Western Civilization is being led by "Cave" Men

Everywhere you look today, men who are entrusted with great political power, are caving. In 2006, President George W. Bush caved when CAIR pressured him to never again use the phrase 'Islamic fascists'. Just last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caved when Barack Obama pressured him to apologize to Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan for defending itself in the 2010 Gaza flotilla. There have been countless examples in between.

Before we get to some of them, consider what was taking place about this time nearly 2000 years ago. A man named Jesus was being arrested, thanks in large part, to elders and politicians, who on more than one occasion, attempted to get Jesus to cave. Had it not been for them, Pontius Pilate would have left Him alone. Even then, Jesus could have employed the desire for 'dialogue' with Pilate and the elders. He could have caved; he did not.

And he was even free of guilt and sin.

When it comes to Jesus' tortuous death, people reflect on His willingness to die for the salvation of all who believe in Him by rising again but there is another aspect to his death that is often overlooked. Consider the tremendous courage He had, standing there in front of Pontius Pilate, who was looking for a way to avoid what was coming. All Jesus had to do was cave and agree to the terms, which likely would have involved Pilate brokering a deal between Him and the Jewish elders and politicians.

Think of it. Pilate must have been beside himself. The Roman leader thought he had all the power! Human nature dictated that Jesus cave but Jesus transcended human nature because he was God in human form. Ultimately, it was Pilate who caved when he washed his hands.

This is not to say that the world's leaders today should be expected to have the same level of courage but if they're Christians, they are supposed to be as "Christ-like" as they can. These leaders are also not standing in front of Pontius Pilate, facing floggings and crucifixion if they stand their ground. If they can't be expected to have the same level of courage that Jesus exhibited then, shouldn't they at least be expected to follow the example of Joseph of Arimathea.

Via Catholic Encyclopedia:

He was a wealthy Israelite (Matthew 27:57), "a good and a just man" (Luke 23:50), "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, "a senator", whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John 2:23), but he did not declare himself as such "for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark 14:64).

Before one points to Joseph of Arimathea's "fear", consider that he did NOT succumb to groupthink and paid great honor to the Truth in the Flesh. Read on...

The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark 15:43-45).

While we're on the subject of the Catholic Church, let us consider the caving of its newly elected Pontiff, Pope Francis I, on two very significant fronts. First, in 2007, he signed a document which stated, in part, that elected politicians who are pro-abortion "cannot" receive holy communion. Yet, at his inaugural Papal mass in Rome, perhaps the two most prominent pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic - Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic Minority leader Nancy Pelosi - received communion. There are only two possible conclusions we can draw. Either Pope Francis did not mean what he said in 2007 or fear took charge in 2013.

A few days later, Pope Francis said that he wished to "intensify... dialogue with Islam". An important distinction must be made here. He didn't say that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Muslims so that they could be converted. This would be an example of what the role of the pope - any pope - is. No, he said that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Islam. In a word, he advocated caving. In essence, the pope appears to have succumbed to Chrislam.

Consider some other examples of what appears to be caving due to varying degrees of pressure...

House Speaker John Boehner: This is perhaps the most obvious example. Ever since taking control of the gavel in early 2011, Boehner has lost practically every showdown with his opposition. In several cases, he simply chose not to fight. Whether it involved not aggressively pursuing major scandals like Fast and Furious or Benghazi; expressing solidarity with Michele Bachmann over the latter's concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration; or choosing not to de-fund Obamacare.

Chief Justice John Roberts: When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Obamacare, Roberts twisted himself into knots by saying the law was unconstitutional but that it was constitutional under taxing provisions. Obama administration operatives did all it could to intimidate the court into ruling in its favor. There is no proof that Roberts was intimidated but his ruling was so bizarre that many believe he caved to relentless left-wing pressure.

Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney: Those unwilling to admit what really happened will say that Mitt Romney simply had a flawed strategy but that's not what happened. Romney took a dive at the third and final debate. He never challenged Obama on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or on why the Obama administration labeled the Fort Hood jihad attack as 'workplace violence'. Romney refused to fight Obama. Simply looking at the third debate confirms the cave.

Secretary of the Army, Gen. George Casey: Three days after the Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 14 and injured 32, Case went on ABC This Week and told George Stephanoplous that the loss of "diversity" would be a "greater tragedy" than those 44 casualties. In short, Casey caved.

