Ya know, sometimes you just gotta laugh at the level of hypocrisy that is constantly on display from those who call themselves Democrats. The level of unapologetic arrogance exhibited by today's Democrats, I think it safe to say, has reached a height not previously seen. They seem to obsessed with the obtaining of ever more power for themselves and have come to possess a level of contempt for the American people that has the potential for creating a scenario that would be lethal to our free Republic. It's has now gotten to the point where we are just supposed to blindly accept whatever they deem as being in our best interest or for our own good. We're to be treated as children and if we don't obey their demands we're to be severely punished, usually by being painted as anti-government anarchists. We are to have absolutely no recourse regarding any perceived injustices, they know best and the sooner we accept that fact, the better off we'll be. And should we dare to oppose them, on any level, then we are to be castigated and identified as someone who must be shunned, because we are the reason people continue to suffer, not just here at home, but all across the globe. The depths to which Democrats are never the least bit hesitant about going, in their effort to deceive the American people, never really quite ceases to amaze me. Apparently now, a federal judge’s recent decision stating that the Barry "Almighty" administration's healthcare overhaul is unconstitutional is now being called a blatant example of judicial activism, and as being “way out of bounds, even for Republicans.” So said Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif., this past Tuesday to Chris "Mr. Tingles" Matthews on his, little paid any attention to, MSNBC program. This sweat hog from California is just one more Democrat hypocrite on a long list of many who define upholding the Constitution as being that which equates to "judicial activism." Squealing like the proverbial stuck pig, she was literally beside herself regarding the perceived recklessness of this judge's, very sound and constitutional, decision. Democrats are now falling all over themselves and very nearly in a panic, being fearful that their effort to once more suppress the will of the people may not come to fruition after all.
What is the cause of Ms. Richardson's nearly apoplectic fit of rage? Well, other than it being the typical response when Democrats don't get their way, her fit was caused by nothing more than the very simple fact that U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, in a ruling this past Monday, accepted without trial the argument of 26 states that "Obamacare" violates people's rights. No wonder she's so angry. Imagine that, a judge actually defedning the rights of the people! That's about as foreign as you can from the Democrat perspective on things. So no wonder she's a bit wrapped around the axle. At issue in making his ruling, was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, by mandating that every citizen must buy health insurance or face tax penalties. I thought it very appropriate, an I had to laugh, that in his ruling the judge went so far as to quote directly a statement in that he addressed the topic in the very same manner as Barry did while he was still a candidate. What the judge said in his ruling was pretty much identical to the opinion held by candidate Barry when describing the healthcare proposal made by his then opponent, Hitlery Clinton. However, now that our buddy Barry finds himself firmly in the Oval Office, he seems to now be of another opinion. Apparently he now seems find as being perfectly acceptable the premise which he condemned as a candidate. That being, he now believes that providing healthcare is in fact part of the interstate commerce system, because all Americans are consumers of medical care and therefore constitutional. The states’ attorneys counter with the argument that the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states, without providing money to pay for it. Chris "Mr. Tingles" Matthews started the “Hardball” discussion by noting that so far, in judicial rulings on Obamacare’s constitutionality, two federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents upheld the law, while two GOP appointees opposed it. “So, we have got a partisan split in the court and it looks like the Supreme Court is going to have to decide this just in time – guess what – for next year’s presidential election,” Matthews said. “You know, the American people have a hard time believing we have an independent judiciary, when you have got this even split.” But I think a majority of the American people very clearly see on which side those individuals reside who are out to abide by the Constitution.
