Healthcare gets hammered by the Supreme Court!

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

From the beginning, people questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, and now that it’s landing in front of the Supreme Court things do not look good for the law. In fact, some are even calling it an “absolute train wreck”. Why? It turns out a lot of the Justices have an issue with it and are not hiding it.

The guys played audio from Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst from CNN, who said:

 This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions, including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. Justice Alito, Justice Scalia were constantly skeptical. Justice Thomas didn’t say anything, but we know his position on the issue. The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides. All four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were – they did not meet with their success with their colleagues. Most surprising to me, perhaps, Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general, did a simply awful law defending law.

How bad a job is Verrilli doing? Below is an actual transcript of his testimony. Does it make sense?

“Insurance has become the predominant means of paying for healthcare in this country. Insurance has become the predominant means of paying for healthcare in this country, because it – because the – and – and – because this is a market in which –”

Regardless of his poor performance, the Justices themselves were already very critical of the law.

Stu explained, “Kennedy, as everybody knows, is the swing vote here. Most people believe he was among, I would say, the most skeptical. He was one of the guys questioning the hardest.”

For all the audio, check out the latest Stu Blog!

Glenn pointed out that this case would be key in determining the future of the country. “This is either the end of the Constitution or the end of the progressive movement. One of these two has got to end. The Constitution cannot bend any farther. It’s over. If it bends this far, it really is over,” he said.

“We’ve all been focused on the upside of this, okay, well, if they overturn this case, Obamacare might go away, it’s fantastic. If they let this case stand, they (the government) have the right to do anything,” Stu added.

But, thankfully, the Justices are really taking this case seriously and are questioning it.

“It feels good to have some adults in the room holding people accountable for their logic,” Glenn said.

Glenn added that it’s clear that the progressives will never be able to get healthcare through the Congress again. Doing it again would require dictator-like powers for someone to step in and fix a “crisis”. Coincidently, Ben Bernake has said that joblessness has now become a crisis, leaving the possibility that the government will have to step in order to save the country.

“Never let a crisis go to waste,” Stu said.

For all the audio, check out the latest Stu Blog!

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    So how massive of a ‘train wreck’ will this be for Obama and friends if it is overturned and hopefully destroyed completely?

    Most people will assume it will have a massive impact on Obama and his reelection match in the Nov elections.

    The problem is that knowing Obama and the radicals he deals with they already have been spinning the potential for defeat; most likely they already have one or more tricks up their sleeves ready to be dumped upon us via regulation/executive order. Never underestimate this snake we have in the White House and the vipers he has as cronies.

    If Obamacare dies completely expect Obama to also proclaim this on the election circuit; if he even bothers to have a debate with his opponent (which he once said would never be the case):

    Blame Conservative Justices
    Blame a “Do Nothing” House
    Blame Tea Party
    Blame George Bush

    All of this will be on top of the expected violence, economic chaos, and social chaos he is going to unleash in the summer and unto the elections (if they actually occur).

    Indeed the future of the Republic is now at hand; we will either see the end of our liberties or the end of the progressives.

    May God preserve the Republic and allow us to Restore it; we have come so close to the total extinction of our great nation.

  • landofaahs

    Right before they pull the rug out from under the American people.

  • General Kota

    I don’t think Obamacare is the only thing that got hammered in the Supreme Court. Maybe he needed to get drunk to lie to them and to us.

  • General Kota

    He don’t see cell phones as market see the left don’t know economics 101.

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    No the left only understands:

    Socialism 101
    Serfdom 101
    Corruption 101

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M5AQRCJVNRW65KCPEJZDAGISSA Big T

    Blam their incompetance!

  • Lioness

    With all the arguments that I can think of as to why government health care is a wash, I can’t think of anything more convincing than comparing it to how the government managed social security. All that money coming in and well, where’d it go? I can only imagine what will happen when all the money rolls in for the mandate. What a joke that will be. Government mandated health care is kind of like the Titanic, Obama say’s it’s to big to sink and those who want so bad to help others believe it to be true. But no one truly understands how to accurately maneuver the ship, heck no one even read the bill. We all know it’s gonna hit that glacier hard, and when it sinks the only ones who’ll go down with the ship are the poor and middle class. I prefer to dismantle this titanic disaster before it occurs.

