Justice John Roberts, the King Maker

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts just handed Obama a crown, scepter, and an ermine trimmed velvet cloak.

It isn’t the SCOTUS job to protect the American people from bad political choices? Perhaps not, but it IS SCOTUS job to protect and uphold the Constitution.

If you are not registered to vote, get registered. I don’t care if you like Romney or not; I don’t care if he wasn’t your first choice; he must win. Why you ask? Because he is NOT Obama.  We need every single person to vote because even Obama voters who hate ObamaDoesn’tCare and are disappointed in Obama overall have said they will STILL vote for him in 2012.  That stymied me until I realized that these people have lived most of their lives being indoctrinated by the Progressives and/or living off the government teet. They’d rather throw their fellow Americans into the compost pile of history than to do the right thing and admit that they are personally responsible for the total upheaval of this country.

They must not be allowed to steal our country from us. My flag will hang upside down until Obama is defeated. Make no mistake; we are in distress.

If you haven’t read Ameritopia by Mark Levin, get it, read it, understand it.  It’s important.

 

Scalia defends the originalist interpretation of the Constitution over Breyer’s living Constitution.

Today in the U.S. Senate Justices Breyer and Scalia testified to the Judiciary committee on the role of judges in the U.S. Constitution. If you are interested in our Federal Judiciary, the role of judges, and a pretty good insight into the difference between justices who believe in an originalists interpretation vs. a living constitution interpretation, it is well worth a trip over to C-SPAN to watch the entire hearing which runs a little over two hours. To offer a little taste here I have a clip of Scalia, who is of course a self-proclaimed originalists, rebutting Breyers argument that the Constitution is a living document and the danger of the originalists mindset is rigidity and inflexibility. Scalia cites the decision in NY Times vs Sullivan in which a majority of “living Constitution” justices decided that public figures were not protected by libel laws. Scalia claimed that what is inflexible is the inability now to change the libel law the Supreme Court has instituted with this decision.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

Virginia vs. Obamacare Appeal Argued In Richmond

AFP President Tim Phillips and Tito Munoz lead a rally of  Cuccinelli supporters next to the courthouse in Richmond

A three judge panel from The Eastern Circuit Federal Court of Appeals heard arguments today on two Obamacare lawsuits. Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Sebelius and Liberty University vs. Geithner arguments were heard this morning by two Obama (James A. Wynn, Jr and Andre M. Davis) and one Clinton (Diana Gribbon Motz) appointees.  The Obama administration dispatched acting solicitor general Neal Kumar Katyal to argue both cases on its behalf. Matthew Staver argued for Liberty University and state solicitor general E. Duncan Getchell, Jr. argued for Virginia. 

The panel chose to focus on the merit of the case with Staver and primarily focused on the question of Virginia’s standing to file suit with Getchell. The panel challenged whether Getchell believed the Healthcare Freedom Act, a law passed by a bipartisan General Assembly which prohibits the individual health insurance mandate created standing. Getchell reluctantly agreed that this was indeed his premise but because he didn’t want to harm the position of the plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit, also believed that the Commonwealth very likely maintained standing without it.

Staver, left with the heavy lifting in arguing the merit of the challenge on the unconstitutionality of the mandate was up to the task. The judges were intent on the question of whether or not opting to not purchase government approved healthcare insurance is an activity. They referenced Wickard and Raiche repeatedly to which the Liberty counselor countered that Wickard did not apply since the federal government did not mandate that Wickard grow or eat wheat. As for the “activity” argument, Staver was brilliant in his response when Judge Davis asked if there should be some judicial formula to define activity.

I think it is critical to having some kind of definable end or understanding of the reach of the commerce clause. If you remove activity as a requirement or as a significant component, then there would be no definable limits on the commerce clause. It would turn the federal government into a police power intruding on to the individual activities of the states and there would literally be no reach or end or limit to what congress could do under Article I.

In any event and regardless of the eventual decision, this is just another mile post on the way to the Supreme Court but it is interesting to hear this liberal panel let their presuppositions leak through like Judge Wynn’s tear jerking hypothetical about four uninsured twenty-something young men from Virginia on a road trip to Maryland have a horrible accident and incur huge medical bills on their way to complete recoveries which not only justifies the necessity of Obamacare but declares that the necessary and proper clause and not the commerce clause may deem it constitutional, he claims that it is unquestionably necessary and the only question is whether or not it is proper.

You can hear the arguments here

 

Action Alert!!

Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection is informing us that Harry Reid is pushing for a cloture vote as early as tomorrow and there are some RINOs who are on the fence and need a little nudge from a phone campaign.

Jack McConnell was completely under my radar, but after a quick read here he’s as slimy as they come. He made his fortune, which he amply shares with Democrats, on suing over lead paint.

Obama wants him on the First District Court of Appeals.

Drop by and check out Jacobson’s list of the wobblies with phone in hand.