Liberal Rhetoric 101: The Supreme Court Says...

This one comes from yet another conversation with my Twitter friend "Jeff." This time our debate was on abortion. This was his final response:

This is not "Jeff's" real Twitter page although it is his real tweet.
@UpstateMetFan is my Twitter handle, not "Jeff's"

"Jeff" has just demonstrated a class liberal rhetorical fallacy: The Supreme Court said X, ergo X is a fact.

For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.

Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue.  Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong.  Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States. 

If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865  and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.

The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.

Obamacare Ruling Has Just Woken a Sleeping Giant

It's name is the Tea Party. Friends, do you know what caused the Tea Party? It was Obamacare. The Tea Party was kind of in a lull until yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court. Now, friends, you've just made us angry. And we get organized when we're angry.

Mitt Romney's biggest problem...an excitement gap...just went bye bye. Because now conservatives are necessarily bent on getting rid of Obamacare at the ballot box. We always were, friends...it's just we were hoping the Supreme Court would stand up for liberty. They didn't. Well, Chief Justice Roberts didn't. (Still mad at you, buddy.) As conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility, and not the forced kind. If you want to purchase health insurance, fine. If you choose not to, that's fine too, but don't ask us to pay for it with our tax dollars. (We may be willing to pay for it in our churches and charities, just not through taxes.)

The Tea Party just woke up, friends. Mitt Romney just got huge boost. Because the Tea Party is once again awake and by the way, we're still mad as hell. We are not going to take this ruling lying down. If the Supreme Court is going to refuse to uphold the Constitution, then we're going to do it at the ballot box.

My fellow Tea Party patriots, get ready, because Election 2010: The Sequel is in post-production. Debuts on November 6, 2012. Game on.

Reactions to the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision

Today's post on the Supreme Court's upholding of Obamacare is simply my thoughts. I may post a more in-depth analysis later on. For now, let's all just mourn.

Today's blog is a little late, as I wanted to wait for the decision to be announced.  Then it came across the newswire first saying the Supreme Court had struck down the individual mandate. I breathed a sigh of relief...at least THAT's gone, I thought. Then it turned out that report was wrong, and this blogger's heart sank. All I could think of was a quote from the apocryphal Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has failed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. To be specific, Chief Justice John Roberts failed to uphold the Constitution. As sad as I was when I heard of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold forcing Americans to purchase a product (by calling it a tax and not a mandate), I was just as sad when I heard who the deciding vote was in this decision.  I figured it was probably the wishy-washy Anthony Kennedy. It wasn't. It was the Chief Justice.

Friends, I fully expected Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to uphold the law. (Two Clinton appointees and two Obama appointees. Fine.) I also expected Justices  Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to stand for the Constitution, which they did. I'm glad Justice Kennedy found the Constitution and read the darn thing before ruling on Obamacare.

Yet it was Chief Justice Roberts, who I believed to be a strong Constitutionalist, went and upheld the law. By calling the mandate what it ALWAYS was: a tax. Friends, this law never would have passed if it was presented to the nation by it's true nature: A massive tax increase. Very few people in Congress would have signed on for a bill that was such a massive tax increase. That's why Barack Obama said in 2009, and I quote:

For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. - Barack Obama, 2009 - Obama Interview with George Stephanopolus, ABC News

Friends, if you go read that link, which I won't quote, even George "Mister" Snuffleupagus didn't believe President Obama when he said it wasn't a tax. Neither did Chief Justice Roberts, apparently.

This fight isn't over, friends. We can absolutely still get rid of this law. We have one chance: Fire President Obama on November 6, 2012. We'll talk about that more in days to come. In the meantime, this is just a plain sad day for America, for the Constitution, and for freedom.

Reactions to the AZ Immigration Law Ruling

A big week at the Supreme Court kicked off yesterday with part of Arizona's controversial Immigration Law was upheld while other parts were struck down.

In a nutshell, the state of Arizona may continue to inquire about the legality of an immigrant's status and they may continue to ask for documentation if they suspect a person may not be legally in this country. However, they must then flag Federal immigration officers to handle further prosecution of any violation of Federal immigration law.

On paper and as a card-carrying Federalist, I agree with this decision, because the Federal government is in charge of enforcing immigration. It is a necessity that the the Federal government do this if we are going to be one nation of fifty states...otherwise we would have to have ID checks for all people when crossing state lines, as we do on the U.S./Canadian border. Since we thankfully have the right to move from state to state at will without such provisions, we must therefore leave immigration enforcement in the hands of the Federal government.

Unfortunately, the very reason that Arizona passed this law in the first place was because the Federal government was doing an absolutely lousy job of enforcing the borders. It was something of a "fine, you don't want to protect our borders, WE'LL do it."