  • http://goo.gl/DvRNm Right Fielder

    Let’s face it, they are all adults. That is why it is so disturbing when you see some of them think like childish fools. After all, it is The Supreme Court on Earth.

    By the way, on a completely different subject… THANK YOU. Finally, someone fixed the Disqus link redirect.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BGC7U7QUFEWSSV3H4IFHLAFK54 mudslide

    It should have never been passed in the first friggin place!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BGC7U7QUFEWSSV3H4IFHLAFK54 mudslide

     While i agree with most of your post – ‘spin’ is not a partisan action…any party or entity that has much at stake will spin/skew anything they can toward their favor…numbers, stats, polls, courts etc… The same thing happened AFTER the bill was passed which is why the 2010 elections were such a slap in demo’s face.

  • Anonymous

    Even though it might seem that Obamacare is on the way out, I say don’t hold your breath. Not that I don’t hope for it to die, don’t underestimate the liberals. We just need to wait. Also, I think that the class warfare is going to be racheted up beyond words. The issue though is that if it fails, what then. We still have a healthcare system that needs a great deal of work. Obamacare is not the way, nor is the socialistic, Nationalized Or single payer system. We must as a Nation decide once and for all, what are we going to do? I don’t think everything should be free and even though I believe that those that cannot help themselves should recieve help, those that can should be required to step up to the plate. Those that screw the system should be prosecuted. 

  • Bill Tilghman

    Oh woe is me, what will I do with all that money I was supposed to spend on mandated health insurance?

    This makes me very, very sad.

    Okay, that’s over, Now LET”S PARTY!

  • Anonymous

    Kagan should recuse herself;  she was an author of this monstrosity    Scalia got it right.

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t celebrate just yet! 
    I pray that the Supreme Court votes against Obamacare. It is the
    most disasteris bill ever to come before the Congress.  I cannot
    believe those clowns voted for it.  That is why I will not vote for
    any candidate who passed this or Pres. Obama.
    I did hear on one of the cable, (supposed news channels), that
    Obama may go to a single payer system and that everyone
    will have to go on medicare.  Hope it isn’t true!

  • Anonymous

    I believe it would be good to have the Mandate to buy healthcare thrown out.  There ought to be a way to provide healthcare to people, without forcing everyone to buy it, or leave those alone who have a good private insurance and are totally satisfied with the good care they have been getting.   The Problem is it was necessary to force everyone into the system and thats where the rub comes in.   You would think that minds in Washington would find a way to change this …they could help those who don’t have healthcare, and yet not infringe on private insurance companies through employers.

  • Anonymous

    kagan and sotomayor are posturing — they want single payer come hell or high water.

    YOU JUST CANNOT TRUST THEM FOLKS.

  • Anonymous

    If the government is going to provide the healthcare, then maybe they should offer that chance to one and all. But, it seems to me that if the hospitals are privately owned, the government cannot force people to chip into a universal care system if they don’t want to. In Canada, hospitals are administered by the government and people have to pay a universal fee or tax towards healthcare, normally paid by their employer. What happens when one loses his/her job and those payments are stopped? Unless you contribute your share, you won’t have healthcare. How many people in the US have no healthcare plan because of unemployment?

  • Anonymous

    Hold on there!   Do I have it right that one of the Justices (Kagan?) was involved in the health

    care bill in some way before she got to the SCOTUS?   If that is so, she’d have to recuse her-

    self.  Conflict of interest and all that.   If she actually does step down, there would be only three

     liberal judges left with Kennedy as a ”possible” swing, and that could give a tie vote.  What

    happens then?   Do ties mean a win or a loss?

  • Anonymous

    Exactly!   Just what I thought, Rufree, but will she do the honorable, ethical thing and

    actually recuse herself or will she want to help ”The Boss” and give her vote?

  • Anonymous

    With so much unknown about what the bill contains, Lioness, there have been many

    businesses holding back in hiring because they fear they would have to pay health care

    coverage of their employees.   How many pages does that baby have?  1000 or so?

  • Anonymous

    Don’t forget, Ed, though the healthcare is offered to all, it doesn’t mean that everyone

    has to have it.  Especially those in Congress and/or the administration.*  Remember, a

    large number of unions and businesses rec’d waivers so they aren’t taking it.

