Daily Commentary – Monday, September 26, 2011 – Rare Execution Stay in Texas

• For a third time the Supreme Court in Texas stays the execution of former Army recruiter Cleve Foster

Daily Commentary – Monday, September 26, 2011: Download

Obamacare: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down Obama’s Individual Mandate as Unconstitutional

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE OF OBAMACARE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS …

In the battle against Obamacare and its unconstitutionality, this is the big one. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. Twenty six states, that include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, are battling Barack Obama as to whether the US government has the right to force Americans to buy health care insurance.

Previously in January 2011, Judge Roger Vinson ruled on Obamacare and struck the entire law finding that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law. The 11th Circuit ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, however, they did not throw out the entire law, finding that the mandate could be severed. This hardly makes sense with regards to severability.In any event, this is headed to the SCOTUS.

That last part makes little sense, since the law had no severability clause in it. Kill one part, you kill it all has been the theory. Kicking out the mandate but leaving the rest intact makes things even messier, in my opinion.

The Court’s opinion can be read HERE.

Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion has highlighted  many of the major points of the Court’s opinion.

We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.

Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. 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. [...]

Obviously, Obamacare is headed to the US Supreme Court and most likely right before the 2012 Presidential election. This will be disastrous for Democrats and Obama reelection bid in 2012. Democrats ran from the Obamacare issue in the  2010 midterm elections as no Democrats wanted to embrace the fact that they rammed government sponsored healthcare down the throats of Americans and signed into law with no GOP votes a law that forced Americans to buy healthcare. Obamacare is hated by the American people and an overwhelming majority want it repealed. Presently, the polls at Real Clear Politics have only 38.8% in favor and 50.6% opposed. Good luck to Democrats dealing with this headache during the 2012 elections, a situation that they brought about themselves by going against the will of the American people. There will be retribution by We the People in 2012.

As reported at the Gateway Pundit via the AP, the White House disagrees with the 11th Circuit court’s decision. That’s it Barack, you keep touting Obamacare, you run on that in 2012, I am sure the American people will embrace it.

Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter says the White House strongly disagrees with an appeals court ruling Friday that struck down the insurance requirement at the center of a law.

She says the White House is confident that ruling will not stand.

How Reprehensible … Liberals Want SCOTUS Ruth Bader Ginsburg Gone by Any Means … Confident About Obama Reelection?

What  happened to the Libs and Democrats who say that Barack Obama will be reelected President?

It sure seems like there is trouble in paradise and some are in panic mode begging, wishing and demanding that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire from the SCOTUS. Why the rush libs? It would appear that many want her to retire now so that Obama can appoint an uber-lib to the SCOTUS.  Their fear is that is Ginsberg does not retire soon, a republican could win in 2012. WOW, I thought Obama was a shoe in by the LEFT to win in 2012. It appears not. However, how reprehensible that the NY Times appears to have a Bader Ginsber death watch on. Just sick.

How inappropriate could one be to demand that a SCOTUS step down and take one for the team. Democrats lost the House in 2010, they are on the way to losing the Senate in 2012 and maybe even the Presidency as well. Does it really matter though? If Obama tries to nominate a liberal justice, be prepared for a filibuster.

Some legal observers would like to be rid of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Associated Press reported over the weekend. These aren’t conservatives who find her too activist but liberals who find her too old and worry that if she doesn’t get out soon, a Republican president will get to replace her

For her part, Ginsburg has said she will not yield to the ghoulish left’s entreaties. The AP reports that she “has said gracefully, and with apparent good humor, that the president should not expect a retirement letter before 2015,” the year she turns 82. (Her benchmark is the age at which Justice Louis Brandeis, the high court’s first Jew, left the bench.) Maybe, like Chief Justice William Rehnquist, she will never retire.

And there is a bright side for Chemerinsky, Kennedy and Garrow: If Ginsburg does retire in 2015, it is possible–at least for now–that Obama will appoint her successor.

