Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A supreme shock for ‘La-La’ libs..........

Posted 2 years ago on March 29, 2012, 1:38 p.m. EST by F350 (-259)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

John Podhoretz Posted: 11:57 PM, March 28, 2012

The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals. They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.

That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court. This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.

Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker and CNN confidently asserted on Charlie Rose at the beginning of the week that the court would rule 7-2, maybe even 8-1 in favor of ObamaCare. The previous week, he called the anti-ObamaCare arguments “really weak.” His view was echoed by an equally confident op-ed assertion by the veteran court reporter Linda Greenhouse, who in The New York Times declared the case against ObamaCare “analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection.” It was quite a change, then, to see Toobin emerge almost hysterical from the Supreme Court chamber after two hours of argument on Tuesday and declare the proceedings “a train wreck for the Obama administration.” Yesterday, after another two hours of argument, he suggested it might even be a “plane wreck.” That was the general consensus across the board. It held that the two lawyers arguing against ObamaCare — Paul Clement and Michael Carvin — were dazzlingly effective, while the administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, put in a mediocre performance. True enough. But here’s the thing: There was nothing new in what Clement and Carvin said. Their arguments were featured in briefs already submitted to the court and available for general inspection. And they’d already been given weight by the two judicial opinions against the constitutionality of ObamaCare issued by federal district court judges — one by Henry Hudson in Virginia in December 2010, the other by Roger Vinson in Florida in January 2011. The briefs exist. The decisions exist. You can Google them. They are strong, fluent, well-reasoned and legitimate. They take ObamaCare seriously, and they argue against it at the highest possible level. Thus, the strength of the conservative arguments only came as a surprise to Toobin, Greenhouse and others because they evidently spent two years putting their fingers in their ears and singing, “La la la, I’m not listening” whenever the conservative argument was being advanced. This is not to say that the pro-ObamaCare side had no arguments. It had plenty of arguments, and by far the most important interlocutor on its behalf was Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her perceptive and crystal-clear questioning of Clement and Carvin should put to rest forever the idea (spread both by liberals and conservatives) that she is intellectually unworthy to serve on the nation’s highest court. The defense of ObamaCare’s constitutionality relies mainly on the truism that everyone is sure to get sick at some point in their lives, and this makes the health-care market unlike any other market. For the liberals, this fact — bolstered by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause — gives Congress the power to compel every adult in the nation to buy a private health-insurance policy. The attack on ObamaCare was that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to force a private citizen into a private contractual relationship. If such a thing is permitted to stand, the anti-ObamaCare forces argue, there will be no limit to Congress’s power in the future. There’s no telling which of 10 possible ways the high court will finally rule. But one thing is for certain: There will again come a time when liberals and conservatives disagree on a fundamental intellectual matter. Conservatives will take liberals and their arguments seriously and try to find the best way to argue the other side. And the liberals will put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/supreme_shock_for_la_la_libs_LkWBvHWTzeCs4gvA3hdHKJ#ixzz1qWq2YVve

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by badreadnaught (55) 2 years ago

Universal heathcare insurance does sound like a noble idea. Why are you opposed to it? I'm not sure what the negative outcomes would be if it were to upheld by the Supreme Court. Would you mind sharing your views concerning why it's a bad thing?

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

By asking this question (assuming you're being sincere) you've demonstrated you know very little about Obamacare and possibly many other things your Democrats are up to and probably shouldn't be voting again until you educate yourself more.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Obamacare has little or nothing to do with Healthcare and more to do with Governmental control and a relinquishment of more of our freedoms for the illusion of some bullshit Government security.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Where was this freedom argument when Bush was eviscerating "real" liberty with his Patriot Act? Or what about attacks on liberty happening today, like when peaceful unarmed protesters are attacked and abused by police? Where's the outrage?

I mean, this "freedom" argument is a purely manufactured argument. Anyway you look at it, you're forced to pay for the healthcare of others, and they're forced to help you pay for your healthcare.

I'm sorry that you view human cooperation as an attack against your freedom, but it's not really. This is not a defense of the healthcare reform act. I wanted a public option, not more cronyism.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Read this and than tell me if your outraged or not? This is the type of thing that you Leftists don't want to know about,this is one of many relinquishment's of freedom compliments of Obamacare.

"This new law requires an RFID chip implanted in all of us. This chip will not only contain your personal information with tracking capability but it will also be linked to your bank account. And get this, Page 1004 of the new law (dictating the timing of this chip), reads, and I quote: “Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment”. It is now the law of the land that by March 23rd 2013 we will all be required to have an RFID chip underneath our skin and this chip will be link to our bank accounts as well as have our personal records and tracking capability built into it."

http://polidics.com/news/another-hidden-secret-in-obamacare-rfid-chip-implants.html

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Leftists, really? Here's some "real" facts:

After the State Department proposed last February to include RFID chips in passports, privacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed concern. Because some RFID chips can be scanned remotely, criminals may be able to covertly scan groups of passport holders at airports, the EFF said in April. RFID passports could thus act as "terrorist beacons," as well as indiscriminately exposing U.S. residents' personal information to strangers.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/123246/united_states_to_require_rfid_chips_in_passports.html

Oh yeah, the ACLU and EFF, real right wing radicals don't you think?

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

But your okay with RFID's as long as it's included with Obamacare,what hypocrisy.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

No I'm not okay with it, but of course the law doesn't require RFID chip implants (it took me a minute to find information on this, but I found it). What the law requires is registration (in the national medical records registry) of all implanted devices. Of course it's referring to things like pacemakers (and in fact this provision wasn't even in the final legislation passed by congress), but that didn't stop Ron Paul & Co. from making their usual wild charges. Funny ....

[-] 1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

So you have no problem with giving Obama even more of your personal medical info? I guess you're not worried about digital records being hacked,yeah that would never happen. You have such blind faith in someone like Obama,how smart is that?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Well, we need a national medical records registry. I mean, as it stands now, our medical information is held by very big private insurance companies, and government holding that information isn't very different. Moreover, government actually has been pretty good stewards of our private information. For instance, tax and social security records are protected from intrusion very aggressively. As a vet (9 years in the Army, just got out this month in fact) the government has a shit load of information on me (and it's never really bothered me). The Army has my DNA (for obvious reasons), my fingerprints, my wonderful picture, and all my biographical information (as does the Veterans Administration). Interestingly, the Army will not even release that DNA information to cooperate with a criminal investigation (not even an internal Army led investigation), not that they would ever have to with me (I'm far too much of a pussy to ever commit a serious crime, but I digress). So yeah, I don't distrust government so much that I have a problem with this (although that doesn't mean I don't distrust government, I just don't take it to absurd levels, particularly where the facts don't suggest a dubious motive). I mean, I have enough problems, I don't need to add unwarranted paranoia to the list :)

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They're gonna have bigfoot put them in, using UFO technology.

It's perfectly safe. Walmarts is paying for it just to mine the DATA.

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

The only "bigfoot" is yours and it's where it's always been,.....in your mouth.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Sorry, smarty pants.

On further investigation I discovered they are contracting it out to chupacabra.

Silly me, I should have known.

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

You mean THE Chupacabra? How keen is that by golly,WOW.

Your such a silly little smarty pants,gosh darn it.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

they libs/dems/marxist will never " get it" it's runs counter to their brainwashing. obama care opens the door for govt control over every aspect of life in america.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Yeah it's amazing how they can't seem to comprehend the enormity of the truth about Obamacare. These are what can be referred to as Drones. Closed minded,brainwashed Drones.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you have the 60's protestors ( ayers- good friend of obama, in particular) teaching in the colleges. they are "teaching" generations of mush brains that capitalism is evil, that the usa is evil. it's a sickness that pervades hollywood, and the media in general. the goal of socialism is marxism. the goal is to take down the usa from within. destroy religion and those that are religeous, destroy the family, and a breakdown morality. have the population dependent on the govt. for everything.

