Liberals Already Looking For Excuses If Mandate Goes Down

After a horrendous day for Obamacare’s chief council in front of the Supreme Court, one in which the far left justices had to remind him of his talking points, liberal supporters of this unconstitutional extension of the Central Government’s power are desperately reaching for any rationale to shift blame. Here’s James Carville

“I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party,” Carville said Tuesday on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”

Carville, who gained fame working on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, predicted health care costs will only increase in the future, in which case Republicans will be to blame for leading the drive to expel a federal program designed to help Americans cover those costs.

“Then the Republican Party will own the healthcare system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin,” Carville said.

Except, this will give Republicans the chance to pass common sense law which will actually address the rising cost of health insurance.

But Glenn Thrush at Politico takes the cake

John Roberts is having his Bush v. Gore moment.

If the wily chief justice felt squeamish about leading the Supreme Court into an election-year political maelstrom, that was nowhere on display Tuesday, when the Roberts-led conservative majority signaled its collective skepticism, even hostility, for President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the Affordable Care Act goes down — especially if it suffers the same schismatic 5-to-4 blow sustained by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United case — critics will accuse the Roberts Court of rigging the game and covering their power play with constitutional doublespeak.

Except, people forget, or willfully ignore, that the SCOTUS decision rightly interpreted Florida law that the Gore campaign was attempting to circumvent. Regardless, what we will see from Obamacare supporters is blame and excuses, anything to deflect from the notion that the Mandate was truly unconstitutional, and extremely unpopular. The law itself is unpopular overall, and most people understand that it will not make health insurance cheaper, and it will lead to reduced quality of care. They understand that their companies will dump their insurance offerings. And they do not want the Central Government mandating the purchase of a product simply for being an American.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Liberals Already Looking For Excuses If Mandate Goes Down”

  1. A SCOTUS thumbs-down on Obamacare far preferable to sitting back and hoping Romney keeps his word to repeal, eh

    Fingers x’d here

  2. Dana says:

    I’ve been saying for two years now that I thought that Obumblecare was designed to fail. A solid minority of the Democrats want a single-payer socialized medic ine system like several European countries have, but knew that they could not get sixty — or even fifty — votes in the Senate for it.

    So, they backed a plan that they knew was constitutionally suspect. If it is declared unconstitutional, they’ll simply say, “See, we went ahead and tried it the conservative way, and it was tossed. Single-payer is the only option we have left for making sure that everyone is covered.”

    The notion that it is none of the government’s business to see to it that everyone is covered will not be one which crosses their minds.

    And a single-payer system would unquestionably be constitutional, because we already have one in Medicare. It is tax supported, and the Constitution clearly allows the government to collect taxes. Medicare has never been successfully challenged on its authority to spend for health care coverage for seniors, so single-payer, doing essentially the same thing, would also pass muster.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Whoa there.

    The Constitution allows for the collection of taxes to accomplished the specific items granted under the Constitution.

    No where does the Constitution allow for the Federal government to establish or fund a “health care” program. That means that Medicare is un-Constitutional as well. The problem is that progressives have constantly used the “general welfare” clause to make such programs legal. The problem with that thinking is the general welfare clause was designed to anticipate things not foreseen by the founders. Clearly medical aid and health care were a part of the times. The idea that Medicare is Constitutional is highly questionable.

  4. […] Much more at the link; hat tip to William Teach.1 […]

  5. Trish says:

    Lets all hope that this SCOTUS iceberg completely crushes Obummercare. I don’t care if the morons on the left come up with 75 good reasons that this won’t hurt the president or their party. They can have all the pipe dreams they want, as long as we don’t have to live their horribly unhealthy nightmare anymore.

  6. […] it was passed. Justice Scalia had a few words to say about the Cornhusker Kickback.In related news, the left is already practicing how they’ll spin things if ObamaCare is struck down.Image Credit: Nolagoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* […]

  7. […] problem wasn’t the law, but with the people who rule on the law. I highlighted a bit of that yesterday. And here comes ultra-liberal E.J. Dionne, who attempts to paint the conservatives on the court as […]

  8. […] problem wasn’t the law, but with the people who rule on the law. I highlighted a bit of that yesterday. And here comes ultra-liberal E.J. Dionne, who attempts to paint the conservatives on the court as […]

  9. […] problem wasn’t the law, but with the people who rule on the law. I highlighted a bit of that yesterday. And here comes ultra-liberal E.J. Dionne, who attempts to paint the conservatives on the court as […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 6944 access attempts in the last 7 days.