So once again we're back at asking the Federal government to do something that's ACTUALLY THEIR JOB. (Sigh.) I mean the Federal government has become increasingly effective at doing things that aren't their job, like providing health care (and by becoming "effective" I mean they're doing it...not stating how well they are doing it) but when it comes to protecting our borders, they are horrible at it. That's why Arizona even passed this law: The Obama Administration refuses to do the job of enforcing the borders!

Now you know the Left is going to be up in arms because they still somehow think that asking people for ID is somehow infringing on rights. Let me give a brief dramatic representation of the Liberal mentality on this:

Liberal: Hello I'd like to buy this bottle of wine...
Cashier: Do you have ID?
Liberal: Here you go.
----


TSA: And where are you flying?
Liberal: Florida.
TSA: May I see your ID, please?
Liberal: Here you go.
----


Mountie: And how long will you be visiting Canada?
Liberal: Until tomorrow.
Mountie: And what is your business in Canada?
Liberal: Shopping and going to see a Blue Jays game.
Mountie: May I see your ID, please?
Liberal: Sure.


----


Police officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Liberal: Uhhh....
Police officer: License and registration, please.
Liberal: Here you go, officer.
Police Officer: Are you an immigrant, sir?
Liberal: Yes.
Police Officer: May I see your immigration papers?
Liberal: DON'T YOU OPPRESS ME!

The purpose of our little demonstration is this: We are asked to show our ID regularly. It's simply part of life. When people wax intellectual about "Nazi Germany" or whatever they are ignoring the realities of life. Especially because, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, people are not forced to carry papers. (So in other words, it's just like when you are pulled over for a traffic violation and are given 24 hours to produce a driver's license.)

Friends, the Liberal panic continues and it's again unnecessary. Unfortunately, the realities of life often get in the way of Liberal panic. Ultimately, the AZ Immigration law's most important provision lives. And that's all that really matters.

Obama's Supreme Court Faux Pas Shows his Narcissism.

Last week I, and so many other individuals who understand the Constitution, took the President to the political woodshed on his attacks on the Supreme Court, essentially saying if they declare Obamacare Unconstitutional (which I believe the Left is telegraphing that they expect it to happen) it would be "judicial activism."  Last Tuesday I explained actually, no, that's the Supreme Court DOING IT'S JOB.

Now the President is backpeddling after realizing how much of a fool he made out of himself. Aside from that, however, the President has once again shown his most prominent character flaw: The man is a narcissist.  He believes the rules don't apply because he's so special. He believes himself to be some sort of political messiah. (For the record, I've got a Messiah already...the REAL Messiah...His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God and my Savior and Lord). He believes his own PR.

This is honestly the best explanation for why a Constitutional Law professor would think it's perfectly fine to enact a law forcing people to purchase ANY product/service as a condition of living. It's the best explanation why a Constitutional Law professor would think it was "Judicial Activism" for the court to overturn a law as Unconstitutional when it was "passed by a democratically elected Congress."

This President has an attitude that "nobody would DARE overturn MY law, I'm Obama!" Now that reality is setting in, the President has thrown a tantrum. He's kicking and screaming and using terms that don't apply even a little bit like "Judicial Activism."

This isn't the first time the President has thrown a tantrum against the Supreme Court. Who can forget this moment in his 2010 State of the Union Address:

                    

This is who we elected President.  (Actually, not we...personally in 2008 I voted for the Sarah Palin/Her Boss ticket because I saw through Obama even then.)  In 2012, we must not make the same mistake. I firmly believe Obamacare is going to end in the hands of the Supreme Court this summer. The Obama Administration must similarly be ended at the ballot box in November

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Striking Down Obamacare

The Obama Administration and the Drive-By Media must be seeing the writing on the wall as it pertains to Obamacare...they're already polishing their excuses. The President is now speaking out against the court "legislating from the bench."

If you know history at all, you're smacking your head against the wall because that hurts far less than trying to find the logic in the President's statement. For a Constititional Law professor, this President doesn't have a clue about legal history.  He had no issue with the Supreme Court invented a right to destroy one's unborn child in the womb and claim it has something to do with privacy.  That wasn't legislating from the bench.  The court potentially saying "No, you cannot force free people to buy a product" is somehow legislating from the bench?

Actually, Mr. President, that's called Judicial Review. You see, Congress doesn't have the right to pass whatever law they want, even by majority decision. We have rights, Mr. President, and those rights can't be legislated away with a law.  (The idea of legislating away people's rights isn't a new one, by the way.  You can see it in old newsreels.  Of course they're tough to understand...because the narration is in German.)The fact is, Mr. Obama, you never had the right to require people to purchase health insurance by law.  You also never had the right to force the individual states to expand Medicare and pay for it.

