-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is taking a different tone than the president with regard to the Supreme Court and the health care law, but she expresses similar confidence that the law will be upheld.
“I’m predicting 6-3 in favor,” Pelosi said, as quoted by the Washington Times. “We shall see. It’s a lesson in civics, and I respect it.” Pelosi didn’t name the six justices she thought would uphold the law, but the likeliest breakdown in that scenario would be Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy voting with the court’s liberal bloc.
Then Speaker Pelosi’s response to the intial constitutional questions has not been improved upon by subsequent liberal commentary: “Are you serious?”
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/04/pelosi-predicts-6-3-vote-uphol
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 11:44PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 4.4.12 @ 12:45PM
Oh wait, she doesn't know whats in the bill since she hasn't read it, so HTF can she predict the outcome of the SCOTUS vote? What a PIG and an obnoxious one at that!!!!!!!!!
apnep| 4.4.12 @ 12:50PM
^^Ditto.
JASmius | 4.4.12 @ 1:05PM
Crazy Nancy is an.....*optimist*. It's what makes her such an outstanding ex-House Speaker to this day.
mrd| 4.4.12 @ 1:53PM
Pelosi is probably right, Obama attacked the supreme court and then backed off. This is probably because Kagan is routinely texting him the status of the vote. The actual constitutionality of Obamacare is irrelvant. 90% of what the United States government does is routinely unconstitutional if the plain text of the document mattered. ( where is the power to create Medicare one of the enumerated powers anyway) In reality the 4 libs will vote similarly to Democrat Senators as for the most part they do not see any difference in roles on the court. So Kagan, Sotamayor, Breyer and Ginsburg are all voting to uphold. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are going to vote against. One would have guessed Roberts would be against, although he likes to rule narrowly so hard to say lets put him at 7:3 to strike down, That leaves Kennedy. The questions he asks during oral arguments rarely predict anything, and Kennedy is a swing vote, could be 50:50, I suspect Obama is getting regular text messages from Kagan as to the actual vote of the court. maybe Kennedy was getting "wobbly" on the Obama care thing, and hence the recent Obama attack on the court. The fact that Obama is walking this back, suggests to me that Kagan texted him that "Anthony will be ok.." Kagan was afterall picked for the court with some liberals openly advocating that she would be able to "roll" Kennedy.. I would suspect she can do just this. So I supect Kennedy will vote to uphold Obama care. Wish I was wrong but don't bet on it. So Pelosi probably got the memo, Obamacare survives 5-4 or 6-3 depending on how Roberts wants to be seen
JohnD| 4.4.12 @ 2:27PM
Yes, like for example, if parental notification and ultrasounds "burden" the fundamental Constitutional right to an abortion (found nowhere in the document), then doesn't asking me for an ID, submitting to a background check and a 5 day waiting period burden my fundamental right (explicitly found in the document) to own and possess a firearm? If asking for an ID to vote burdens that right, then why do I need to show an ID to buy a gun? And if I cannot afford a gun, how can I exercise that right to own a gun? Shouldn't Uncle Sam pay for my 45 ACP M1911 that I want, need, and can't afford?
JP| 4.4.12 @ 3:17PM
Believe it or not, the justices rarely meet for conferences. Thier main means of communication are memos and margin notes of the various opinions being written. If the preliminary vote was 5-4 along party lines, there is really nothing more that Kagan can report on. Each justice has his/her own secretaries, and clerks. Unless they are on 1st name basis, I really think it is pushing things to assume that Kagan is aware of Kennedy going wobbly. That is unless, he informs his fellow justices that he is switching sides.Yes, he did that in Casey; but he had a close colleague and Republican Sandra Day, who was able to convince him to switch sides.
Kennedy may be Progressive concerning abortion and some other social issues, but he has been a consistent conservative concerning things like affirmative action, indiviual rights, and most expansions of federal powers.
W| 4.4.12 @ 2:18PM
Give her credit for knowing there are nine justices on the Court.
JP| 4.4.12 @ 3:10PM
This scenario had its genesis in the Progressive SCOTUS blog. The author assumes the following: Kennedy will come around the Progressive thinking, like he did in the Casey case. This will give the liberals the 5-4 decision Obama needs. Since Roberts is Chief Justice he can decide who writes the majority opinion. Progressives believe that Roberts will be more concerned with the Court's reputation than constitutional principals. He will join the 5-4 liberal majority in order to write the opinion himself. The Left assumes that he will want to limit the language of th IM, and keep a it it constitutional along very narrow grounds.
And there you have it, a 6-3 majority opinion keeping all of ObamaCare and the IM alive. Somehow this scenario seems a little too pat.
Nite| 4.4.12 @ 8:00PM
I think they are not judging Chief Justice John Roberts correctly. He will vote for States rights and slap down federal overreach. I believe Scalia and Alito will be able to persuade Kennedy.
JohnD| 4.4.12 @ 3:41PM
I keep coming back to one thing on this: According to the transcripts, several of the justices repeatedly asked Solicitor General (arguing FOR the law) the question, "if we allow Congress to require this, then where would YOU draw the line on what Congress can force the American people to do?" Each time the SG refused to answer. This is a ringing admission that if Congress can do this, there is no limit on their powers, which were explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Such a holding makes no sense. I think this is the key, and I expect a 6-3 decision striking down the law with Ruth Bader Ginsberg joing Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas and Alito. Ginsberg has shown a respect for individual rights in several 4th amendment search and seizure cases she has opined on, and maybe she will surprise us.
B. Johnson| 4.4.12 @ 3:53PM
Noting that Pelosi had also wrongly predicted that she would still be Speaker at this time, Pelosi unsurprisingly isn't aware that previous generations of justices have already reflected on the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, clarifying that Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to address public healthcare issues. Note the terms "health laws" and "medical practice" in the following excerpts from case opinions.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Note that Justice Barbour referenced the above excerpt in New York v. Miln, expanding it as follows.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." --Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.
