So, two days of oral arguments down, and one more to go. Apparently, those who have watched the courts for years and then fed us their plethora of incorrect predictions of how cases would be decided upon are now telling us that this piece of crap law is indeed in trouble. Jeffrey Toobin, as far a left Obama cheer leader as has ever existed in the MSM drive by media has labeled the day a disaster for the Zero Administration. Before we all get too excited though, bear in mind that those who predict the courts direction based on questions asked during oral arguments have been wrong as often as they have been right. What is wild however, and actually has me feeling as positive for the future of our great nation as I have felt in these past miserable 3 years is this little fact, the spinmeisters have already started with the narrative that if Obama loses this battle, it bodes well for him winning the general election.
Many on our side of America's ideological divide have echoed this sentiment. To my fellow residents of the right, I can not agree with the position that we should allow something bad to stand because it will represent a better victory in the future. I can not root for a prolonged economic malaise and continued hardship, just because it is temporarily expedient from a political perspective. Make no mistake about it, this law, Obamacare, represents the end game for all of our Constitutional Liberties. Many on the left are lamenting the fact the the Obama Administration Solicitor General's performance seems to be not up to their expectations. In his two appearances before the Supreme Court so far, David Verrilli has convinced 0 judges of any of the positions that President Obama dispatched him to argue in favor of. I wouldn't blame David Verrilli however, convincing anyone who is awake that Obama's positions on anything is in keeping with the Constitution as sanely regarded is too tall a task to ask of anyone. President Obama and his minions asked David Verrilli to argue that our Federal Government has the power to force a transaction that constitutes commerce in order that they may then be able to regulate it. Our entire republic's basis is built on the principle that government's authority is limited by the consent of those governed. Obama's position is that there ought to be no limits on what ever authority the Executive Branch wishes to appoint itself. It would be hard for any attorney to argue that position, no matter how slick his or her tongue may be.
The Commerce Clause in our Constitution has been stretched beyond all original intent of our founders. It was originally included solely as a means to prevent Virginia from imposing tariffs on goods produced in Massachusetts which were then sold in Virginia. It was meant as keeping our 50 separate republics on the same currency standard, and to create one economy. by stretching the meaning to include that every citizen in the country be forced to buy a federally approved product, at threat of violence is scary indeed. What happens when the government decides that George Foreman Grills are a basic human necessity due to the healthier diets achieved by people who eliminate all taste from their meats before consumption? A great day for America my friends, that's what. Some small child in California has an asthma attack, and it's forced Chevy Volts for anyone living in Maine. At least that will be a bail out for Government Motors that actually has a chance of succeeding.