Not sure if you read that whole 10th Amendment thing in the Constitution, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor, but that exhaulted document states:

 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. - 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The power to decide what product to purchase has not been delegated to the Federal Government. It was delegated to the States or to We the People. (I'd argue this is delegated only to us individual people.) 

My friends, that is not Judicial Activism. This is Judicial Review. This is what the Supreme Court's job is...to review laws in question and decide if it's Constitutional.  If the Supreme Court strikes this law down, it's doing it's job, Mr. President.  Get over it.

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: If Obamacare is Overrulled, it WILL NOT Help Obama

Now that Obamacare's Supreme Court oral arguments are concluded, liberal journalists are already telegraphed their next talking point. Their newest claim? If Obamacare is overturned, it will help Obama's reelection campaign.

Before I start telling you WHY this claim is false, I'd like to point out that the Left is already setting up for precisely what I predicted yesterday: Obamacare will be declared Unconstitutional. They're expecting it, which is why they're now trying to preemptively spin the story. The person I saw make it most recently was liberal Fox News contributor Juan Williams.

Williams is the quintisential Neighborhood Liberal, friends. He tries to talk like an Activist Liberal, but he's basically regurgitating what genuine Activist Liberals like Bob Beckel are saying.  And today he's saying that Obamacare's overturn is good for Obama.

Williams is claiming that essentially if Obamacare is gone, the GOP has to go from simply being opposed to Obamacare and actually have to bring up solutions. It's a common talking point. It's also, like most liberal talking points, centered on a highly eroneous premise.

Conservatives and Republicans DO have solutions to the Health Care problems we see in our country.  Here's the thing, friends: They aren't centered on government. Unfortunately, that means ignoring the liberal solution to every problem (do one or more of the following: Pass a law, form a committee, spend more money, problem solved).

The GOP solution is far more centered on removing government barriers and free market solutions. Such things has true health savings accounts, making it possible for individuals to buy insurance across state lines, and allowing smaller groups and individuals to bond together into a large group to buy insurance at a larger group rate. In other words, remove the government barriers and let people solve their own problems.

Of course, it doesn't involve big press conferences and monumental laws being passed, because common sense is rarely trumpeted by the Drive-By Media like passing a law or spending more money.  But it does involve actually solving the problem.

Now as to this being good for Obama: To use an old-man word, hogwash. It requires a complete absence of logic to claim that a President seeing his signature legislation declared Unconstitutional is good for that President. Do you think Lincoln was dying to see the Emancipation Proclamation declared unconstitutional?  Do you think Jefferson was dying to have the Louisiana Purchase struck down?  If Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts were struck down, how do you think that'd have looked?  FDR was so afraid his New Deal would be struck down, so much so he had to stack the court and create new justices just to avoid it.

No, friends, Obamacare being declared unconstitutional isn't bad for Obama. It's just another spin job of falsehood from the Left.  Don't buy it.

Obamacare in Trouble at the Supreme Court

As all people who don't live under rocks, the President's signature Obamacare legislation is before the Supreme Court this week. The Drive-By Media has spent the preceeding weeks trying to essentially convince justices like Scalia and Roberts to go against their personal judgement and history and consider this law Constitutional. So far, oral arguments and the questions posed by the justices are not backing this theory.  Thank you, God.

All people living in the Real World are pretty much penciling Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts under the Unconstitutional side and similarly penciling Ginsberg, Kegan, Breyer and Sotomeyer under the Constitutional side. Anthony Kennedy is presumed the swing vote, but his questions thus far do not back that claim.  The Drive-Bys have told you otherwise, but their track record of being right is pretty sad.

Yesterday, CNN claimed that the court seemed to be willing to let the law stand. This shows the level of dellusion of the Drive-By Media in a nutshell. Read the article, friends, you'll find they quote Ginsberg, Kegan, and also throw-away lines from Alito and Kennedy.  They're deliberately obfuscating, friends, to try to make their case seem plausible.

But when you read quotes from Justice Kennedy, it becoems clear that he's incredibly skeptical about the authority of the government to create commerce. When you read the transcript from the Oral Arguments, you see Kennedy asking questions like:

"Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?"

 And here:
"The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him, absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

"And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."

The most telling statement from Chief Justice Roberts is this:

"Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?
The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The 

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.


"It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need, but when you do -- and the government provides it. I thought that was an important part of your argument, that when you need health care, the government will make sure you get it.