House Homeland Security Committee Chair, Michael McCaul: When the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera was announced at the beginning of this year, Rep. McCaul (R-TX) had a duty to investigate it. He was sent a letter requesting that he convene hearings on this egregious act. He has chosen to ignore that letter and appears to be looking the other way, possibly because of a full-scale lobbying effort but then again, that's just another way of saying "cave".

For the most part, the Democratic Party has thrown in with wickedness; it is a party that went over the cliff years ago. At best, a controlling majority of the Republican Party has decided - consciously or otherwise - to follow the Democrats. At worst, that majority is an overwhelming majority. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are part of it.

Joseph of Arimathea is remembered today for choosing the right side at great personal risk. There are only a precious few who are willing to do so today. Unfortunately, none of them have enough power.

Harry Reid 'Proud' of Justice Judas Roberts

We'll probably never learn exactly what happened and why John Roberts changed his ruling on Obamacare but one thing is for certain. If he has a conscience at all, he's lying to himself in order to sleep at night. Considering the Democratic Party has been infiltrated by communists, it's going to be pretty hard for Roberts to rationalize this latest bit of news away.

Harry Reid is 'proud' of him.

Via the Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he's proud of Chief Justice John Roberts for his ruling on the healthcare reform law and plans to call him soon.

Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the high court in upholding virtually the entire healthcare law. The 5-4 decision preserved the individual mandate to have insurance, which had been the primary target of conservatives who challenged the law in court.

"Roberts  — that was a very strong opinion, and frankly I'm going to call him when I have an opportunity because I'm very proud of what he did," Reid said in an interview Thursday with Nevada radio station KNPR.

When lawless Democrats are proud of you, it's a double negative and shame is what you should feel.

It's like a mob boss telling you, 'good job'.

Which should keep you up at night.

Video: Romney's Eric 'Etch-a-Sketch' Fehrnstrom sides with Obama

Here is Exhibit A for why the liberal media wanted Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. They knew the day would come when camp Romney would be incoherent when it came to drawing a contrast between Obamacare and Romneycare. Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom of etch-a-sketch fame appeared on MSNBC and told Chuck Todd that the Individual Mandate is a penalty and not a tax. In essence, the mouthpiece for Mitt Romney agrees with Obama.

The main reason Romney is now in a box is because he referred to the individual mandate in Romneycare as a penalty. The result here is that camp Romney now agrees with camp Obama.

The only thing missing from this clip is some accompanying circus music.

Via GWP: 

Was Justice John Roberts 'Stupak-ed'?

Can we enter a new word into the Dictionary? "Stupak" is not just the last name of a former Democratic Congressman from Michigan; it should also be a verb that means to intimidate someone until they bend to your will.

To be "Stupak-ed" is to be intimidated to such a degree that you will do whatever the bully wants and then lie to yourself and to others about it being the right thing do do, despite all evidence to the contrary. Few people have the cowardly lion experience of having to admit what they are; far too few. A lot of people have been stupak-ed along the yellow-brick road to Obamacare OZ. Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts the latest one?

In late 2009, the 'Cornhusker kickback' secured the vote of Democratic Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska for Obamacare. The 'Louisiana Purchase' did the same with Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Despite these deals being nothing short of bald-faced bribery, both Senators stood by them. Nelson became a pariah in his state and announced he would not seek reelection but still expresses no regret for what would be illegal in a sane world. Landrieu isn't up for reelection until 2014 but voters are not likely to forget her betrayal either. Like Nelson, Landrieu has no regrets, despite indications that her "purchase" may have resulted in her - and the country - being sold down the river.

The Democrats thought they had the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster on Obamacare.

That was before the unexpected victory of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts in early 2010 after Ted Kennedy died the previous August. Brown pledged to be the 41st vote for Republicans and not the 60th vote for the Democrats. It was supposed to block the passage of Obamacare because Brown took away the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority. Democrats didn't care about that. They went around the rules and sought passage through reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.

Initially, Pelosi didn't have the votes she needed in the House to pass the bill. Enter Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). He led a group of a dozen 'pro-life' Democrats who were preventing the bill's passage because there were strong indicators that the bill would fund abortions. His group was targeted by the liberal media, Pelosi, and other Obama apparatchiks. Unrelenting pressure was applied. Caving would equal cowardice.

