOU been? You want throw away 150 years of American history because the propagandists of our day have persuaded you the enemy is upon us? Really? America is a Progressive nation, not a backward looking Conservative nation. It revolted against the King, and conservatives lost. It can be no other way.

Rick| 11.14.11 @ 9:57AM

Judges are nothing but law school students grading their own examanations H L Menchen

Gale| 11.14.11 @ 11:34AM

Nice roundabout way of saying the Supreme court judges and mainstream conservatives are full of Hooey! Well written!

RICHARD| 11.14.11 @ 12:50PM

Americans are victims of judicial tyranny. Every Spring we wait for life changing edicts from the Supreme Court just as Europeans used to suffer Royal commands. Newt, for one, intends challenge this tyranny by questioning the assumed role of constitutional interpreter by the courts. I say, it is about time.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:11PM

My, my, now Newt Gingrich knows more than Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in their own words - really? See the Federalist Papers.

da monk| 11.14.11 @ 2:42PM

Of course if the courts all agreed with you critics on this health issue and other issues brought to the courts your attitude about the Courts and their interpertaion of the Constitution you all would be extoling the wisdom of the justices.

Should Have Impeached| 11.14.11 @ 9:13PM

Well, yeah, if they ruled in favor of the Constitution!!! Would that be a bad thing?

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:13PM

No, if they indeed are not political, and follow the Constitution, " in Federalist 78 is the phrase " the legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. " And, so, the legislature (Congress) has prescribed the individual mandate as a rule to regulate the healthcare of the citizens to the public good. This point, and only this point, is what the Supreme Court has decided to hear and rule upon. what Congress has passed and been signed by the President will stand.

c. j. acworth| 11.14.11 @ 3:16PM

This business of "Let the decision stand" would seem to make it impossible to ever change direction by acknowledging that a mistake was made in the past. The judge seems to be saying that yes, we screwed up and gave congress too much power over the states, but, hey, thats the way it is now, nothing to be done about it, we're stuck with it for now and for all time. This is just crazy. To make a comparison with the theology I learned in Sunday School, it means we are damned and without hope, for we cannot repent and turn from our wicked ways no matter how much we want to. Is that truly where we are in this country, stuck on the broad and twisty path that leads to destruction with no hope of getting back to the straight and narrow?

Oldefarte| 11.14.11 @ 3:30PM

As TLP rightfully indicates, we are a country OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE, but we don't intelligently exercise our rights regarding same. Cases in point are the elections of D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. Granted and true, Repubicans also gave us liberal jurists; but in fact same R's were politically influenced by a CYA mentality from having Democrats breathing down their backsides. Conservatives waving their Constitution copies go back to Goldwater and beyond but forget that Johnson destroyed Goldwater, and thereafter we received THE GREAT SOCIETY, THE WAR ON POVERTY, AFFORDABLE HOMES, WELFARECARE etc. There is one solution to this problem and that is to elect Republican political leaders as conservative in nature as possible and to thereafter hold their political feet to the fire constantly TEA PARTY STYLE [and not allow them to go off to the partyland of Washington DC and become corrupted by the liberalistic/socialistic/terroristic ways of Democrats]. Eveyone must do their patriotic duty on 11/4/12 and beyond [citizenship is not a one-and-done proposal if we are to survive as a nation OF, BY AND FOR]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RCV| 11.14.11 @ 3:49PM

Ronald Reagan appointed Judge Silberman.

Bill| 11.14.11 @ 3:52PM

The DC Court upheld the Obamacare because they all are Obama-heck. Lower expectations..............

Kent Lyon| 11.14.11 @ 4:17PM

If the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate and Obamacare, the decision will likely have a similar impact to the Dred Scot decision--e.g., it will lead to a rendering asunder of the nation. The Fifth Axiom of the Declaration will apply.

Purpleguy| 11.14.11 @ 11:14PM

A little hyperbole, dontcha think? Just pay up and shut up.

WM| 11.14.11 @ 4:42PM

Silberman logic FAIL. Even in Wickard vs. Filburn, which was also anti-constitutional, there was activity going on. The guy was doing *something* in his backyard. With the PPACA, there is no activity, period. People aren't doing anything. Which is why they are being compelled to do it. Clearly unconstitutional.

Keep an eye on this guy and others. I suspect but can't prove that the establishment RINOs are trying arrange an upholding of Obamacare to scare Tea Party hayseeds into supporting their "electable" RINO Mitt. These traitors are lower than pond scum, and don't think for a minute they really care if the country goes down the toilet. As long as it doesn't completely flush in their short remaining lifetimes, they are content to manage the decline. That is what they call preserving things for their children.

Chris K| 11.15.11 @ 5:55AM

Mitt Romney is the establishment choice for one reason. He will be easier for Obama to beat. That way the RNC can raise more money for their PAC's to "Stop Obama". Think about it, why would we need PAC's if a constitutional conservative was elected? The Karl Roves know that Obama will thank Romney for the help from his Romneycare team for Obamacare and then Romney would be done.

Chris Pedersen| 11.15.11 @ 10:30AM

Karl Rove is the Re-pubic-hair-ians established useful idiot who aids in the underminding of this Nation chreered on by George Soros as the leader of the "New World Order".

POST American| 11.15.11 @ 12:18AM

------Tavistock word-plant PSY & COVER OP------
------------------------ALERT!!!--------------------------

-----------------re: 'DEATH PANEL'--------------------

Now for a little TRUTH OP.

--------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG 2012-------------

Chris Pedersen| 11.15.11 @ 10:22AM

Just Say NO! Americans do not comply! Period!

Martin Owens| 11.15.11 @ 5:58PM

AS Shakespeare said:
" so foul a sky clears not without a storm."

Vive le Guillotine!

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|43 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|88 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats