Obamacare, the signature legislation of Obama and that which liberal/socialists hold as a triumph, is on the ropes. With 2 days of Supreme Court arguments complete and but 1 day to go, even liberal pundits are scared Obamaless.
Upon the bench, there are 4 liberal Justices…4 Conservative Justices…And 1 swing vote.
It is NOT just Obamacare which hangs in the balance. The future of the republic is at stake. The Constitution is at stake. The intentions of the framers…Also is on the edge of oblivion. The decision, which is expected in June, will either save our Constitution and the intent of the founders that government should be limited, or toss them from the proverbial cliff in favor of socialism.
At the center of this most important decision both figurative and literally, is a single Justice.
Anthony Kennedy. Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Upon HIS shoulders rests the future of the republic.
While in the 2nd day of arguments, Kennedy seemed at odds with the Obama barrister…there were, as thin as they were, threads of hope from this Justice to those who support socialist healthcare.
Those who were in the room as the arguments were rendered say it looks as though Obama’s case is on the ropes. They has said it was a brutal day for the government, but there are still those, including some who used the rope analogy, who believe somehow, some way, Kennedy WILL vote in their favor.
Somehow they hold onto the thread of hope and believe Obamacare WILL be found…Constitutional.
On the conservative side of punditry, predictions are that Justice Kennedy will ultimately rule against the individual mandate and, thus, be the swing vote bringing down Obamacare.
I believe it hinges on one word and I also believe that Kennedy may well have tipped his hand today.
Think of it.
6 unprecedented hours of oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court. Years of preparation on both sides of the issue. With the world watching, the direction Justice Kennedy might take…boiled down to a single word.
It’s stunning.
As I understand it, that word came near the end of the 2nd day of arguments.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: “But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative 
act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”
Liberals will say one cannot possibly formulate anything based upon a single word. After all, they ARE the bunch who were unable to arrive at the definition of…”Is.”
Liberals too are the bunch who, on the first day of Obamacare arguments, argued that the penalty was a tax and on the 2nd day had to argue that the tax was a penalty…Or was it the other way around? It is so hard to keep track when the Obama mouthpiece takes both sides of the same argument on consecutive days while attempting to make having it both ways seem sensible.
It’s a bit like liberal/socialists advocating socialism while at the same time calling conservatives vile names for referring to THEM as socialists.
One word? Can we really see which way Justice Kennedy is leaning based on a single word?
Supreme Court Justices are not known for being fast and loose with their words. They mean what they say and words, even single words as a part of a statement, mean something.
Let’s again, look at Justice Kennedy’s statement: “But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
And there it is.
That one, singular word.
“Fundamental.”
It’s a most important word especially when placed in historical context.
After all, we are talking about Obamacare and therefore, we are talking about Obama.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated, emphatically…
“We are going to fundamentally change America.”
Oh yes, we remember it well and even then, at the moment he said it, we pounced.
Obama wants to “Fundamentally change America?” Yes, that has been his goal all along. Fundamental change.
What better way to bring about “Fundamental change” to this nation than by ripping up the Constitution? What better way than by extending government control over every aspect of a person’s life? Mandate that the people purchase a good or service and get away with it and you can then mandate they do anything, buy anything.
If you can write legislation which has to be passed before anyone can see what’s in it…If you can create commerce by the stroke of the pen just to have something which you, as the government, can regulate…If you can regulate INactivity and MANDATE purchases of goods or services have you NOT changed America in a most fundamental way???
Indeed.
Note that this was not a question. Justice Kennedy issued the words as a statement. A STATEMENT. Questions can go either way but a statement is a STATEMENT.
“But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act…. And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
Justice Kennedy is “Concerned”…that Obama is saying the Federal Government has a “Duty” to tell “INDIVIDUALS” that they 
must “ACT” and that is “DIFFERENT” from what we have in “PREVIOUS” cases (no precedent) and that “CHANGES” the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very…”FUNDAMENTAL”…way.
Were Justice Kennedy leaning in favor of Obamacare…he would not be “Concerned” by the “Fundamental” change it would force upon the American citizens!
Justice Kennedy’s use of that word, “Fundamental” was no accident. In fact, should Kennedy be called upon to pen the written opinion on this case, expect to see that word again.
If the liberal members of the bench stick to their ideology, this will indeed be a 5-4 decision and the mandate will be stricken while the rest of Obamacare will be left intact requiring Congressional repeal in 2013 to do away with it completely.
My fear is that regardless of kennedy’s beliefs, OR statement, $oro$ will whack his knees, and he will fold, permanently rendering obamacare forever constitutional…
I believe the founding Fathers (framers of our country) set up the 3 houses to keep this type of “mandate” from happening. The House, the Senate, and the President are under a falsehood that the Voters / Tax Payers work to support them. I believe it is time that “We the People” remind Washington D.C. that in truth, it is the Elected Officals that work for the United States of America and “MUST” answer to each and every legal America Citizen.
Yes, it is time to take back America. To remind Washington D.C. that WE DO have a voice and it is it is Washington D.C. that “MUST” pay the price for not listening to the American People. This is an Election Year and “We the People” know that we must return Controll to The American People and not the Elected Officials that work for us.
I believe that if Obama is re-elected, it will be due to Obama’s interferance in the voter ID laws that most of the states already have in place. Also, voting machines are nothing more that computers and computers can be hacked and tampered with.
I will get off my soap box now (as my Mother would say) Craig. Keep the great articales coming.
Craig, your insight is always “fundmentally” CORRECT on Constitutional matters. You hit the nail on the head again, regarding Justice Kennedy’s use of the word “fundamental” in your analysis of the intent of OBAMACARE in and of itself–has been the lynchpin of America’s future hanging in the balance. “Fundamental change” indeed would occur, should this massive, intrusive, controlling legislation be left standing after the U.S. Supreme Court renders its decision. Hidden within the structure of this legislation, a Nevada lawsuit declared that 65% of THIS legislation IS Unconstitutional. However, on the face of the case heard at the Supreme Court, we are hearing a focus on one element concerning the primary individual “mandate” that TELLS the citizen what it MUST do “for his/her own good”. Yeh! In a Marxist socialist society which the Obamacare legislation intends to install, as the “fundamental change” to America as we have known it for a few centuries…. It’s TIME to return to our original roots, and begin ROOTING OUT all the inch-worming legislation that brought us to this place today surreptitiously, since the 1930s. GO GINGRICH!