And before Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR nuked the Supreme Court with activist justices, Constitution-respecting justices had reflected on the excerpts above by clarifying in Linder v. United States that the states have never granted Congress the constitutional authority to stick its big nose into intrastate medical practice.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. (But evidenly not obvious to Obama, Reid and Pelosi.)
mrd| 4.4.12 @ 6:19PM
I am a physician and think Obamacare is the begining of the end of American medicine and the start of a long march toward the kind of socialized mess that they run over at the NHS in Britain. I can tell you that the elite academic medical opinion and most elite medical journals like the NEJM all favor Obamacare. ( This is in contrast to physicians in private practice.) I suspect that features in Obamacare suggest there will be a number of groups, panels, boards appointed by "The Secretary" that will dictate medical practice and the academic elites imagine themselves controlling these boards, thus this represents a power grab. In any case I honestly believe constitutional law matters less in the outcome of this decision than how Anthony Kennedy would like to be seen among the intellectual elites like the folks who edit the New Englan Journal of Medicine, or write in journals liek "Health Affairs" and attend fashionable parties in Georgetown. I really hope I am wrong and that Kennedy votes like he sounded he would during oral arguements, but at the end of the day remember I think he likes favorable treatment in the NY times and Wash Post. He was rolled in the abortion decisions ( Webster and Casey) I supect because of this. Its obvious that Obama was trying to influence the vote of the court ( otherwise what to make of his comments). Kagan knew the outline of the vote on Friday after oral arguements when the judges meet in conference without the clerks. It is naive to think the situation was not communicated to Obama.
Nite| 4.4.12 @ 8:12PM
I am in the medical field with numerous physician friends. They agree with you about Obamacare. A large number of them have indicated that they will retire rather than function under this nightmare. If more investigation of the NHS in Britain, they would soon decide they would want no part of it.
Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 6:37PM
Nite: The New Zealand NHS is directly modelled after Britain's NHS. I was a senior medical consultant there, at almost the top pay scale. It sucked on toast. The Maori had the highest lung cancer rates in the world, and health outcomes that were horrifyingly bad. The only reason for an NHS is to divert care into things that extend population overall health, and at this NZ NHS dismally failed. The filth of the surgery wards was also third world.
Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 6:35PM
MRD: I stopped subscribing to NEJM. I get what I need out of Journal Watch (Psychiatry; it comes in many flavors), it comes with CME, and I don't have to put up with relentless Left-Wing, pro-Abortion and Medical Rationing editorial bullshit.
Al Adab| 4.4.12 @ 6:20PM
Since the Justices met and voted - behind closed doors - only last Friday, one must ask who is the leak? If one of the Justices, is that not an impeachable offense?
taint shat for tunes| 4.4.12 @ 9:08PM
wouldn't that be great to ditch Kagen?
The Bruce| 4.4.12 @ 11:48PM
Yes, it is most likely that Justice Fred Flintstone is the leaker (sorry, that's my pet name for her).
Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 6:41PM
This is why we need a Republican in the POTUS slot---if it happens, and Ginsberg goes to Hell, which is waiting for her, the Republican can select another Roberts type and we won't have to be praying for Kennedy to vote in a human fashion. If not---Kennedy and Scalia are both in their 70s. Clarence is in his 60s, and thank G-d he doesn't drink or smoke.
MarkJ| 4.4.12 @ 6:23PM
Upcoming Pelosi Prognostications:
"The Chicago Cubs will win the 2012 World Series 4-3. You heard it here first!"
"The Indianapolis Colts and the St. Louis Rams will have perfect seasons and will face off in Super Bowl XLVII. You can take that to the bank!"
taint shat for tunes| 4.4.12 @ 9:07PM
hey bitch, you gotta read it to find out what's in it
Oldefarte| 4.4.12 @ 10:33PM
Again, I really don't hold too much HOPE in the outcome of this SCOTUS resolution that is preferable to me. My one/only hope alternatively lies with the November elections, and my prayer is that a Republican can defeat Obama and as many Democrats as possible [and thereafter an administrative branch nullification of this WELFARE can be made]. The SCOTUS equals lawers which equals judges, and all of them are liberal by nature. Law schools crank them out yearly in droves and sick them upon businesses with insurance to file suits against. A lawyer LIES WHEN HIS LIPS MOVE, so therefore I'm not holding my breath on this legal situation as a solution. Even if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, if Obama is re-elected, the Democrats will just legislatively ram an worse healthcare bill through congress so WTF!!!!!!
Kingofthenet| 4.4.12 @ 11:07PM
In Republican thinking(Now of course, they were for it when it was their idea) it is FAR more Humane to deny a 'Free-Rider' care when they are sick or injured than to Compel them to buy coverage.
JohnD| 4.5.12 @ 9:13AM
Its not better, but it is Constitutional.
Occam's Tool| 4.9.12 @ 6:43PM
King: the problem is that I don't want some idiot who will never pay for care rationing mine; it's even worse when it's an illegal alien doing this. (For the record, both my kids are naturalized citizens who are Mayan Indians from Guatemala---I paid the 10s of thousands of dollars to go through the legal process.)
The Bruce| 4.4.12 @ 11:50PM
"Free-Riders" cannot be denied care, by law, and you know this.
Kingofthenet| 4.5.12 @ 12:17AM
I know that, but why do I have to pay for them? Aren't you for personally responsibility?
spike59| 4.5.12 @ 7:08AM
sorry, Frau Blucher, but you'll have to wait till the SCOTUS kills the bill to find out what's in their opinion