Obamacare is %&@*ing Constitutional?

Well, the unimaginable has happened.  The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the patently unconstitutional Obamacare law does indeed pass constitutional muster.   I am still trying to wrap my mind around the contorted adjudication that rendered THAT decision. 

I fully expected Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg to ignore the Constitution and put their politics above that of our supreme law of the land.  Hell, Kagan was advocating for the law personally and as solicitor general prior to being appointed by Obama to the Supreme Court, so that certainly comes as no surprise, even though she should have recused herself from the decision for that very reason. 

As for Ruth Vader Ginsburg, well her seeming disdain, if not outright loathing, of the Constitution is well known.  After all, she was the one that suggested to the newly elected Egyptian government to NOT use the United States Constitution as a model for their own.  She has long been inclined to look at international law when rendering Supreme Court decisions.  That alone strikes me as a violation of her oath and reason for impeachment from the bench, but I digress.

It is ironic that the “swing voter” Justice Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion in this thoroughly baffling and asinine 5 to 4 decision and correctly stated that the entire law was absolutely un-constitutional. 

It was George W. Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts that appeared to lose all control of his mental faculties and refused to actually apply constitutional law in his decision and thus voted with the “liberal” members of the court in upholding this travesty of a law.  Whereas Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan are all about as useful as football bats, one had hoped that Roberts would have actually perused the Constitution and related law in reaching his decision.  Evidently that hope was misplaced like Miley Cyrus’ virtue.

What I find fascinating is the fact that Roberts and the progressive justices ruled that Obamacare was able to proceed in tact because the federal government could indeed levy such taxes (penalties) for those that did not acquire health insurance in accordance with the law.  Why that is interesting is because during the debate prior to its passage, all the players in support of the law including then-Speaker Pelosi and President Obama insisted that this was not to be considered as a tax, as that would constitutionally invalidate the bill.  Of course we were also told that the law would lower our health care costs and that the entire process would be transparent and debated on C-Span too.

Well now that the left has spoken, there is only one more firewall left to prevent this egregious freedom-stealing, life-destroying, cost-raising law from being fully implemented.  America MUST elect Romney to the presidency and ensure that he has solid majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate so that this monstrosity can be fully repealed.  If we fail to do this as a nation, the law will be fully implemented in 2014.  I fear our nation as we currently know it will not survive if full repeal does not come to pass.

Once people become dependent upon this new program, it will be nearly impossible to repeal.  Never mind the fact that this law has already proven to make the costs for small businesses go up and thus reduced their ability to hire new employees.  Never mind the fact that there are indeed pro-abortion mandates within the law.  Never mind the fact that conscience clauses and religious exemptions are null and void for this law.  Never mind that rationing of critical medical services will indeed occur.  Never mind that medical devices stocks are already plunging today in light of this news.  Never mind that the death panels that Sarah Palin warned us about and was summarily laughed at accordingly will come to pass, albeit under the gentler euphemism of “end of life counseling”.  Never mind that we have created one more entitlement program that is so gargantuan in its scope that it encompasses 1/6 of the nation’s economy.  Never mind that the added costs of this law will add to the already $16 TRILLION debt we currently have as a country and are unable to pay right now.  Yep, never mind.  Instead of being the rugged individuals that fought for and supported liberty in this greatest country on earth, we will have become a nation of progressive victims that look to our nanny government to solve every problem we encounter in our lives.  Those that would proudly take care of themselves and their kin will be looked at as a kind of odd and slightly amusing anachronism to the left.

One wonders, now that the Supreme Court has stated that the federal government can mandate that private citizens must purchase whatever goods or services that the government deems as necessary for the "common good", just where that might take us?  I wonder just how loudly the progressives would scream and whine and gnash their teeth if some future congress and president mandated that every citizen must purchase a firearm, as part of a citizen militia, or face penalties.  There certainly seems to be more constitutional standing for that mandate than there is for Obamacare, not that we are using the Constitution as our standard any more apparently.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t EVER again want to hear the foolish meme from Rachel Maddow and the rest of the useful idiot progressive talking heads on TV and the radio whine about the “right wing Supreme Court”.  That dog simply won’t hunt anymore.  In fact that dog is road kill, along with one more of our essential liberties.

Elena Kagan; Social Justice of the Supreme Court

It was announced yesterday that President Obama has chosen the current solicitor general, Elena Kagan, as his pick to replace retiring justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States. In some ways this is a very smart move on behalf of the President as Ms Kagan has a relatively small paper trail for the senate to peruse through. In other ways, this lack of a judicial past of even having a written decision authored by her makes the confirmation of Ms. Kagan decidedly more difficult.

Many on the right have argued that Ms. Kagan does not have the judicial experience to sit as a Justice on the highest court in the land. Kagan has never served as a judge in any court to date and thus gives pause to some who think that this is necessary for the posting.

I personally do not have a problem with Kagan not having been a judge prior to this. In my opinion, a deep understanding of Constitutional law, the workings of our judicial system, an analytical mind dedicated to serving truth and justice, and plain old common sense are what is most needed for any judge, particularly for one sitting on the Supreme Court. Indeed there have been Justices on the Supreme Court that were not even lawyers, let alone judges, that have served honorably in the past.

The problem is that I do not believe that Kagan has those necessary qualifications. She was a huge fan of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and idolized him in many regards. Accordingly she has agreed with Marshall that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to help the "despised and disadvantaged" of our society. Further, Ms. Kagan has stated how the Constitution itself is a flawed document.

I find it impossible to reconcile these huge conundrums. How is a Justice supposed to interpret a Constitution that she finds to be deeply flawed from the beginning? Further, rather than justice being blind and serving the cause of truth for ALL that come before the court, Ms. Kagan has indicated in previous comments and writings that she, like her hero Thurgood Marshall, thinks the Supreme Court should be used to promote social justice.

This is, of course, is right in line with President Obama's statement saying that he would pick justices that showed empathy for the downtrodden of society. Thurgood Marshall had once stated that he would like to have the Supreme Court refuse to hear cases involving "one fat cat suing another fat cat" and reserve the court for the purpose of righting wrongs against the "despised and disadvantaged". He even tried to convince his other eight fellow justices of this at the time, thankfully to no avail.

Indeed our society as a whole should absolutely help the despised and disadvantaged on an individual basis, but our court system should adjudicate based on law, especially Constitutional law as intended by our Founding Fathers. Anything else is not in the service of "Justice For All", but rather a travesty and misuse of power to further a political agenda.

Now President Obama has an absolute right to nominate whomever he desires to sit on the Supreme Court. That is his Constitutional prerogative and the price we conservatives pay for having lost the presidential election to a socialist. That being said, the Senate also has a right to give advice and consent on the President's nominee. I can only hope that there are enough senators that understand that Elena Kagan would not serve the cause of blind justice for all Americans but rather would likely be an activist Justice that would legislate from the highest court in the land for what SHE felt rather than what the "flawed" Constitution says should be done.

We can only hope that President Obama will be forced to pick again, and this time choose someone that actually has an understanding, reverence, and intention to follow the dictates of our Constitution.