Ultimately, Stupak cracked and signed onto the legislation but he needed an out.  His 'out' came in the form of a ludicrous Executive Order signed by Obama that said no part of Obamacare would fund abortions. It was meant to save face for Stupak but the premise was so absurd, his cowardice was obvious. He may as well have been holding a deed to oceanfront property in Arizona. It was proof positive that looking foolish was preferable to looking cowardly. A mere four months after passage of Obamacare, abortion-funding was obvious. That's to say nothing of the HHS mandate that came down the pike two years later that required Catholic insurance providers to pay for contraception and abortifacients.

Though Stupak had no chance of being reelected, he still stands by his decision, supports the law, and expresses no remorse for his betrayal. Perhaps he simply can't face the truth of what he did because of the gravity of it (see Judas Iscariot). The human mind can block that which is too painful to bear. Either way, Stupak is in denial. The facts dictate it.

Two years after Stupak washed his hands in the blood of future Americans, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts seemed to follow a similar path. Credible reports continue to mount that Roberts initially sided with the four Justices who were prepared to throw out the Individual Mandate at the heart of Obamacare, which essentially, would have thrown out Obamacare itself, particularly because there was no severability clause in the law (likely a consequence of using reconciliation to pass it).

Roberts' decision was about as absurd as Stupak's reliance on an Executive Order to trump a law supported by the man who signed the EO. Roberts ruled that while the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, it IS constitutional as a tax. There is a small problem with that ruling. It's not what the law says. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote law from the bench, which is a violation of his oath; it was a betrayal.

CBS Political analyst Jan Crawford claimed two sources told her that Roberts changed his vote. As was the case with Stupak, there were indicators that Roberts succumbed to pressure and threats in both the media and from politicians.

In the case of Stupak, the absurdity of the deal he took necessarily means he caved to pressure and had to lie to himself to believe otherwise.

In the case of Roberts, the absurdity of the ruling he rendered necessarily means he must lie to himself to believe otherwise as well.

One question that remains is...

Was Roberts 'Stupak-ed'?

Justice John Roberts: Genius or Judas?

U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is now saying there are legitimate indicators that Supreme Court Justice John Roberts changed his decision on Obamacare.

Via Philip Klein (h/t Hot Air) at the Washington Examiner:

What happened?

“I don’t know,” Lee said in a telephone interview. “I didn’t see this coming. I confer with a lot of Supreme Court watchers, liberal and conservative alike and nobody saw this coming, this particular outcome. This is not what I expected, not what I wanted, but it happened.”

I asked Lee about speculation that the joint dissent filed by Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas and Alito – which argued for invalidating all of Obamacare – was originally drafted as the majority opinion. Among other things, the dissent spends much of the time attacking the government’s arguments, as well as a dissent from Ginsburg, and only passingly refers to the actual majority opinion. This has been seen by some as a strong indication that Roberts may have changed his vote.

“I noticed the same thing,” Lee said. “Although I don’t know exactly what happened within the Court, these are the kinds of signals you tend to see when something like that does happen. It made no sense to me that the dissent referred repeatedly to the ‘Ginsburg dissent’ instead of the ‘Ginsburg concurring opinion,’ for example. And it was written like it was expected to be a majority opinion. And although I don’t know exactly what happened there, that is the sort of thing you tend to see when somebody switches their vote.”

Lee went on to say that he believed the Obama administration did attempt to influence Roberts but stopped short of speculating on whether it did. If, in fact, the decision was leaked back to Obama, odds are good that Kagan would have been the most likely to do it.

All that aside, if Roberts was intimidated in any way, he has no business being on the bench and should be impeached (which will not happen). If he was not intimidated, he wrote law from the bench. That's really the bottom line here.

Frankly, I'm tired of reading the illogic of George Will and Charles Krauthammer when it comes to the decision rendered by Roberts when it comes to the Obamacare decision. The Individual Mandate was sold by the administration as something that was absolutely not a tax; it was a penalty. The legislation itself said the same thing.

Yet, we're supposed to buy the argument that Roberts made some grand political calculation and ruled that the law stands but that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional. How'd he do that? Well, he ruled the Mandate is a tax which, by the way, is the kind of tax that's not permitted by the Constitution. It's certainly not covered under the Sixteenth Amendment (h/t Barrackaid #34).

To those who think Roberts' decision was a stroke of genius... Supreme Court Justices are strictly prohibited from issuing rulings based on political calculations or some grand strategy akin to a chess move no one saw coming that puts the other side in checkmate. Roberts isn't supposed to play chess; he's supposed to uphold the Constitution, devoid of any political calculations whatsoever.