SCOTUS to Give Barack Obama Eligibility Case Another Look See

Well look at this …

As reported at World Net Daily, the Supreme Court of the United States as decided to take another look at President Obama’s eligibility case. It appears that challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is not over as the SCOTUS has scheduled another “conference” regarding Obama’s eligibility.

 In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

White House Reaction to Obamacare Ruling Being Unconstitutional … It’s Judicial Overreach

Yesterday, U.S. Federal District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional. The reaction from the White House was to call the ruling “judicial overreach”. The comment is rather comical seeing that even candidate Barack Obama thought that forcing individuals to purchase insurance was wrong. Actually WH, it was Congressional overreach and they did so against the will of the American people.

From Forbes comes the following White House reaction:

On the White House’s blog, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter writes: “Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching.” She continues: “Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us.”

The DOJ issued its own statement: “There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.”

Obviously, it is not well-established legal precedent that Congress can pass a law to regulate non-activity. Ultimately this law will be presented before the SCOTUS and by a 5-4 decision will be struck down. Can “We the People” imagine what life would be like if at any time the federal government to dictate and mandate what you must buy or face the consequences? Why not mandate every one have life insurance, food insurance or that you must buy fruits and vegetables or else.

As stated by judge Vindon from Powerline:

Judge Vinson held that valid legislation under the Commerce Clause must regulate an “activity:”

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. … If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

 What is the result of judge Vinson’s ruling … 47 Republican Senators sign on with Jin DeMint (SC-R) repeal bill.

The repeal of Obamacare and its movement through the appeal courts and on to the Supreme Court is setting up to be done just in time for the 2012 elections. Do Obama and Democrats really want Obamacare front and center as the main issue for 2012?

Support for Obamacare Hits New Low as Court Ruling Against Federal Mandate to Purchase Insurance Unconstitutional

Obamacare fails in the courts and with “We the People” …

It is no surprise that on the day that on the very day that Virgina U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that a key provision of the nation’s sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, it is no coincidence that support for Obamacare is at a new low.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress’s power to regulate interstate trade.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” he wrote. “In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]

The overreaching government health care plan also finds itself with a new low in support. A news  ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for the landmark legislation at a new low at 43% in favor and 52% opposed. It was said by Obama and the Democrats that the people would learn to like Obamacare. How wrong they were.

Read more

Barack Obama to Announce Elena Kagan as SCOTUS Nominee … Elections Have Serious Consequnces

NBC News is reporting that President Barack Obama will choose  solicitor general Elena Kagan and former Harvard Law School Dean as the next Supreme Court Justice nominee to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

President Barack Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, positioning the court to have three female justices for the first time, NBC News reported late Sunday.

Kagan served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. She was widely viewed as a front-runner when Obama was considering candidates for a Supreme Court opening last year, but the president ultimately chose Sonia Sotomayor for the job.

My what a difference a year makes. As the MSM and WH champion Kagan as a moderate, just one year ago when Kagan was on the short list for the SCOTUS that ultimately went to Sonia Sotomayor, Michelle Malkin described her as follows:

… Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream. For example, driven by her view that the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is “a profound wrong–a moral injustice of the first order,” she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view …

Check out the C-SPAN videos linked to by Tammy Bruce.

WOW, seems to be several references as to whether Kagan is a Gay/Lesbian … “not that there is any thing wrong with that”.

Go the the SCOTUS blog for much more back ground

The 50 year old Kagan, if confirmed which by all accounts seems to be a yes based on past confirmations, will be serving in the SCOTUS for decades to come. Yes America, elections do have consequences as the most liberal President in the history of the United States is about to  nominate a second justice to the  SCOTUS and a third can’t be too far away.

Even more at the SCOTUS blog here.

