Throwing The Crown Jewel Under The Bus

      Big "F-in" Deal SCOTUS Bound 

The Affordable Health Care Bill, was conceived behind closed doors, and is perhaps the most partisan major piece of legislation passed and signed by a sitting President in US History.


Olympia Snow, R, Maine was voted yes to allow the bill out of Committee. In the end she voted NO on the final bill but it was her 'Et Tu Brutess' vote that allowed The Affordable Health Care Act to move forward.

The Affordable Healthcare Act written behind closed doors at the Whitehouse and not one Amendment by the Republican Congress was added to the over 2400 pages long piece of legislation.  And President Obama's broke his Inaugural promise to post legislation on line for a minimum of 72 hours. It was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009,  with deals made to some Senators to gain the votes necessary for Passage. 

The Affordable Health Care Act, was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010, in a 'Big F'in Deal Ceremony held at the Whitehouse on March, 23, 2010."...Obama signed the bill in the East Room, before a crowd that included all 219 House members who voted for final passage of the bill Sunday. Also in attendance: Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a longtime proponent of a national health care plan..."


Shortly after passage of The Affordable Healthcare Act, (which in my opinion created a permanent 'Caste System') Federally elected Representatives, The House Senate, Branch Executive Branch and Senior Staff were exempted . 

States immediately began lining up to sue the Federal Government for the wild overreach of the Obama Administration and joined one another in an effort to overturn this ruling.  "...Minutes after Obama spoke, Republican attorneys general from 13 states filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn aspects of the health care law, including the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or face financial penalties..."


Since The Affordable Health Care Act was passed the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has issued "...number of waivers issued for the greatest healthcare plan in the history of the world stands at 1,472..."


On September 26, 2011 In a stunning decision the Department of Justice announced it would not seek that the 11th Circuit Court review it's 2-1 decision against the The Affordable Health Care Act which now allows the process to move on to the United States Supreme Court.  

This article about the  decision, from the 11th Circuit says, "...Two words: Circuit Split. We now have one. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta on Friday struck down the law on constitutional grounds, by a 2-1 vote. The ruling is in direct conflict with a ruling from June from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, upheld the law’s constitutionality, also by a 2-1 vote.

The 11th Circuit ruled Friday that Congress exceeded its constitutional powers when it required individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” Judges Joel Dubina and Frank Hull said in a jointly written opinion. The decision affirmed part of a January ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida, who ruled the health-insurance mandate unconstitutional..."

This Wall Street Journal says,"... By not seeking an 11^th Circuit review, the DOJ has increased the chances that the Supreme Court will consider the health-care law during this coming term and issue a ruling before the 2012 presidential election, Wall Street Journal reports..."

One cannot miss that the Left appears, to be playing politics and that Obama's precarious position and America's disdain for The Affordable Health Care Act are driving their decision making process.  

This Los Angeles Times article, points to the long shadow cast over 2012 Presidential race by The Affordable Health Care Act, "...The fate of Obama's healthcare overhaul figures to be at the center of next year's presidential race. Republicans have been running on a promise to "repeal Obamacare." If the Supreme Court were to strike down Obama's signature law as an unconstitutional overreach by the president and a Democratic Congress, it could deal a damaging blow to the president's campaign for reelection.

However, if the justices were to uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of the nation's health insurance market, their decision would give a powerful endorsement to Obama's crusade for healthcare reform just when he most needs it. A pro-Obama ruling by the court would also badly undercut claims by "tea party" activists who contend federal regulation of healthcare is outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution..."

In This commentary from The Washington Post states, "...On the other hand, if the goal is preservation of the policy at all costs, Justice’s decision has at least one attraction. Pretend Justice had asked the 11th Circuit to reconsider and the appeals court took its time, pushing Supreme Court review into 2013. If Obama then lost his reelection bid, it could have fallen to new a new Justice Department to defend the statute — one led by an attorney general appointed by a GOP president committed to unraveling the health-care law in every way he or she knows how. That hypothetical Republican administration could have decided to do what the Obama Justice Department did with the Defense of Marriage Act — offer no defense of the law at all..."