With her coming straight out of the "Twilight Zone," Ms. Richardson complained that Judge Vinson’s decision goes far beyond judicial activism. “Not only is this judicial activism. It’s overreaching, and it doesn’t even meet the mainstream test,” Richardson said. “Not to follow precedents by Supreme Court law, and not to do a true analysis, to cut out an entire bill based upon one provision, is way out of bounds – even for Republicans.” Now wait just a minute. From what I've heard, it's because of the way that the bill is written, with no survivability clause, that essentially allow for the entire piece of legislation to be deemed to be unconstitutional if the mandate to buy insurance is deemed to be so. Therefore, I think that she could have made a much better argument for "judicial activism" had she chosen to reference the two judges who saw fit to ignore the Constitution and come down on side if this thing actually being within the constraints of that very same Constitution. Those are but two recent examples of true activism from the bench that have come into play. Liberal judges are free to very broadly interpret the Constitution, and if necessary to the point of basing a decision on pure fiction, if their intent in doing so is to further certain aspects of the progressive agenda that it would be difficult to advance utilizing the accepted means. And they feel entirely justified in choosing to ignore the obvious constraints in place, if in the end they see themselves as correcting some social injustice, real or imagined. Richardson contended the judge’s argument siding with the states is “pretty weak,” and the healthcare system obviously qualifies as commerce. Taking into account the level of basic knowledge that most Democrats have of the Constitution, this idiotic statement does not come as any great surprise me. “All you have to look at is, in 2009 alone, [the] $43 billion it cost many taxpayers to pay for people who hadn’t paid for the insurance themselves. If that’s not what commerce is, I don’t know what you would call it,” she said. “We have a longstanding history of being able to utilize legislation based upon the Commerce Clause. And this is no exception,” Richardson continued. “Come to my hospitals. We have got hospitals having to care for people because they haven’t done the preventative care themselves.” So, according to this loon, what we "need" is to have any number of faceless government bureaucrats dedicated to making sure that we all partake in necessary preventative care. Thanks, but no thanks!
Joining his somewhat squirrely colleague from California in her effort to label the judge’s decision as being partisan and conservative, we have Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., who, in an effort to move the crazy train further down the tracks, said the issue of judicial activism will take center stage when, as most expect, the law’s constitutionality eventually lands before the Supreme Court. In what has to be one of the more imbecilic statements I've heard in quite sometime, the esteemed Mr. Moran said, “The problem is the Supreme Court. We’ve known since they appointed George Bush over Al Gore, despite the trend of the Florida vote counting, that that at least four members of this Supreme Court are activist, conservative, even partisan." And since he doesn't seem to mind letting people see just how stupid he is, he went on to say, “You got Judge [Samuel] Alito publicly disputing the president at the State of the Union. Even Judge [John] Roberts has shown himself to be a conservative activist in many of his decisions." Adding, “It’s going to be decided in a court that is divided and the only vote that really matters is Judge [Anthony] Kennedy’s now.” I guess Mr. Moran's solution to the whole inconvenient problem, is to find a way to do away with the nuisance that is the Supreme Court or to simply ignore any rulings that are contrary to what you are trying to bring about. Obviously, our buddy Barry doesn't hold the court in very high regard. That was made crystal clear during his State of the Union address last year. And judging by the applause that I remember him getting, the court, at least in its present makeup, doesn't seem to have many fans in the Democrat Party. So let me see if I have this right, the "ONLY" activist justices are those who have come from the right. Those like Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg who crawled out of the sewer that is the ACLU or Elena Kagan who sprung from the hallowed halls of that bastion of liberalism, Harvard, and who has never even been a judge, or Sonia Sotomayor who thinks that one must be a Latina in order to possess the required perspective to make properly "rulings" from the bench, these folks are to be considered as being "mainstream" and above reproach and should be considered as being nowhere near activist judges.
We can ill afford to get over confident regarding the Supreme Court's willingness to overturn this "Obamanation" that is "Obamacare." It is far from something that should even remotely be considered as being a certainty. I heard Hugh Hewitt on a television talk show this morning going so far as to pronounce "Obamacare" as being dead. He based his opinion on how he "thinks" Justice Kennedy will decide the issue once it makes it to the Supreme Court. Nothing should ever be considered as being guaranteed. Because the question that remains very much unanswered is, will Justice Kennedy bend under the weight of the immense pressure that is most surely going to be brought to bear from the Democrat Party and their many cohorts in the state controlled media. Will he choose to stand with the people or with a government that wishes to oppress the people? I think it very safe to say that it ain't dead yet, and until that finally ruling comes, I think it would be very unwise, even foolish, on our part to proclaim it as being so. I trust no one in government to do what most of us would consider as being the right thing. Therefore, we would be much better served if we were to continue to operate under the assumption that it may not get repealed. There is a reckless disregard for our Constitution as written, and it must not be taken for granted that those on the Supreme Court will not suffer from some sudden bout of amnesia. It would best for all of us if we were to adhere to those very prophetic words uttered by Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over." And with the crowd that is currently running things, even when it's over, it might not be over.
No comments:
Post a Comment