Fearless leader keeps it up for a second day
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1r0Y6EttEAsked about the court case, Obama once again said he's confident the law will be upheld while offering words of warning to the high court.
"The Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it. But it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress," Obama said.
"The burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well established precedents out there," he added.
The president said the administration is not spending much time "planning for contingencies" because he doesn't expect the overhaul to be struck down
What precedent is the Obama talking about. The job of the SCOTUS is to pronounce a law either constitutional or unconstitutional.
Congress proposes and the Supreme Court either imposes or desposes.
And since when had Obama every cared about precedents? He sure didn't care about them concerning recess appointments.
In normal person speak he's saying "if you know what's good for you...don't you dare reject this".
Twenty million could lose employer coverage under Obama health care overhaul
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."--Barack Obama, August 11, 2009
As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored coverage in 2019 under the health care legislation signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. This is the worst-case scenario set out by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in a report released in mid March.
The CBO’s most optimistic estimate, which the federal agency says is subject to a “tremendous amount of uncertainty,” is that 3 million to 5 million could lose their employer health coverage each year from 2019 through 2022.
The new projections for loss of employee coverage are a substantial increase over last year’s estimates, when the CBO’s best prediction was that only 1 million people would lose employer-sponsored coverage.
The new study is the latest indication that the health care overhaul will result in a deterioration of health care for the majority of Americans, and not the improvement touted by the Obama administration. Working families and those in low-wage jobs stand to suffer the most from companies eliminating coverage...
...Companies with more than 50 employees that stop offering health coverage will be levied a $2,000 per employee tax penalty. The CBO projection indicates that a significant proportion of businesses will find it financially advantageous to drop coverage and pay the penalty.
The CBO’s worst-case scenario is in line with previous studies on the impact of the health care bill on employer coverage. A study released in August 2011 by human resources consultants Towers Watson showed that at least 9 percent of companies planned to drop their coverage by 2014. A study last June by the McKinsey Company showed that an even larger proportion, 30 percent, were likely to stop providing coverage when provisions of the PPACA take effect....
When clever only looks like dumb
By Wesley Pruden
Presidential contempt for the Supreme Court and inconvenient law is not new. But rarely has a president sounded so, well, dumb, as when Barack Obama lectured the justices on what they can and can’t do to his cherished Obamacare.
The court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns his health-care scheme because it was enacted by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” the president declared. Obamacare actually cleared the House by only seven votes, 219 to 212, and on their face the president’s remarks betray an astonishing ignorance of the Constitution and how the republic works.
But Barack Obama is neither dumb nor ignorant. The man praised as the greatest orator since Demosthenes celebrated hope and change in ancient Greece knows better than to bandy words foolishly. So why would he say something so foolish and dumb?
The president had clearly been reading about the campaign in the South to “Impeach Earl Warren” decades ago.
Even a community organizer knows that the authority of the Supreme Court to determine whether acts of Congress conflict with the Constitution is well and truly established. The president, who frequently describes himself (inaccurately) as a former professor of constitutional law, sounded willfully ignorant. The White House has been putting out “clarifications” every day since, arguing that Mr. Obama, once a “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago law school, didn’t actually say what he actually did say.
Republican politicians, pundits, lawyers and academics who leaped to lecture the president on the finer points of the Constitution missed by a mile the point of his rant. Mr. Obama’s rant was not meant for Republican politicians, pundits, lawyers and academics. He was talking to his congregation and his choir, building a fire under them and giving them an advance look at talking points for the campaign to come if the Supremes kill or wound Obamacare. He’s more than willing to sound dumb and ignorant in the greater cause of his re-election.
He actually appropriated battle-tested language of assaults on earlier Supreme Courts, berating “judicial activism” of “an unelected group of people” trying to “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” The president had clearly been reading about the campaign to “Impeach Earl Warren” on billboards and bus-stop benches in the wake of the desegregation rulings a generation (and more) ago. These billboards flourished like azaleas in April along highways and byways across the South. No one actually expected to see the chief justice dispatched in shame and ignominy, but the vision of such a spectacle, cultivated by segregationist politicians in Richmond and Birmingham and Little Rock to keep hope alive, propelled white voters to the ballot box to preserve the politicians. Maybe this court’s conservative majority could be demonized, too.
President Obama’s rant against the court was of a piece with his earlier joining the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson – and much of the mainstream media – in race-baiting tragedy in the death of Trayvon Martin. Instead of quietly assigning the Justice Department to determine the facts and whether Trayvon Martin’s civil rights in federal law were violated, the president suggested the tragedy was all about race when there is still no evidence that it was about race at all. Race-baiting, ugly but often effective, was once the exclusive province of the right; it has become the default tactic of the left.
Mr. Obama uses the tactic skillfully. He put his remarks about the Trayvon Martin tragedy in the most calculated and emotional terms – “if I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin” – and his lecture to the Supreme Court was carefully calibrated, with lawyerly ahs, umms and pauses suggesting that he had given his remarks careful thought and was determined to be precise and specific (like Demosthenes). The later “clarifications” put out by the White House retracted nothing.
Attorney Gen. Eric Holder delivered at the end of Mr. Obama’s remarkable week the “three-page, single-spaced letter” requested by a U.S. Appeals Court judge in Houston, affirming that the Justice Department agrees, even if the president appeared not to, that “the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute.” No surprise there, and we can be sure that the president himself vetted the letter, if indeed he did not write it himself.
One outraged pundit decides that Mr. Obama has revealed himself to be “no longer a serious man. Nor an honest one.” This misses the point, too. Barack Obama never was.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|