Prior planning prevents poor performance, and the GOP seems to be taking that rule to heart while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on ObamaCare.
If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandateand requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.
If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.
It’s no wonder that Obama and his fellow travelers are trying to demonize the Supreme Court, because they appear to be set to act as a brake on his power grabs.
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The defense of ObamaCare is getting ever more desperate. Now they’re even turning to obvious logical fallacies (and even borderline falsehoods), trying to argue that the Justices might have “misunderstood” the oral arguments.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.
If Obama thought that his rhetoric against the Supreme Court was going to harm their popularity, he seems to have miscalculated badly.
Just before the highly publicized hearing on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, ratings for the U.S. Supreme Court had fallen to the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports. Now, following the hearings, approval of the court is way up.
At least that’s the conclusion I draw from this Rasmussen poll:
While President Obama cautioned the U.S. Supreme Court this past week about overturning his national health care law, just 15% of Likely U.S. Voters think the high court puts too many limitations on what the federal government can do.
In fact, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that twice as many–30%– believe the Supreme Court does not limit the government enough. Forty percent (40%) say the balance is about right, while 15% more are undecided.
You probably recall (unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last week) that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals demanded that the Department of Justice explain to them exactly what the Obama Administration’s view of judicial review of laws was. Yesterday Eric Holder made a verbal statement about it, but now the letter has been released.
Here’s the money paragraph (misspelling of “Marbury” left intact):
The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute. See generally, e.g. , Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130 S . Ct. 3 138 (20 10) ; FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U .S. 307 (1993) . The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803) . In that case, the Court held that ” [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177