In short, even if the decision was politically calculated, it was a violation of his oath to issue a ruling on those grounds.

I'm afraid Justice Roberts moved the United States one step closer to soft genocide.

That sounds like a stroke of Judas, not genius.

**UPDATE** Well, via NewsBusters, while on Face the Nation, CBS political consultant claimed that she had sources who told her that Roberts changed his mind after initially deciding to rule against Obamacare. It shouldn't be overlooked that the Obama administration did attempt to intimidate Roberts. If anything, if Roberts were truly courageous, any attempts to intimidate him should have been met with even firmer resolve.

If he changed his decision, that's not what happened.

Video: Obama Chief of Staff latest to channel Jim Carrey's 'Dick' Character

The premise is simple. Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew was carted out onto the Sunday shows to do the best he could to explain the contradiction between what the administration has said all along - that the Individual Mandate in Obamacare is not a tax - and what the Supreme Court ruling said it was - a tax.

Watch as Lew attempts to twist himself into a pretzel by insisting that the Court did not rule the Mandate a tax despite the fact that the man who wrote the majority opinion - John Roberts - said it was. Stick with this video though because Chris Wallace lowers the boom at around the 3:00 mark when he actually plays audio of the White House attorney during oral arguments in the case.

Hint: the White House Attorney said it was a tax.

Via GWP:



The latest Obama administration member to channel Jim Carrey in this scene.

Congratulations, Jack Lew, you're it.

Obama Lied... Again; Individual Mandate ruled a Tax; Chief Justice 'Judas' betrays Constitution

Barack Obama lied... again, this time about the Individual Mandate not being a tax. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who sided with the four professed liberals on the court, has gone to absurdly extreme lengths to make sure the law was upheld. The Individual Mandate was ruled unconstitutional as a penalty or mandate but Roberts decided to rule it constitutional as a tax, something Obama insisted it was not.

Here is Obama with George Stephanopolous on September 20, 2009 telling America that the Individual Mandate was NOT a tax.



That all changed when the legal argument from the Obama administration in front of the Supreme Court was that the mandate should be upheld because it is a tax. Translation: Obama lied... again.



As for Justice John 'Judas' Roberts...

The issue of severability was at the heart of the decision of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson last year. Quite simply, the severability clause allows a law to stand if parts of it are thrown out. Obamacare did NOT have a severability clause. Vinson found the Individual Mandate unconstitutional and consequently ruled that the entire law had to be thrown out.

Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to arrive at his decision today. Instead of ruling the Individual Mandate unconstitutional, which would require the law to be thrown out because it has no severability clause, Roberts ruled the Mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause but found it constitutional as a tax, which the Obama administration argued it was not.

Chief Justice Roberts has just betrayed his nation.

**UPDATE** As Weasel Zippers points out, the White House website still has a post on the site, authored by Jason Furman, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. Note the screen shot, taken today. The White House position is that the Individual Mandate is NOT a tax, though Obama still gets what he wants despite Roberts' disagreeing with him on what the Mandate is:

Video: Virginia Atty General on Severability Clause not being in Obamacare

There seems to be prevailing sentiment that the Individual mandate in Obamacare is in serious trouble after three days of arguments in front of the Supreme Court. That may drive a stake in the heart of the Obamacare vampire but this thing is so ugly, it's likely to still become a zombie if the entire law isn't thrown out. That's what the Severability Clause is all about. Had it been in there - and according to Cuccinelli below - it was but the Senate took it out, the ability to take out the mandate and leave in the rest would be much easier to do.

In this exchange with Fox's Greta Van Susteren, Virginia's Attorney General - Ken Cuccinelli - argues just that. Early last year, one U.S. District Court actually ruled this way. Judge Roger Vinson first found the Individual mandate Unconstitutional and ruled that because there is no severability clause - which allows part of the law to go and part of it to stay - the entire law had to be thrown out.

This decision shouldn't rest on one person but because SCOTUS already has four left wing ideologues on the bench, including one - Elena Kagan - who helped craft the Obamacare monstrosity and refused to recuse herself, it probably will. If it's unconstitutional, it should be a 9-0 ruling but ideology trumps just about everything these days.

h/t GWP



If this law is struck down in its entirety, the election of Scott Brown - which was thought to be rendered irrelevant when this bill passed - could actually prove to be one of the greatest Tea Party victories in Obama's first term. His election after the passing of Ted Kennedy took away the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority and they couldn't take the bill up for another vote to make it more ironclad. Instead, they went for the reconciliation process, which required a vote of 51 instead of 60.

