Obama’s Health Care Law in Trouble, His Budgets Rejected, so why is he still winning in the polls
The Individual Mandate is Doomed, says CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
Well if you watched the video, which you should, then you know that many legal analyst have begun to worry that the Supreme Court will Strike down parts of Obamacare. The mandate is in a lot of danger, at least that is what we are hearing right now.
John Podhoretz of the New York Post explains this brilliantly when he said:
“They’re (Liberal) so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.”
You do not have to read into this statement, it is true in every way. Liberals myopic views always leave them incapable of seeing the clouds gathering before the storm.If Obamacare is struck down, we will see liberal analyst proceed to levy opprobrious attacks on the Supreme Court.
We are already seeing this happen:
Over at Real Clear Politics, Erin McPike has already reported on how some Democratic lawmakers are already preparing for the aftermath are a sure to generate.
“One Democratic member of Congress told reporters Thursday that if the court were to strike down the law, doing so could create chaos and would raise some serious questions, including: “Can our country govern itself?”And, the lawmaker surmised, “I don’t know if the court wants to cause that firestorm.”
Like following the constitution of the United States is against the ethos of modern liberalism. The Democratic lawmakers were sure to remind the reporters that “The fact is, justices do read newspapers.”
The New York Times Editorial page must of have been aware of this because they seemed to be talking to the Justices directly when they said this:
“Under general principles, courts must avoid nullifying more of a law than is necessary.Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that it would be more extreme to preserve part of the statute than to strike down the whole thing because that would alter Congress’s intent. He could avoid this problem by upholding the mandate.”
I would adduce the following reasons as why the Court should not listen to the New York Times: they are an ideological driven mouthpiece for progressive causes, and second, it is about time that someone extinguishes the fire that has become the fourth branch of government.Listening to anything the media is antipodal to what the Justices should be doing. The media has fast become part of the big government entity that we are fighting.
I have no doubt that Liberal/progressives would try a coup d’état if they thought they would get away with it.They will generate a crisis out of thin air if it gave them a greater chance at holding voting blocks that are solidly in their corner. For a Case in point, look no farther than the George Zimmerman/ Trayvon Martin case, where the progressive agitators have attempted to obfuscate.Can we really put anything past the same people who once attempted to hold up war spending right when the counterinsurgency/surgemeasures were showing signs of success, just because they wanted to score political points against then President Bush?
If all or part of the Obamacare is struck down, it would mean President Obama will have to defend himself against charges that he was willing to pass a law without worrying about it being constitutional.It would be a blow against the president right when things have begun to look up for him, he is seeing higher approval ratings and head-to-head matchups showing growing leads against the likely Republican nominee, Mitt Romney.How exactly Romney will make that argument is not known, considering that, he too attempted to cover everyone with a health care mandate.
President Obamajust had a version of his budget voted down in the house unanimously, granted it was not the president’s budget, but was based on Obama’s top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal. The reason it was proposed by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) was that no Democrat wanted to propose the president’s budget bill.
Obama’s budgets have been a insuperable obstacle to budget progress in Congress over the last year. In May 2011, 97 senators voted against a motion to take up the president’s 2012-budget plan: not one senator voted in favor of the measure.
With Obamacare seemingly on the ropes and the Presidents budgets being routinely shunned by members of both parties, things should get even tougher on the incumbent president come this November.It will likely depend on the effectiveness of team Romney, which means that they will have to work on limiting the Etch-A-Sketch episodes, which may have already, further defined his candidacy.