Friday, March 30, 2012

Pelosi Loves Judicial Review

We’ve been tossing around the meaning of the questions and answers during oral argument at the Supreme Court in the matter of Obamacare. Some of us are feeling fairly confident that the high court might find the entirety of the law unconstitutional. Others of us feel that the insurance purchase mandate may go, leaving everything else temporarily intact. But whatever the result, we have at least one thing that should allow us to rest a bit easier. Nancy Pelosi says the Democrats will accept the ruling.

Now I gotta tell ya, in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, this is a big f-ing deal. San Fran Nan speaks for the Democrats in the House as well as the People’s Republic of San Francisco. She has now put our minds at rest by stating that her team isn’t going to grab pitchforks and torches and head for the Supreme Court building. Thank God, they’re not going to turn the premises into Red Square. And of course I always take Nancy’s word for her respect for the Constitution.

Says the Bay Area genius: “Democrats in the Congress have long believed in judicial review. We respect the third branch of government and the role they play under the Constitution, and that is a role to have the opportunity to review laws passed by Congress. This is part of our constitutional process and we respect it.” Now isn’t that a relief? Of course that made me wonder what she meant by “long believed.” Is she saying there’s a time when Democrats didn’t believe in judicial review? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Oh, well, let’s move on.

I must admit that I find it a bit odd that the leader of a major Congressional party would find it necessary at all to announce that her faction would honor a Supreme Court decision. Isn’t that pretty much what everyone has agreed on since Marbury v. Madison back in 1803? So we’ll have to wait to see what she really means. Considering the “respect” that the Democrats in Congress and have shown for the Constitution during my lifetime, I’m going to sleep with one eye open.

Given that Pelosi (and more recently the attorney arguing in favor of Obamacare at the Supreme Court) stated that the health care law was actually about freedom, is she saying that she has no problem obeying an order that takes freedom away? Yeah, I know. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but when was the last time you had to deal with anyone with a mind smaller than Pelosi’s?

35 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

trst post

Tennessee Jed said...

had trouble posting earlier. Hawk, I think Pelosi means she will accept it unless somebody can think of a trick to get around it. She continues to smart from losing her gavel and plane. She can only hope the American people are gullible enough to once more give the keys to the cat to the radical socialist wing of her party. I can only hope they are not.

StanH said...

You gotta love the Pelosi, her blithering is a laugh a minute when she’s not screwing us, metaphorically of course.

I personally am worried about SCOTUS, to the extent that the establishment around the Beltway want this law. They profess that they don’t like to legislate from the bench, we’ll see. The only way to truly kill this beast, is through the legislative process, house, senate, president, repeal.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

She is planning something. I can feel it. This old reprobate just won't let this go.

Koshcat said...

What happened to my post?

T-Rav said...

Yay, the posting thing is back up!

Someone speculated yesterday that Pelosi's trying to take a mild stance in public to avoid antagonizing the justices into voting against the law. I don't give her that much credit; it's more likely a sign of growing senility.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I got a late start. Apparently you weren't the only one having trouble posting. It seems OK now.

What ever happened to her luxury plane anyway? I never heard. I can't imagine Boehner flying around in it, but I suppose if it was already there, he could use it. If so, I'm guessing he at least removed the golden throne.

Pelosi is just delusional. She can't possibly understand the Constitution, let alone 200 + years of precedent, so she and her lefty buddies will just pretend they're abiding by the court decision. I'm sure she thinks that Supreme Court rulings, like the Constitution itself, are infinitely malleable.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: That's one of the reasons I'd like to see the whole law struck down. No matter how careful they are, if the Supreme Court starts ruling on (essentially re-writing) each and every provision of the law, it does in effect become legislation from the bench. This monstrosity is just too massive to lend itself to a "quick fix" and could bog the court down for years.

If they only strike down the mandate, and leave everything else in place for future litigation, I think Congress has the duty to remove that necessity from the court and repeal the law (all at once or piece by piece) to preserve the separation of powers.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I'm with you. That would be far too sophisticated and even logical when done by Pelosi. I know there are at least four Justices who wouldn't be fooled by it anyway. She probably has some crazy idea that they'll put up with the decision until they can pack the court with more "living Constitutionalists." I'm sure the botox has seeped into her tiny brain and caused delusions of a massive Democratic victory in November.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I truly believe that this woman is so crazed that she feels she can be magnanimous just until November when the Democrats will sweep both houses of Congress and Obama will get a landslide victory and then they can reimpose the law as soon as they get rid of a couple of conservative Justices.

Koshcat said...

I will sleep better too now that she is adopting a tea party position.

Do you think the SCOTUS will have two votes? One for the mandate and another for scrapping the whole law? She may be banking on a favorable outcome with the second issue.

Do judges hold personal vendettas against parties that creep into decision making? Obama has been sort of a jerk to the Court and voting down Obamacare would be a personal rebuke against the One.