In short, it's quite possible that if Kennedy had not expired, the Supreme Court could have a much more difficult time ruling Obamacare unconstitutional.

Perhaps this video might help explain why...

Video: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin gives wrap-up Assessment of Obamacare Arguments at SCOTUS

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has been the network's go-to guy after each of the three days of legal arguments on Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court. Every time they've gotten his take, he said it was either a "train wreck" or a "plane wreck" for the Obama administration. Before you take heart, remember, it IS CNN. That said, he REALLY went out on a limb if he was trying to make it look worse than it was.

The lynchpin of the law - the individual mandate - is all but gone, according to Toobin. He's even saying that scrapping the entire law is a possibility for two reasons. One, the individual mandate is the lynchpin and two, there is no severability clause in the law.

Here is Toobin after the final day of arguments. He does a very good job of explaining what happens now. Each of the nine Justices will vote on Friday so they will all know how this is likely going to go before the weekend. We won't know until the end of June.



h/t Hapblog

Video: CNN's Legal Analyst said SCOTUS Argument for Obamacare was a "Train wreck"

Today's argument in front of the Supreme Court over Obamacare was billed as the main event in terms of the multiple arguments taking place this week. If it was, CNN's expert legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin all but declared it a knockout for the Obama administration, calling it a "train wreck."

Here is his assessment of today's arguments. Note what he says toward the end. Assuming all four liberal lemming judges fall in line behind Obama's signature piece of legislation, opponents of the law might be more concerned that Justice John Roberts seemed to show more support for the law than did normal swing Justice, Anthony Kennedy.

Via TPM:



If Roberts is the most supportive of the law / individual mandate among the five most conservative Justices, it didn't come through in this exchange he had with Obama's Solicitor General, David Verrilli.

Via POLITICO:

Video: Rick Perry Draws another Blank, Gets a Lifeline

This is what we call compounding the problem. If Rick Perry hadn't had that 52 second blank spot in a debate, this probably wouldn't be newsworthy but he's developing a bit of a reputation here. The good news for him this time is that others around him knew who he was referring to when discussing Barack Obama's two 'activist' Supreme Court appointments, even if Perry could not remember the names. During the debate, no one knew what Perry had in mind so no one could help him. Mitt tried when he suggested the third agency Perry would cut was the EPA but that wasn't it.

This time, Perry was able to say 'Mantamayor,' which helped get him a lifeline.

Nonetheless, these types of faux pas will be magnified for Perry more than anyone else and he can't do this if he hopes to get back in the race.



h/t Hapblog

Eric Holder's New Problem - Elena Kagan Nomination

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was the Solicitor General before she was nominated. As such, there was enough likelihood that she was involved in the defense of Obamacare after the bill's passage. If, in fact, Kagan was consulted or otherwise participated in discussions about a legal defense of the bill, it would be more than sufficient grounds for her to recuse herself from the case, which SCOTUS will be taking up this spring.

During his November 8th testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder was asked about this very issue by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). If Holder is to be believed - his Fast and Furious testimony notwithstanding - Kagan was asked to physically leave a room whenever the topic of Obamacare was addressed. Remember, this is the same Eric Holder who lied under oath about when he first heard of Fast and Furious and the American people should be expected to believe the absurd notion that Obama's Solicitor General - Kagan - was asked to leave any meeting when the subject turned to defending Obamacare?!

Via CNS News:

Senate Republican leaders sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday expressing their view that testimony he gave in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week on the Justice Department's handling of then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan's involvement in litigation arising from the administration's health care legislation was "belied by the facts." 

The senators also urged Holder to comply with requests that have been submitted to the Justice Department by Congress seeking information about Kagan's involvement in the matter and expressed their view that Kagan's activities as solicitor general may have triggered two different provisions of a federal law that governs when a Supreme Court justice must recuse from a case. 

"Unfortunately, your Department has rejected all Congressional oversight requests for information about her role in the Obama Administration's defense of this law," said the letter to Holder, which was signed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) and Sen. Mike Lee (R.-Utah), who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

"You recently told the Senate, incredibly, that you were not even aware of Congressional requests on this topic, and that your Department handled her duties as relates to such matters in a way that is belied by the facts, namely that you physically removed her from all meetings discussing litigation," the senators told Holder.