    *Betcha they have more of a ”Cadillac” kind of health care covering more than the bill

    offered for the public.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barry-Levy/1091577549 Barry Levy

    Why is the scenario that this will be a 5-4 decision and that one of 5 will have to be swayed to keep the bill, RATHER, than why aren’t the four shifting their position and making the ruling more liek 7-2, or 8-1 to declaring it Unconstitutional.

  • Anonymous

    Ok, what is wrong with this picture – where is the blame on Bush?  Shame on him for letting Obamacare die!  Maybe we can get these clowns out of our way and really get this Nation back to order and on the right track.  God help us if he is reelected for another four years – we are dead!!!

  • Anonymous

    They can’t blame Verilli because who can defend the indefensible?

  • http://twitter.com/CarolPetersen5 Carol Petersen

    What was it Pelosi said?  “Pass it so you can read it”?   And they did !

  • Anonymous

    The bill is the reason Kagan was nominated…to ensure its survival!

  • Anonymous

    Me thinks the argument of O’care is falling apart and it’s evident in Mr. Verilli’s lack of defining it’s merits.  A case of why broccoli is good for you!

  • http://twitter.com/paoligarcy Paolina Garcia

    She was asking tough questions against the bill and since it’s hopeless she may want to pretend she’s constitutional and vote against it. I’m hoping for an 8-1 or 9-0 rejection of this (which then prevents liberals from saying conservatives blocked it).

  • Anonymous

    Yes.This will be the best thing for the economy if it doesn’t pass companies will start hiring again .

  • Anonymous

    Good one Paolina-perhaps we’ll be done with it after all.   Gingsberg won’t cave-she’s hopeless!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Tiffany/100001320367593 Victor Tiffany

    “The founding fathers…passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

    That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

    Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.”

    Beck is a historian?  Not so much.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act

  • Anonymous

    Not the same Vicky<2. And if you had ever served in the military you would know this. Once you sign those papers you belong to the government and it had much more influence over you than a civilian.

    But, we all know you're an idiot, so it stands to reason you would get something like this wrong.

    You are as dumb as a post…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Tiffany/100001320367593 Victor Tiffany

    If you were not just projecting your own low IQ onto me, you’d know that I’m quoting someone who does know history in ways that you don’t have a clue about.

    This first mandate  had nothing to do with “the military,” but go on and continue to demonstrate how ignorant and childish you are.  I think you represent Beck perfectly in those characteristics.

    Calling me an idiot for quoting someone who knows a hell of a lot more about history than Beck does is laughable and just flat-out stupid.  Again, you’re projecting your low IQ onto me.  It’s getting more clear than ever who has low IQ and crass immaturity here.

    Insulting my IQ only makes you come across like a pissed off child, and I don’t think that’s too far from the case.

  • Anonymous

    So, then according to the logic you would be employing, a national uniform, grooming regulations, training, and a mandatory work regimen are all constitutional as well, aren’t they?

  • Anonymous

    Since I only addressed one aspect of your argument and you failed to refute my first objection, I will provide you with the other reason you are trying to rely on to support your argument for a health care mandate is flawed…
    *
    Requiring ship owners to provide insurance for seamen, and thus seamen to pay for it still allows the individual to choose. They can opt out of the requirement by not owning a ship, and subsequently not working aboard ship. No one can opt out of the current health mandate. No one can choose not to be alive.
    *
    If right wing people had a problem with insurance mandates as such we would have been fighting against car insurance, home owner’s insurance, etc…
    *
    Vicky<2, you are just too stupid to even bother with.
    *
    What do you want to debate next?

  • Anonymous

    Oh, and I am also curious, what does Beck have to do with this?
    *
    You are an idiot because you cannot distinguish properly between things that are, and are not, related…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Tiffany/100001320367593 Victor Tiffany

    You ask a stupid question about what Beck, who rails against the Affordable Health Care Act and its mandate,  has to do with this, and then have the gall to call me an idiot. It’s you who does not understand the simple English: federal mandates have a precedent. You are again, projecting your low IQ onto someone destroying your arguments because when you’re losing, it’s the best you have.  It’s just about all you have been doing for over a year now, because you’re such a loser.  I’d SO love to debate you in front of your school peers.

