Conservative Wanderer

“A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill.” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

Category Archives: Supreme Court

GOP Readying Plans For ObamaCare Ruling

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.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Appears Skeptical Of Administration Immigration Claims

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.

Continue reading →

Sorry, Associated Press, There Was No “Misunderstanding” By The Supreme Court On ObamaCare

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.

Continue reading →

Epic Obama Fail: Supreme Court Popularity Rising

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.

Continue reading →

Obama’s Anti-Supreme Court Rhetoric Likely To Fall Flat

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.

Continue reading →

Holder’s Letter To The Fifth Circuit Released

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

Continue reading →

Justices Appear Split On ObamaCare Severability

Of course, the reliable lefties Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor want to keep it all, but critical swing vote Kennedy seems — at least right now — to be in favor of tossing it all out, according to this report.

Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito said the real act of judicial activism would be to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress did not intend. The mandate was included primarily to bring healthy people into the insurance market, offsetting the cost of requiring insurers to cover everyone.

Continue reading →

Ironic That Obama Is Faced With The Argument He Used Against Hillary’s Mandate

Once in a while, our cousins across the pond see things better than we do here, as in this article from the London (UK) Daily Mail.

Even more ironic is that the justices, or five of them at least, look like they might force President Barack Obama back to the drawing board partly on the basis of the argument one Senator Obama made against then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Continue reading →

Another Weak Argument For The Individual Mandate

On the heels of yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing, the Washington Post has whipped up what they think is an unbeatable argument for the individual mandate. The problem for them is, it’s easily beatable.

In the recent past, the Supreme Court has struck down attempts by Congress to use the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to promulgate laws that had no connection to commercial activity, including those involving guns near schools and violence against women. Yet it has upheld Congress’s Commerce Clause power to reach individuals who were not obviously involved in commercial activity — most famously, the Depression-era farmer who grew wheat for his own consumption. The court concluded that his decision to grow — rather than purchase — wheat interfered with the government’s ability to regulate wheat prices.

Continue reading →