Allahpundit made some salient observations in this column at HotAir.com  "...Good catch by Politico: The deck was stacked against the White House in the rehearing, so why risk absorbing an unnecessary blow by having a full panel of the 11th Circuit rule against them? On the other hand, Tom Maguire made the case this morning for why a Supreme Court ruling before the election would be a very bad idea for The One:



Obamacare does not poll well and Republicans will be campaigning on its repeal whatever the Supremes decide. And (just thinking out loud here) Obama might actually benefit from a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare, since it would give him an excuse to give the people what they want. Put another way, if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare it will be obvious that the only way to end it is to end Obama’s reign…


Delay is the only sensible choice for them. The strategic bet is that some of the folks who don’t like ObamaCare will figure that the courts will end it, and they will vote Democratic for other reasons. A Supreme Cout ruling against ObamaCare will energize Republicans; a Supreme Court ruling in its favor will double-energize them.


Interesting point, but having a conservative Court uphold the mandate would be a huge psychological boost for Obama and the left and might even help legitimize the program to independents who have been lukewarm about it until now. Don’t forget either that the White House is expecting Romney to be the GOP nominee. Even if grassroots conservatives feel energized by the Court decision, how jacked up can they be to replace Obama with … the architect of RomneyCare, who did more than anyone else until The One himself to introduce health-care mandates to America?


What I can’t figure out, though, is why O would run the risk of the mandate being struck down before the election. That would be demoralizing for the left and delegitimizing for Obama. What’s left of his first term if his signature domestic policy “achievement” ends up rubbished by SCOTUS as a violation of the Commerce Clause? I guess the thinking is that if the mandate is struck down, he can point to it as proof for liberals that they desperately need to appoint more left-wing justices to the Court and the only way to do that is to re-elect him. But even so, Obama’s not the kind of guy who wants to deal with X factors in the middle of the campaign..."

The Republican National Trust lays out this argument in an interview with David Rivkin, the lead counsel for the 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business in the Florida lawsuit against Obamacare, "...what is the significance of this decision?

David Rivkin: Well, it’s the first time the Court of Appeals has done it, point number one. Point number two, you have a bipartisan panel, I hate to engage in these types of observations, but it’s very important that you had a Republican judge and a Democrat nominee, if you will, come together. But most importantly to me, it is a meticulously crafted opinion. It’s long, 207 pages, and it debunks every single argument the government has made. And it has done it in a very measured, low-key fashion.

In my opinion, it sets it up perfectly for the Supreme Court review, and it will be the most influential Circuit Court opinion to set the stage, if you will, for the next phase.


Host: What is the key reason they gave for finding this individual mandate unconstitutional?


Rivkin: Interesting, because we’re ending up at this phase exactly where we started from the beginning. The argument is very simple. There is no meaningful, judicially enforceable limiting principle that attaches to this exercise of Congressional power.


If government can require you to spend your money, and the court emphasizes by the way, spending your money to purchase a product from another private party.

If the government can do that, the totality of your disposable income after taxes can be commanded by the government. That is a classical exercise of police power. Not a very good exercise policy-wise, but in terms of its legal pedigree, it’s what you call general police power; impacting people because they exist.

In our constitutional system, police power is vested in the states. Federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers. And the court basically says, quite correctly, that if the government can do this here, it can do a variety of other mandates. State sovereignty is gone. But most importantly, individual liberty suffers..."

A peek at some polling ( and I am willing to bet that the internal polling the Whitehouse is not sharing is even more devastating, in this article from Commentary, shows, "...One of the Democratic party’s leading pollsters [Stanley Greenberg] released a survey of 60 Republican-held battleground districts today, painting an ominous picture for congressional Democrats in 2012. The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.


