Dems wage pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling – The Hill’s Healthwatch
….”Democrats have cited the words of conservative legal scholars and past Republican support for the individual mandate to bolster their argument.
Schumer and Senate Health Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D -Iowa) have both quoted J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was appointed by former president Ronald Reagan to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilkinson said “the idea that Congress is constitutionally disabled” from regulating the healthcare market is a “heavy judicial lift.”
Schumer called Wilkinson the dean of conservative judges on the courts of appeal and has frequently reminded reporters that the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, first proposed the idea of a health insurance mandate in 1993.
Harkin said, “the opponents of healthcare reform, the Affordable Care Act, are basing their arguments on politics rather than precedents.”
1.This again confirms my point about “Conservatives” who espouse leftist ideas being a greater threat than leftists espousing those same ideas.
Note that even after Heritage repudiated their own plan,they are continuously invoked by Democrats as “proof” that Socialized Medicine is actually Capitalism.Now they invoke Judge Wilkinson(who,in fairness,may have had his words taken out of context, since the Individual Mandate is not about “regulating” health insurance,it is about compelling people to BUY insurance).
Given what they have done with the ammunition provided for them by Heritage and Wilkinson can you imagine what they will say with Romney in office?
2.Harkin:”Harkin said, “the opponents of healthcare reform, the Affordable Care Act, are basing their arguments on politics rather than precedents.”,you mean the precedent of ….what is the precedent for forcing private citizens to buy a product they don’t need,because of the fact that others have failed to pay their bills?There is no precedent for this insanity in U.S. law.What’s more THE SUPREME COURT’S rulings SET the precedent.They are NOT bound by precedents.
Which of the following precedents does Harkin think should take precedence over the Constitution?Dredd Scott?Plessy?
Buck vs Bell?Korematsu?Bowers vs Hardwick?Which of these precedents should be upheld Senator Harkin?
3.Who,exactly,do these fools think that they will influence?
Leftists have already gone after Alito and Thomas.They bizarrely began a weird whisper campaign in the press about the number of Catholic Justices on the bench(excluding Justice Sotomayor of course,who is a Democrat-approved Catholic).That is not likely to endear them to either Kennedy or Roberts.
But I wonder sometimes if these Democrats grasp exactly how fiercely the Individual Mandate is HATED,not simply among Conservatives,but also among Libertarians and even many Liberals;who object to being forced to buy insurance from the insurance companies that they hate,(as opposed to a public option see the Fire Dog Lake blog for examples).
Who will lead this political campaign for a law(the Individual Mandate) which evokes only tepid support from some Liberals,and loathing from all other quarters.
In other words who will ”bell the cat”,as Aesop said.
Will Obama–when the economy is supposedly the most important issue–make this election a up or down referendum on the Individual Mandate?
Does the man have a political death wish?
He will likely run against a man,who is–from a Conservative standpoint–almost his Republican tweedledum (Romney).
There are only a handful of issues which could energize fiercely anti-Romney Conservatives to campaign for, & vote for Romney,one issue is national security,(e.g. Iran),the other issue would be whether Obamacare remains law.If Obama makes this race becomes about whether Obamacare will be upheld,or not,it will only motivate people to oppose him.
Probably not.I don’t think Obama is that dense.And in any event,what would he gain?If the law is struck down,it cannot be resurrected by the appointment of a new justice.They would have to pass the law again.Even if the Court strikes down only part of the law,that part,(as I understand it,correct me if I’m wrong)would have to be repassed again.