Chief Justice John Roberts Says Obama’s State of the Union Criticism of SCOTUS

Revenge of the Jedi …

Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States  John Roberts shot back at President Barack Hussein Obama’s criticism of the court’s decision striking down some campaign finance reform laws during the Obama’s  State of the Union.  During a Q & A session at the University of Alabama law school, Roberts responded to a student’s question regarding Obama’s rebuke of the SCOTUS decision.

Justice Roberts stated that anyone was free to criticize the court; however it was the political setting and the image of the members of one branch of government standing up, surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering. All this while the SCOTUS according the requirements of protocol had to  sit there expressionless. Justice Roberts said,  “I think is very troubling.” Might we also add that it was only one party of another branch of government doing this in lock step with Obama’s urging.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama’s State of the Union address was “very troubling” and the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.”

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Troubling indeed and a pattern of behavior with President Barack  Obama. This President was elected to change the tome on Washington, DC and how things were done. Obama was to reach across the aisle and create a more collegial atmosphere in DC and govern in a bipartisan manner under the banner of “Hope & Change” … So he said during the campaign.

All The One has done for his rhetoric is bring Chicago-style politics to the White House. Obama is the MOST PARTISAN PRESIDENT in the modern era.  The One has attacked Republican members of the House and Senate and acted  in such a partisan manner that he even went after the SCOTUS in a venue that was completely uncalled for an inappropriate.  Let alone, Obama got the legal case wrong.

From Hot Air comes the response from White House spokesman Gibbs:

Surely you weren’t expecting an apology from this tool.

Asked for comment, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans.”

Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”

Roberts would later say at the UA Law School that justices are not required to attend the SOTU but have traditionally done so as a sign of mutual respect for the president and legislative branch. Look for there to be 5 empty seats at Obama’s next State of the Union in 2011, the missing SCOTUS formation as a mutual sign of respect for this President. Respect is a two way street Mr. President.

Barack Obama Thumbs his Nose at Separation of Powers and Insults the SCOTUS … Low Rent and No Class

DEMOCRAT HYPOCRITES!!!

The Audacity of Dope, A disrespectful and defiant President insults the SCOTUS …

Wonder why America is disenchanted with Barack Obama and his so called Hope & Change.  Talk about bad form … and this President and his fellow Democrat minions go upset when  Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC) said, “You Lie”.  Barack Obama lectured the Congress and America during his State of the Union Speech on civility and then pulled this stunt?

It almost defies logic, reason and respect; however, Barack Hussein Obama did the unthinkable during his first State of the Union Speech and tried to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States.

So much for separation of powers, but Obama thinks he is above everything.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Justice Alito can be seen saying “Not True”

NRO shows that Justice Alito was correct in his “not true” comment and Obama engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind,

With the SCOTUS in plain sight of Barack Obama, the One made the following classless and disgraceful comment by insulting the SCOTUS and having his fellow Democrat lapdogs stand clapping and cheering furthering the insult and  thumbing their noses at the separation of powers.

Read more

Obama Vows to Fight SCOTUS Decision on Free Speech Corp Campaign Money … But People Agree with the Courts

The United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on a key part of McCain-Feingold and corporate donations being considered free speech.

Once again it would appear that President Barack Obama is not only on the wrong side of the American Public, but the Supreme Court of the United States.  In his weekly radio address, Obama lashed out against the SCOTUS that reversed campaign finance laws stating that they were considered free speech. However, should the United States be concerned when a sitting President starts threatening the highest court in the land?

After a week of setbacks for Democrats and progressive causes, President Barack Obama took to the airwaves this morning to attack the Thursday Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on corporate spending in elections, sounding a populist alarm and vowing to work with Congress to formulate some sort of legislative response.

Obama states he is going to fight for the American people, yet the American Public in a recent Gallup Poll agree with the SCOTUS that Campaign Money Is “Free Speech.” 55% of Americans agree that corporate and union donations should be the same as individual donations while only 39% disagree. This is also not a Repulican or Democrat issue as 62% and 64% respectively agree that corporate/union donations should be treated the same as individual donations.

Read more