The story goes on to say that instead of an overall anti-incumbent sentiment impacting members of both parties, voters are taking more of their anger out on Democrats. When voters were asked whether they’re supporting the Republican incumbent or a Democratic candidate, 50 percent preferred the Republican and just 41 percent backed the Democrat. And here’s the really ominous news for Democrats: Voters in these districts said they were more supportive of Republicans than they were during the 2010 midterms, when 48 percent said they backed the Republican candidate and 42 percent said they backed the Democrat. (Republicans won 55 percent of the overall vote in these 60 battleground districts, while Democrats took 43 percent.) In 2010, Republicans netted 63 House seats – their best showing since 1948.


There’s also this: President Obama’s job approval rating in the battleground districts is just 41 percent — and only 43 percent in the 30 more competitive seats that are a little more Democratic.


What this means is right now, based on the data of a respected Democratic pollster, Democrats would — if the election were held today — suffer a wipeout that makes what happened to them in 2010 look like a walk in the park. And things are likely to get worse, not better, as the months roll on.


It may be that Barack Obama will do to the Democratic Party what no one, not even Ronald Reagan, could achieve–which is to bring it to its knees."


The article from the Commentary article can be found here.

Why would the Obama Administration be so willing to Throw The Affordable HealthCare Act under the big black bus of his never ending election tour?
 Let me say that coming from this administration who promised to fight to save The Affordable Health Care Act every step of the way, something is not right with this picture.




Here is the case I believe that Obama will make on the campaign trail to whip up, make them 'fired up, ready to go' to his base.


Obama will argue that Republicans and the Tea Party and Conservatives in particular are making every effort to deny every American Affordable Healthcare.  That this decision will hurt the poorest and most feeble, harm college students and that grandma and grandpa will die.  Obama will focus on those who will be hurt most are his base, who will be forced back to the broken system and fraud and outrageous profits of evil private insurance bogeymen and that millions of Americans will be unprotected and without medical care.

Obama will carefully frame his argument not on Constitutional law and the argument for limited government, but  as an attack on the little man and in particular people of color. This argument will be poll tested in the most grand and austere altruistic language.  His argument will be filled with strawmen, murky untrue facts  loaded with fearmongering and race baiting.

Having watched Obama's endless campaigning, for nearly four years, this will be his avenue of attack against Republicans.  I am certain that this will be the election manuever of choice by the Obama Administration.  I am not so certain that they will win this case before the Supreme Court.


Should his administration and the DOJ lose the case, Obama's campaign tour will 'pivot'from the Jobsapalooza Not Jobs plan, and go on the blaming others attack slamming and blaming the Supreme court of the United states and calling for the Justices to be condemned. Obama will vow to the Punish the evil rotten selfish Republican Party.


Obama's argument will also be that as long as the Supreme Court has a majority of rabid right wingers who support the elite rich, unkind doctors, evil pharmacetical companies, selfish private insurers and hospitals that do not care for minorities and Americans of color there will be no justice for the poor and uninsured.  

Obama will say, "Elect me to a second term, and we will appoint judges who will fight to protect those disadvantaged and abused by the rich and selfish Republican led Supreme Court."


I can see no way that the Supreme Court validates The Affordable Health Care Bill.


Should the Supreme Court find in favor of the Obama Administration, our founding documents immediately will truly just become only meaninless words.

******


In case you are interested from The National Republican Trust, here is information regarding why Justice Kagan must recuse herself from this suit of 26 states headed to the Supreme Court:

"...Until May 17, 2010, Kagan served as United States Solicitor General, whose primary role (as stated on the Office of the Solicitor General website) is to “supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office.” Because of her work as Solicitor General, Kagan has recused herself from 11 cases, but she will not do so from challenges to ObamaCare. She should, for two reasons.



According to federal law (28 U.S.C. § 455), “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself… [if] he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” We know from documents obtained through CNS News’ FOIA request that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had been preparing for legal challenges to ObamaCare in January 2010, two months before Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. There is no way she did not serve as “counsel” or “advisor” concerning the constitutionality of ObamaCare.


28 U.S.C. § 455 also declares that a Kagan must recuse herself because she has expressed “a personal bias or prejudice” regarding ObamaCare’s constitutionality. At her Senate hearings, Kagan revealed that she believes the Commerce Clause is almost infinitely elastic: it can be “applied to anything that would substantially affect interstate commerce...”