Click HERE to watch the brief exchange between Lee and Holder. Complicating Holder's position relative to what Kagan knew are e-mails obtained by Judicial Watch through FOIA requests. They would seem to indicate that even if the absurd notion that she was asked to leave meetings that turned to Obamacare, she apparently was dialed in via communications with colleagues through e-mail.

Here is a clip from Day 3 of Kagan's confirmation hearings back in 2010. Fast forward to the 4:45 mark to watch Senator Tom Coburn ask Kagan if she had ever been asked to present her opinion on the merits of the health care bill. Note her response. She said, no. Demands that Kagan should recuse herself from the Obamacare case could be the least of the administration's problems. If it can be proven that Kagan had been asked to present her opinion on the merits of Obamacare, it could constitute perjury.

Obamacare Glitch has Administration Going Around Congress Again

During the Obamacare debate last year, one of the things that got the most attention was the thousands of pages that made up the legislation. There was no possible way any good could come from it. Ironically, the Obama administration, as well as the laws proponents, may be suffering from the law's size as much as anyone. If you remember, earlier this year, Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson struck down the entire law as unconstitutional because he found the individual mandate unconstitutional. Had the legislation included a severability clause - which allows one part of a law to be removed while keeping the rest in tact - he likely wouldn't have done that. The lack of a severability clause was indeed an oversight by the bill's crafters.

Now there appears to be another "glitch" and the Obama administration is attempting to insert it into the bill without going through Congress.

Via WSJ:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers "premium assistance"—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law's cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law's full cost, support for repeal will grow.)

The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.

This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare's spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.

The Obama administration wants to avoid that legislative debacle, so this summer it proposed an IRS rule to offer premium assistance in all exchanges "whether established under section 1311 or 1321." On Nov. 17 the IRS will hold a public hearing on that proposal. According to a Treasury Department spokeswoman, the administration is "confident" that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it "is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it."

Such confidence is misplaced. The text of the law is perfectly clear. And without congressional authorization, the IRS lacks the power to dispense tax credits or spend money.

Frankly, with what I've seen from this administration, relative to issuing edicts when it should be going through Congress, I have little to no confidence that it will be unsuccessful in this case. However, if there is a takeaway here, it's that an oversight on the part of Obamacare's authors only serves to shine a brighter light on Obama himself. These antics are also not likely to go unnoticed when the Supreme Court takes up the case in the spring.

In the months since Obamacare was passed, it has continued to take significant hits. Revelations that one Supreme Court Justice - Elena Kagan - cheered the bill's passage certainly doesn't help either.

h/t Hot Air

Supreme Court Justice Applauded Passage of Obamacare

For those who believe that the integrity of the Supreme Court decreases the further away it gets from unanimous decisions, this should have steam coming out of your ears. It also helps to explain why the future of the country often comes down to the decision of one judge. As SCOTUS prepares to hear the case brought by several states to strike down Obamacare, it is learned that on the day of Obamacare's passage, a woman who would become Obama's second Supreme Court nominee - Elena Kagan - actually cheered its passage in an email.

Via CNS News:

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010--before Elena Kagan's June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Aside from the fact that this should remove any and all doubt that Kagan should recuse herself from the case, it serves as the quintessential example for why the Obama administration attempted to issue a rule - which it ultimately pulled back after an intense political backlash - that would give it the right to refuse any FOIA request it didn't like.

h/t Drudge

Appellate Court: Obamacare Unconstitutional

The rulings on Obamacare between now and its final stop at the Supreme Court are not inconsequential. SCOTUS will be looking at the rulings of the lower courts. One court ruled the entire law unconstitutional. This appellate court ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional but everything else is ok. It will be interesting to see how that pans out because the reason the earlier court ruled the entire law was unconstitutional was because the individual mandate was unconstitutional and because there was no severability clause in the law (allowing parts to be ruled illegal), the entire law was ruled unconstitutional.

Via Reuters:

An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

Ok, so how can one judge rule the entire law unconstitutional because there is no severability clause and the other only rule one portion of the law unconstitutional without a severability clause?. A commenter at Free Republic named Crawdad appears to have posted the relevant portion of the most recent ruling:

To: americanophile
We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional.
Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducementsare unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.

Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a
revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce
power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce.145

The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the
Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
145Our respected dissenting colleague says that the majority: (1) “has ignored the broad power of Congress”; (2) “has ignored the Supreme Court’s expansive reading of the Commerce Clause”; (3) “presume[s] to sit as a superlegislature”; (4) “misapprehends the role of a reviewing court”; and (5) ignores that “as nonelected judicial officers, we are not afforded the opportunity to rewrite statutes we don’t like.” See Dissenting Op. at 208–209, 243. We do not respond to these contentions, especially given (1) our extensive and exceedingly careful review of the Act, Supreme Court precedent, and the parties’ arguments, and (2) our holding that the Act, despite significant challenges to this massive and sweeping federal regulation and spending, falls within the ambit and prerogative of Congress’s broad commerce power, except for one section, §
5000A. We do, however, refuse to abdicate our constitutional duty when Congress has acted beyond its enumerated Commerce Clause power in mandating that Americans, from cradle to grave, purchase an insurance product from a private company.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

HERE is the story on Vinson's ruling this past January.

Arizona Seeking Donations for Border Fence Construction

After losing its appeal to the Ninth Circuit of District Judge Susan Bolton's decision to put the major portions of Arizona's immigration law on hold, Governor Jan Brewer is taking her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We all knew it was coming and here it is. While that's going on, Arizona state legislators are asking for online donations to help construct a Border fence since the Federal government will not do it. Perhaps the best part is that they'll use prison labor to do it.

Via the AP:

PHOENIX – Arizona lawmakers want more fence along the border with Mexico — whether the federal government thinks it's necessary or not.

They've got a plan that could get a project started using online donations and prison labor. If they get enough money, all they would have to do is get cooperation from landowners and construction could begin as soon as this year.

Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed a bill that sets the state on a course that begins with launching a website to raise money for the work, said state Sen. Steve Smith, the bill's sponsor.

"We're going to build this site as fast as we can, and promote it, and market the heck out of it," said Smith, a first-term Republican senator from Maricopa.

Arizona — strapped for cash and mired in a budget crisis — is already using public donations to pay for its legal defense of the SB1070 illegal immigration law.

Part of the marketing pitch for donations could include providing certificates declaring that individual contributors "helped build the Arizona wall," Smith said. "I think it's going to be a really, really neat thing."

Construction would start "after we've raised a significant amount of money first" but possibly as soon as later this year, Smith said.

The Daily Caller has more on Arizona's SCOTUS appeal.

h/t Barrackaid #2

Wisconsin Liberal Loses Election by 7000 Votes, wants Recount

The following example provides the perfect microcosm for what's wrong with liberalism. The recent election for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice shows incumbent Republican David Prosser up by more than 7,000 votes. Liberal challenger Joanne Kloppenburg wants a recount. As a percentage of the overall vote, Kloppenburg lost by .5% but the number is still significant. The day after the April 5th election, Kloppenburg declared victory, which is a key aspect to the video below. Then, several thousand votes were found not to have been counted. Yes, they benefited Prosser but when such things happen to the Democrats, votes aren't found to not have been counted; they're just 'found.'

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is giving Kloppenburg the official eye-roll and reporting that the recount she's demanding is unnecessarily costly at a time when costs are a big concern everywhere:

JoAnne Kloppenburg certainly had the right to ask for a statewide recount on Wednesday.

But we had hoped that she wouldn't - and the state would be better off if she hadn't.

We understand the motivation. The final county-by-county canvassing of the state Supreme Court election revealed that Justice David Prosser won a narrow victory, a reflection of how polarizing the new governor and his policies have become. The heat generated by the controversy over those policies most likely spurred the significant turnout for a spring nonpartisan election and a 7,316-vote win for Prosser - less than 0.5% of the 1.5 million votes cast.

That's slim, but it's not likely that a statewide recount will change the outcome. Were it a margin in the hundreds of votes, perhaps, but Kloppenburg has to recognize that it's not.

Here is video of Kloppenburg announcing her intention to carry forward with the recount. The best part of this video - hands down - occurs at around the 1:40 mark when a reporter asks her if she still thinks she won the election. The ensuing pause was so long, you could have played the entire Jeopardy song - twice!

Wow.



h/t Hot Air

Wisconsin Unions have Defeat Snatched from Jaws of Victory

The April 5th election that would determine the balance of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court pitted Republican incumbent David Prosser against liberal activist JoAnne Kloppenburg showed Kloppenburg eeking out a 204 vote victory as of early April 7th. It amounted to a monumental - and likely fraudulent - victory for the public sector unions who were determined to get the legally passed collective bargaining law in Wisconsin rendered illegal in the courts. A Kloppenburg victory would practically guarantee it.

