This is why the Obama election is critical

I have said it before and I shall say it again - well, that's what boring old farts are supposed to do - the defeat of Obama in the next election is critical for the medium term future of the United States.  Not because of any of the hopeless, helpless and hapless policies he might try and shove through, but for one huge, over-riding consideration - if he wins he is likely to choose the next Justice of the Supreme Court.  At the moment, there are four Democrat nominated Justices.  It is generally reckoned that being ideologically driven they vote as a bloc and they vote in favour of anything that increases Federal government power.  The remaining five Justices are republican picks but, in the nature of conservatives, they can differ on matters of ideology and therefore, legal interpretations.

The Washington Times sums it up in a report on the case facing the Court today:

For the past 70 years, liberal-minded justices have taken more uniform views of how far federal power extends while the lines are much more jumbled when it comes to conservative jurisprudence, court watchers say.

Hmmmn!  Let me see, 70 years back, that would take us back to Roosevelt's time -need one say more?!

Virtually everyone agrees that the four Democrat-appointed justices will move to uphold the law. Few doubt that Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by Mr. Obama, will join Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, in upholding as constitutional the mandate that individuals obtain medical insurance and the massive Medicaid expansion.

But, in the nature of conservatives, the Republican pick are much less likely to be the slaves of ideology.  Some of them actually remember that they are supposed to use the Constitution as the basis for judging whether an act is legal or not:

But among the five other justices, conservative stalwart Clarence Thomas is the only one viewed as a sure vote against the mandate and possibly other parts of the law.

So court watchers are left scratching their heads over Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. While these four are generally regarded as conservatives, conservative jurisprudence isn’t as ideologically predictable on the issues the case raises.

The matter they are considering is the legality of Obama's much vaunted Health Bill which requires, nay, it orders, American citizens to take out health insurance with private companies.  If the court takes the decision that such an apparent infringement of the rights of the individual is unconstitutional, then Obama's dream boat turns into a Titanic!  Nobody is certain but the odds are on Obama's law squeezing through.

However, that is not my main point.  There are two Justices on the court who have a history of ill health.  One is 'Democrat' and should she die and Obama picks her replacement nothing changes.  However, the other is the Chief Justice, a Republican pick, who has suffered with some sort of seizures from time to time.  Should he die or take early retirement then, assuming he wins the next election,  Obama picks his successor and the Court swings definitely to the Left.  An Obama win with a decidedly Left-wing Supreme Court will inflict lasting damage on the United States.

 

Comments

[JK]

You'll've course heard it first from ol' JK weighing in - recall my saying your proclamation David, "Romney's a shoo-in?" not so fast there mate [did I get that correctly? "Mate" I mean - here we use "Buddy"] anyway, Scalia will vote to uphold.

Surprisingly, maybe to you, I think it will be a Dem appointed Justice who is most likely to declare it unconstitutional - Justice Kennedy.

[JK]

Oops. Sincere apologies Justice Kennedy. Incidentally - I moved - I'm now residing in the Aleutians.

[David Duff]

This comment is from Andra who had difficulty posting it:

Why doesn't anybody want Americans to be able to go to a hospital without selling a kidney and a leg or two?
I simply don't understand this.
JK - great to hear your sweet voice.

[Andra]

Mate? Are you trying to pass as an Aussie now?

[Andra]

And furthermore - Why doesn't anybody want Americans to be able to go to a hospital without selling a kidney and a leg or two?
I simply don't understand this.
JK - great to hear your sweet voice.

[Andra]

oh hell. overkill

[David Duff]

Oh dear, confusion reigns! I was only responding to your plaintive e-mail, Andra. Anyway, to your main point, Americans will probably have sell more than just a kidney or a leg to pay for Obama's monstrous invention.

JK, I think when I emphasised the chance Romney had I was relying on the analysis of MDA. Alas, the collateral damage brought about by the Republican nomination process has damaged Romney but onthe other hand, as soon as he's nominated they can start to turn the searchlight on Obama's actual record.

[JK]

First things first (I guess, in the American Southern way - "off-topic").

"JK, I think when I emphasised the chance Romney had I was relying on the analysis of MDA. Alas, the collateral damage brought about by the Republican nomination process has damaged Romney but onthe other hand, as soon as he's nominated they can start to turn the searchlight on Obama's actual record." See above. If it goes to the convention - there'll be a mere two months to "explain away" how Romneycare is different from Obamacare.

From a strategic Stand-Back, Romney's is decidedly different - but it will be the great unwashed masses of the American electorate who'll be deciding the ultimate - and there's the rub. The unwashed masses won't differentiate between the strategic and the tactical.

A mere two months to sway "the deciders" isn't enough.

Now. Where was I? Oh yes. Scalia.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scalia-mocks-health-care-law-cornhusker-kickback-provision-205148292.html