    I suppose that when you’re desperately supporting a complete loser and ignorant propagandist like Beck, tossing off insults is the best you can do.

  • Anonymous

    Huhn, so then when according to your thinking, the whole universe is affected by Beck, right? Vicky<2, you are an obsessed and sick little man.
    *
    Federal mandates do have precedent = constitutional ones. Why do you think this one is constitutional? Did you not understand the part about optional behavior modification? Did you not get the part about who can opt-out of living as a way to avoid the mandate? Seriously, are you that stupid? I think a resounding "YES" is well deserved as an answer to that question Vicky<2. Say it out loud!!!
    *
    If I am losing Vicky, then why haven't you refuted any point I have made showing directly why it is invalid. When are you going to demonstrate how what I have used as counter-examples are invalid? We'll be waiting for your next incorrect answer.
    *
    Just about a year? You can't even keep track of time Vicky<2. You can't count, you can't tell time, you can't form a valid and sound argument. What can you do correctly Vicky? You can't even get any steam behind your own protest in your own town…
    *
    You are such an idiot!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Tiffany/100001320367593 Victor Tiffany

    On your logic, people could leave the country to avoid the healthcare mandate.

    FACT: mandates are not new.  The framers of the Constitution embraced them.

    Go ahead, though, and twist the facts around to suit your reactionary views.  “Twistification” is what Jefferson called this deceitful manner, and Beck and you excel at it. I understand: it’s a reactionary thing.  Reality has a liberal bias, and twistification allows reactionaries to avoid the terrible facts of history and of the Constitution. 

    I don’t see you twistifying the mandate that all able-bodied men were compelled to buy firearms. 

    FACT: mandates are not new.  The framers of the Constitution embraced them. 

  • Anonymous

    To become a non-entity to the state one must either die or leave. That’s a really good option Vicky. Why don’t you take a poll to see how many people consider that viable. At what age do we require people to make this decision? What if they can’t afford to leave? What if they cannot legally leave as in the case of felons? What if they cannot find another country willing to take them? What if they have a medical condition which precludes their eligibility to leave? Why haven’t you thought through these kinds of problems before offering it as a defense?
    *
    And as far as mandates not being new, where did that come from? Did I say they were? Did I not cite examples of other insurance mandates that conservatives embrace? Can you follow along without the little bouncing ball over the words? Remember I claimed you were an idiot for not being to distinguish between what is and what is not relevant? You’re doing it now…
    *
    Talk about twistifying? Are you seriously going to try and introduce a term like that into this discussion? Why don’t you break out the old tool box and throw “truthiness” around a little bit? You seem to go through phases and develop your own little fads of usage. You said, “Reality has a liberal bias”. Reality has no bias Vicky<2. Only intelligent creatures can have the kind of bias you are referring to. But, you brought up twistification, and you're using it just like you said…
    *
    As far as "able-bodied", don't you see that your very own counter-example excludes the majority of the population? And isn't that just the opposite of what you are arguing for? And what about conscientious objectors? Did you really think this through before you offered it as a counter-argument?
    *
    And when did I ever say mandates are new?
    *
    You are as dumb as a post Vicky<2…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Victor-Tiffany/100001320367593 Victor Tiffany

    …and 
    broccoli , since you’re using false logic, don’t forget eating broccoli.

    What is Constitutional is largely up to the SCOTUS, and when they really screw up, we the people amend the Constitution. 

  • Anonymous

    But Vicky<2, what false logic am I using? What is the fallacy? How is it invalid? Why is it unsound?
    *
    You'll need to do more than just claim it, you have to demonstrate it.
    *
    You are such an idiot!

  • Anonymous

    Still waiting for you to identify how I used “false logic” Vicky<2…
    You are such an idiot!!!

  • Anonymous

    Still waiting for you to show how I used false logic Vicky<2…
    It's been five days.
    You are such an idiot!!!

  • Anonymous

    Still waiting for you to identify how I used “false logic” Vicky<2… You are such an idiot!!!

  • Anonymous

    Still waiting for you to identify how I used “false logic” Vicky<2… You are such an idiot!!!

  • Anonymous

    What statute was it that required all ship owners to buy medical insurance in 1790?
      
    The Militia Acts of 1792 did not require the purchase of anything you might want to read the Constitution again there Victor. Start at Article I, Section 8.