Obama surrogate’s last ‘or else’ note to “Supremes” for Obamacare

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

Obama Administration surrogate’s, Paul Goldman, former chairman of the Virginia Democrat party, and Mark Rozell, professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, teamed up to submit an “Op Ed Brief” to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28th–wherein they argued against a decision on the Obamacare Mandate, until after the November 2012 elections.

Although they implied it was for the good of all Americans–that is patently false.

PGMR: “Let’s be honest: The Supreme Court makes political decisions.”

JK: Only because their province in the U.S. Constitution, which was written to restrain federal government power and reach. Generally speaking, GOP presidential appointees utilize a strict, literal application of the Constitution in their decisions; whereas, liberal presidential appointees most often side with Liberal ideology which favors expansion of federal government.

At present, there is a 5-4 Conservative-Liberal division among the nine Justices on the court.

PGMR: “Right now, the Supreme Court’s public image is at a worrisome level; less than 30% of likely voters rat[e] the institution excellent or good.”

JK: What a difference three weeks can make.

According to a brand new Rasmussen poll of “likely voters,” … “Forty-one percent (41%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the Supreme Court’s performance as good or excellent … the court’s highest rating in two-and-a-half years.”

This is up from 28% in mid-March, prior to Obamacare arguments being heard.

PGMR: “A recent Gallup poll found an astounding 72% of Americans believed the fundamental glue to the president’s health care reform – the individual mandate – is unconstitutional. Besides nearly all Republicans, many Democrats and independents are also opposed to the health care law.”

JK: Even though we already know it, there is a reason they put it on the record here.

PGMR: “As legendary Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes warned, in his classic book ‘The Common Law,’ legal decisions defying such collective wisdom threaten respect for the law.

JK: Here they are facing the fear that the court will base their decision on the will of this 72 percent of the people, versus properly passed legislation. However, the original bill passed by only 7 votes in each the House, 219-212, and 53-46 in the Senate–while Democrats had complete political control of the federal government.

Additionally, when you take into account the 89 Democrats in the House and Senate that were summarily “fired” during the November 2010 mid-term elections, it appears that the law was being passed against the will of the people then, too.

PGMR: “Fast forward to today — the ‘ObamaCare” case risks a bitter Supreme Court split.”

JK: A “bitter-split” Supreme Court decision?

Is there another kind?

Especially after Barack Obama berated the Justices on national TV during his State of the Union Address last year, then again just last week, when he obviously ‘threatened’ them with public unrest, should they find against his signature legislation?

PGMR: So we ask: would the Supreme Court best serve America by intentionally delaying any substantive decision about the health care law until after the 2012 presidential election?

JK: Definitely not–it would set a dangerous precedent by implying the court cowered to the minority Democrat party.

PGMR: The Supremes need to step back. There is no pressing need for a quick decision. Let Americans first “have it out” in the presidential campaign. It is time to trust the people for a change.

JK: PGMR’s waiting until the end to use their metaphoric “last resort” epitaph, “Supremes,” reveals their hubris and audacity to be surpassed only by their principal, President Barack Obama, who realizes that the end of his disastrous presidency in mercifully near–for the collective good of the entire nation.

Donate to

Support American Values...