[-] 2 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

I am a "Lib" and i try to view the opinions of conservatives open-mindedly, especially in terms of abortion. I have found that the issues i have are not with conservativism, which I respect, even when i don't agree, but with the current direction of the Republican party.

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (54) 2 years ago

The democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans.

The "smart" libertarian socialists always talk about socialism being the solution but they never found the time to call the people to build socialism or communism.

They can simply call the people to build cooperatives and that will create democratically run workplaces.

But they are just charlatans, like any other politicians. They always tell to the people that "it's not their fault", and "the new (socialist) system will fix everything for them". Like any other politician. They just want power, they don't want solutions, and that's why they don't engage the people into building solutions

[-] 1 points by Truth4Life (43) 2 years ago

It has been proven that as many as 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care coverage. This means that as many as 900,000 have needlessly died over the past 20 years. The saddest part being that this makes the '' pro life '' RepubliCONS gloat. What a sick and pathetic thing it is to be a RepubliCON.

[-] -3 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Yo Leftist jerk off,your Messiah Obama has some very stringent new CAFE standards,here are some of results of prior CAFE standards and we can only expect much more carnage from Obama's standards.

"The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards."

"The evidence clearly shows that smaller cars have significant disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside the vehicle must absorb. Consequently, the weight and size reductions resulting from the CAFE standards are linked with the 46,000 deaths through 1998 mentioned above, as well as thousands of injuries. It is time that policymakers stop defending the failed CAFE program and start valuing human lives by repealing the standards."

Now this increase in mortality has been proven so I'm not sure how you can continue to make a case that Demonrats value life more when you Leftists worship at the alter of Abortion and embrace even more deathly CAFE standards.

You are a clueless Leftist hypocrite.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

If republicans would just learn how to drive, we wouldn't have this problem :)

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Ha,now I know you have a sense of humor.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Do you have something a bit more up to date?

Things have changed since 1999.

[-] -3 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

That's pretty funny,I'm sure we could find the data. Would you not think however,that the death toll would better much greater based on increasingly more stringent CAFE standards (Bush IS to blame here also)?

My point is that no one party or Admin. has a pious lock on valuing human life and these policies regardless of whom enacts them sometimes have fatal results. I do however strongly disagree with Truth4Life and his bullshit assertions about Republicans somehow not valuing Human life because they disagree with Obamacare.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

OK?? Where's the DATA "we" can find, and who's we?.

Then you get off on something else entirely.

You're such a smarty pants.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Well,you're like not smart and I'll bet you wear a disgusting Depends under your pants.

Comprehension issues plaguing you again?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Not me.....Smarty pants.....YOU! lack of comprehension indeed.

Where's the DATA?

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Indeed!!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

do you have mandatory auto insurance in your state?

[-] -3 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Check this link to this article out,it will clear up your fallacious Democrat talking point.

Obamacare vs. Car Insurance

I wrote this article because I got tired of people comparing affordable care act to car insurance. Being an independent agent and selling health insurance, I've am both the policyholder and knowledgeable about the products available. I can tell you, Obamacare has very little in common with car insurance.

http://www.4carinsurancequotes.com/ACA.htm

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

so you have a financial stake in all this. :) btw saw your presentation, looks like a decent plan where there was none before.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Obama Obama the light comes throw your window

it penetrates you gown

Obama Obama

no. fear, weakness

must stop now

stop now

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Little Boy Blue,he needed the money.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

This is a must read post for anybody that knows a Lib.

[-] -3 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

I don't know one single liberal. Last I heard they all died or accepted the current communist regime.

[-] -2 points by e2420 (-28) 2 years ago

my favorite headline:

"Obama lawyer admits health care reform may have been a mistake as he pleads with Supreme Court to let voters decide fate of controversial law"

[-] -2 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

Yeah,like the same way they gave voters a chance to decide in the first place.