But wait... Suddenly Prosser was ahead by more than 7000 votes and declared the winner!

Via WTMJ:

WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) -- A stunning discovery of votes in Wisconsin could give the state's hotly contested Supreme Court race to the conservative incumbent in an election largely seen as a referendum on Republican Gov. Scott Walker's explosive union rights law.

Adding another twist, the county clerk who said she incorrectly entered vote totals in the race has faced criticism before for her handling of elections and previously worked for a state GOP caucus when it was controlled by the candidate who stands to benefit from Thursday's revelation.

The corrected totals gave Justice David Prosser a 7,500-vote lead over little-known liberal assistant state attorney general JoAnne Kloppenburg, according to unofficial tallies. Before the announcement, it was assumed the race was headed for a recount. The difference between the two had fluctuated throughout the day Thursday as counties began verifying votes, but at one point was as close as 11.

Opponents of the law that takes away nearly all public employee collective bargaining rights had hoped a Kloppenburg victory would set the stage for the high court to strike it down.

Kloppenburg's campaign manager Melissa Mulliken demanded a full explanation of how the error occurred and said an open records requests for all relevant documents would be filed.

Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus said it was "human error" that resulted in more than 14,000 votes from her predominantly GOP county not being reported to The Associated Press on Tuesday. She said the most significant error occurred when she entered but did not save totals from the city of Brookfield, a suburb of Milwaukee.

"This is not a case of extra votes or extra ballots being found," Nickolaus said. "This is human error, which I apologize for."

You know, I'm not saying it happened but if this had been intentional, it'd be utter brilliance. Whenever there is an election that the left REALLY wants to win, ballots seem to magically appear in the trunks of cars and actually get counted. The union thugs monitor the election results all day long and when the elections are close, the left always seems to find just enough ballots to put their guy over the top - see Al Franken. If there was a way for the Republicans to beat the fraudulent thugs at their own game without corrupting the process, this would be it.

It'd be rather difficult at this stage for even the left to somehow produce 8000 ballots in which no votes were cast for Prosser.

Great story. In this allegory, Stanford represents Kloppenburg, Cal represents Prosser, and the trombone player represents public sector unions.



h/t Gateway Pundit

Video: Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) Shows he's a Weiner

Did this guy ever finish the third grade? Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was being interviewed by Fox's Megyn Kelly about the argument from the Democrats that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from any case brought before SCOTUS relative to the constitutionality of Obamacare. The argument from Weiner is that because Thomas's wife works with groups that want to repeal the law, Thomas should step aside. Kelly makes the case that based on her years as an attorney and contacts with people who work at the Supreme Court, Thomas should have to do no such thing.

The best part comes in the latter part of this interview as Weiner behaves like a pre-pubescent child. I kept waiting for him to pick up his bucket and shovel and stomp away.

Another note on this... If this is the strategy of the left, they know they're in trouble when Obamacare makes it to the Supreme Court. Pathetic.



h/t Verum Serum

National Version of Arizona Immigration Bill Coming?

What would happen if a Bill made it to Barack Obama's desk that granted state troopers and local police national authority to enforce our federal immigration laws? He would no doubt veto it since he's suing Arizona over their attempt to do so in their state but it would expose him in the same way his veto of any Obamacare repeal bill would.

Via the Daily Caller:

Rep. Ed Royce, California Republican, is planning to introduce a national-level version of contentious Arizona state Senate Bill 1070, The Daily Caller has learned. Royce, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee’s Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade subcommittee, told TheDC his legislation would give state-level cops and local law enforcement nationwide the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.

Royce is planning to introduce the new legislation soon and said, in addition to giving state and local law enforcement more authority, it “establishes operational control of the border” by sending more fencing to the border and keeping the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture from over-regulating how Border Patrol officials put together fences and work on federal lands.

“All the Border Patrol agents are swearing by it [building a fence and keeping the regulatory powers of the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture at a minimum],” Royce said. “So, that’s part of establishing operational control.”

Speaking of vetoes, Obamacare could conceivably go down in the Supreme Court without the need for one. As SB 1070 wallows in the courts, it may also one day be vindicated by the SCOTUS; if this Bill in California is vetoed by Obama and SB 1070 is ruled Constitutional, other states could follow suit. In light of the recent tsunami that transpired in state legislatures, odds are good.

Read it all.