BevfromNYC said...

Maybe it's possible that she is being statesperson-like as the handwriting may be the wall for this legislation. Perhaps she is trying to quell any possible riots especially from the OWS crowd that she aligns herself with...nah. It's botox poisoning.

rlaWTX said...

you do realize that such statements come with unspoken caveats and other assumed fine print?
of course they "believe" in judicial review! BUT, only when it suits them, when it is not illegitimatized by a polarized court or racist rhetoric, when the court hasn't been hijacked by unreasonable ideologues, etc...

AndrewPrice said...

Sorry about the posting problem folks, that was blogger not us, but it appears to be fixed.

LawHawkRFD said...

Koshcat: Let's not count on that for long. She's probably preparing a new speech today saying exactly the opposite and demanding that the people rise up against any adverse court decision.

The court doesn't vote in the traditional sense. First, the Justices each prepare preliminary positions/opinions and they have a conference. If they can reconcile some of the opposing positions, they modify their opinions accordingly. The options in the final version are multiple and varied. They can all agree, period. They can all agree in part and dissent in part. Or they can simply have a clear majority opinion and a clear dissenting opinion. It will be one "vote" (opinion) at the end, but that one opinion could involve striking the mandate and leaving everything else for future litigation. In other words, all nine could agree to strike the mandate, but it only takes five to decide that the remainder of the law remains in effect until upheld or struck at a later time. But whatever is decided, it will all be contained in one court opinion with one conclusion, but can still contain as many separate concurring and dissenting opinions as there are Justices. That rarely happens, but in the case of massive legislation like this, there may be multiple written opinions.

As a practical matter, in chambers prior to the final opinion, the Justices can and often do "take votes." But you won't see that in the opinion.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Dems respect the Constitution? Isn't that an oxymoron?
If memory serves correct didn't bo on Jan 4 of this year make recess appointment's that fly in the face of the rules?
As for your favorite bimbo I will never get over her statement that we have to pass a bill before we can find out what is in it.
They are all self serving hypocrites. I'd rather have Larry the Cable Guy running the country than the bunch we are saddled with.
Nothing they will do can surprise me any more.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: In keeping with the principle of Occam's Razor, your conclusion is probably the correct one.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: All true. Perhaps what Pelosi doesn't realize is that she likes judicial review because activist liberal Justices who love to legislate from the bench have used it as a political tool far more often than conservatives. Or she may simply be saying, "we'll abide by it until we can figure out how to get around it."

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: William F. Buckley once said that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 people listed in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard. Substitute "Democrats" for "Harvard faculty" and his statement remains alive and well.

Joel Farnham said...

Off-Topic

Rush Limbaugh talked about "his friend" who is down in the dumps since Romney is going to be the nominee. Basically he says the Tea Party has brought the Democrats to their knees and the Republicans are reaping the benefits yet the Tea Party really has no say in who the Republican nominee and yada yada yada.

Hmmm, last time I checked, NO Tea Party Favorite even stepped up. Ryan, Rubio, West, and even Palin took a pass on this season. If his friend even thinks that Santorum is a Tea Party Favorite.... In some ways, I think the talk radio circuit is in a bubble.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: It's the curse of partisanship. We see what we want to see, and don't see what we should see. The Tea Party will exercise considerable influence, and they don't need a member as candidate to exercise it. It's a wise man (or party) who recognizes that his time has not yet come, but also recognizes that this doesn't mean he should pick up his marbles and go home.

tryanmax said...

The Democrats are reading the writing on the wall, but they are still clinging to hope. What they are hanging it on now is the off-chance that enough justices change their mind while writing their opinions. Give 'em credit: it ain't over 'til it's over.

Speaking of which, in terms of the GOP nomination, the writing is just as clear. Still, the anyone-but-Romney crowd remains incensed at the suggestion that anyone should drop out. Ingraham today was making an appeal to "democracy." I can only guess what she's poking at, but she apparently doesn't know that Romney is winning the overall popular vote as well as the delegate race.

LawHawkRFD said...

tyranmax: It has happened, but rarely in a case with legislation this massive. They're more likely to strike than uphold if only because not to do so would mean living the rest of their judicial lives trying to make sense out of it.

Ingraham has surprised me with her adamant stand on keeping the bloodbath going. Then she further surprises me by playing off "popular votes" against delegates. Romney's ahead in both, and since when is Ingraham in favor of rule of the mob anyway?

tryanmax said...

Lawhawk, since it suits her purposes. Just like every other ratings hack. The old claim that there is no difference between the left and the right has never been truer in my (short) life.

It's not all bad. I consider conservatism the true center road. (Mushy moderates and deluded independents are mostly leftie frauds.) I think the stronger political polarization is awakening people to that fact.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: You're right about the celebrity thing. They often start out OK, then eventually drift into egocentrism and making the story all about their own brilliance.