Irregardless of what the Drive-By Media is telling you and dreaming of conservative justices floating over to support Obamacare while wearing their Happy Imagination Hats, the evidence is against them. I have about as much fear of Chief Justice Roberts supporting this bill as I have expectations of the Mets winning the World Series this year. (So basically none.)

As far as Justice Kennedy, it seems like he's falling on the side of freedom and the Constitution in this case. The left can dream, of course, but the truth is his questions do not sound like someone who believes it's okay to force people to purchase any product.

Friends, the more I read these transcripts the more confident I am that, at the very least, the Individual Mandate will be going bye-bye; and likely the entire law on the grounds that government may not force people to purchase anything and the rest on the backs of defense of the 10th Amendment and of the rights of the individual states.  And by the way, the law barely matters minus the mandate and the forced expansion of Medicare.  I still have a problem with legally requiring insurance companies to insure 27 year old adults, but it's small potatoes in the scheme of things.

I'll make it an official prediction. Obamacare struck down, 5-4. We'll find out this summer if I'm correct.

Understanding the Supreme Court Obamacare Review

The news came down earlier this week:  the Supreme Court will take up President Obama's signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, during this current session, meaning a ruling can be expected by summer of 2012.  (1) Conservatives are celebrating, and for some odd reason so is the Obama Administration. 

The former I understand, the latter I do not, save for one possibility: Obama knows Obamacare is bad for his re-election, and hopes it is overturned so he can get credit for trying without experiencing the bad effects of having the law pinned to him.  When Obamacare is brought up he can simply say "it's a dead issue, the Supreme Court overturned it, but hey, we tried."  It's classic liberalism: compassion of intent matters, compassion of result does not.

How this will play out is an interesting question.  I believe we can expect Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to vote Obamacare as Unconstitutional and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Steven Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan ((hopefully she’ll recuse herself due to her previous involvement with the law) to vote that Obamacare is Constitutional.  So the swing vote is Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Personally, I expect Kennedy to join his fellow Republican appointees in striking down Obamacare.  First and foremost, Kennedy has a strong history of being in favor of states' rights and individual liberty.  So this bodes well for those of us who want to see Obamacare struck down. Although Kennedy has had moments of breaking with the conservative movement, but these are on issues centered around personal liberty over traditional conservative morality.  Honestly, I would be very surprised to see Kennedy vote to uphold Obamacare based on his history. 

There are multiple discussions scheduled for this review.  I think Kennedy is likely to vote against the law on three of the four, meaning the law is overturned. From SCOTUSBlog.com, here are the Writs of Certiorari to be reviewed:

* The issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services [11-400]).
For those of you from Palm Beach County, this means judging whether or not the Individual Mandate, which requires all Americans to buy health insurance, is required for the law to exist.

Gun to my head I'd predict that Kennedy will join the other Justices who were appointed by Republicans to see that, without the individual mandate, the law is basically useless based upon it's own intentions, but I cannot predict that with certainty.

* The constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida, et al.)

For those of you from Palm Beach County, that means, regardless of whether or not the Individual Mandate is "severable" from the law, whether or not government can force people to purchase ANYTHING.

Given Justice Kennedy's history of supporting individual liberty over all else, I doubt he will consider this Constitutional.  For those who are still wondering why government can "require" us to purchase auto insurance, please understand this is a requirement to use the public roads, just like a driver's license is also required to use the public roads.  This is very different from requiring a purchase to live in the country.  As so many have said before, you might as well mandate purchase of a house to solve the homelessness problem.

Whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the (Tax) Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398), one hour of oral argument.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act says that Federal Courts may not stop collection of a tax by either Federal or State governments that were duly passed by Congress or the legislatures of the States. Of course, the President repeatedly stated when attempting to pass the law that Obamacare was not a tax, yet now they are arguing that the individual mandate is within the Congressional authority to levy taxes.  But it is not a tax, they said so themselves, stating that it was just like requiring people to purchase auto insurance. 

I expect Kennedy to vote this part of the law down again, citing the President's own statements on the law, thus meaning the Tax Anti Injunction Act has zero bearing on the case.

Finally,

Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services case, 11-400).

The specific challenge here is whether or not the Federal government has the authority to require states to expand Medicaid.  Again, given Kennedy's long history of supporting states' rights, I do not see him voting it Constitutional at all.

In short, I expect Justice Kennedy to join Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts in voting three of the four Writs of Certiorari as Unconstitutional, and as for the fourth, if the law is Unconstitutional, who cares if the Individual Mandate is severable?

Long story short, I believe Obamacare's days are numbered.  Thank God.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) ObamaCare reaches the Supreme Court