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?