I like the take on conservatism. What's more, I think it's correct, but we'll never convince the pundits.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk and tryanmax, as I always say, "Show me a moderate and I'll show you someone who doesn't know what they stand for."

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: A moderate is like a bisexual. They both lack the courage of their convictions.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I am getting to the point that I don't want to listen to Mark Levin or Rush. It seems both are really down on Romney. Talk about sour grapes. Yeah, my choice didn't make the cut too, but I am not doing my level best to down the leader. I really don't understand their point of view. Romney is not the best conservative. Neither was Reagan and Reagan supported his "liberal" politician, Bush Sr.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Think how I feel. None of my favorites made the cut, and only one even tried. As the Stones said, "ya can't always get what you want." But we just might get what we need. Rush and Levin are voices in the conservative movement, but they are not the voices of the conservative movement.

tryanmax said...

Joel, I stopped listening to Levin quite some time ago after a moment of blatant hypocrisy.

This was when the Super PACs were the issue du jour. He was going on about how candidates can't control PACs or even interact with them and that anyone suggesting otherwise is asking them to break the law. Then, after a brief commercial interruption, he launched into Romney for not keeping his PACs in line.

I don't know how much interaction politicians have with PACs because, frankly, I don't care. But I do know that you can't argue the issue both ways! I vowed right then not to listen to Mark until after November, if even then. And I've managed to stick to it except for about 30 seconds when my child interrupted my channel surfing.

Incidentally, in those 30 seconds, he was blasting Romney for saying he would repeal ObamaCare because, technically, the president can't do that. But all of RWR, Levin included, has been demanding that Romney make such a statement. So it only strengthened my resolve not to listen.

Rush, on the other hand, is pretty much unavoidable. Plus, I don't perceive him as hammering Romney so much as maintaining a critical posture. I can deal with that. He was totally in the tank for Ricky for a time, though.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Who says they can't argue it both ways? Obama just did it on gasoline prices. And we all believed him, didn't we? LOL

StanH said...

"Well, looks like Romney, so I wish us much luck. Look at what happened. The Tea Party rises up, the Tea Party delivers the House of Representatives to the GOP, the Tea Party nearly takes out the Democrat Senate in 2010, and our nominee is gonna be a former RINO governor of Massachusetts who invented Romneycare. Rush, this could be ugly. And if Romney wins, the best we can say is he's not Obama. Which is important, but it's not enough to stem the tide of big government disaster. So the establishment's gonna win again. If Romney loses, which is possible, then everybody who has been trying to warn people about Romney are gonna be blamed for not getting behind him sooner. Like the left, the establishment Republicans can never admit responsibility for their own handiwork. We're all gonna be good soldiers, and we'll fight for our nominee even though they don't ever fight for ours. The Tea Party made this chance possible... (You can read the whole e-mail at rushlimbaugh.com, my sentiments exactly).

StanH said...

Continued:

I thought I would post this anecdote from Rush on his show yesterday. Be certain as we get to close of this primary season he will be the lead cheerleader.

RUSH: “Folks, I must be honest with you. I hear this all the time from people about Romney, and I know him and I've talked to him. He came here and he sat down and he told me what his plan was, and it sounded like anything you and I would say. He even said to me, "If I accomplish everything I want to do, I may only be a one-term president." I said, "What do you mean?" "Because I am gonna so fix this. It's gonna be dramatic. We've gotta reverse this. We gotta stop this. Our children's future is at stake here, and I'm gonna stop the direction that we're headed, and if they throw me out after four years, fine and dandy." And from right here in this studio he left to go to a huge fundraiser here in Palm Beach…”

I like to hear this, Romney may be a conservative in RINO clothing, fingers crossed. Like I’ve said before, look at his withdrawl speech at CPAC 2/08, rock ribbed conservatism.

Joel Farnham said...

StanH,

I heard that yesterday. It and Mark Levin's comment last night prompted me to post. I am tired of these two trying to force Santorum down our throats. So far, they have not been able to either rally the conservatives or prevent someone like Obama from getting elected. As much as Rush and all the rest of the Radio guys like to claim, they are NOT the Tea Party which HAS rallied conservatives.

I am tired of the way they back the candidates. Either back one guy or no guys, not the "not backing" yet backing which fools only themselves.

tryanmax said...

Stan, Joel, all sentiments I share. This whole primary I've been irked at the non-backing-backing of candidates that all the talkers do.

Romney has done a lot to convince me that he is more conservative than he appears in the media. But I had to actively pursue that information myself. (Thanks in no small part to Andrew.) Media types have a tendency to forget that their words are not reality. Just because they pontificate virtually unchallenged for three hours daily doesn't shape anything less malleable than opinions.

But, more and more, people are informing their opinions elsewhere. Rush is no longer the opinion maker he used to be. He is now only an opinion informer (as he was in the beginning). If he and the other RWR talkers wish to survive, they must regain the humility of their early days. (If they ever had it.)

Post a Comment