Custom Search

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Obamacare: In Defense Of Verrilli, He Was Asked To Defend The Indefensible

By Susan Duclos

Former White House spokesman Reid Cherlin, who once had the unpleasant job of having to defend Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act, has defended the job Solicitor General Don Verrilli did as he went before the Supreme Court the past three days and attempted to defend Obamacare. Mr. Cherlin writes "It's just that it's so goddamn hard to explain the thing—whether you're the guy answering questions from reporters or the guy answering questions from the nine justices who will decide the bill's fate."

He is talking about Obamacare, a bill that is well over 2,000 pages long. A bill that was passed through a Democratically controlled House of Representatives, a Democratically controlled Senate. Signed by a Democratic President. All of which was done without any Republican support and while 60 percent of Americans were opposed to it.

To this day, two years later, the majority of the public feels aspects of the law, specifically the individual mandate which forces Americans to purchase insurance or they are penalized, believe is unconstitutional. Even supporters of the law show a majority saying it is unconstitutional.

In February 2012, Gallup found that 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate- the government’s requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance — is unconstitutional.

Among those that thought the healthcare law was a good thing, 54 percent believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Even Obama's and Democratic politician's base, the majority of Democrats, come in at 56 percent saying it is unconstitutional.

When Obamacare was signed into law, constitutional scholars said it would be challenged in court on the grounds that it violated the constitution.

Two years later, after multiple lower court challenges the law has been heard by the Supreme Court.

With a good chance that the key part of Obamacare could be overturned and found to be unconstitutional, supporters of the law are attacking the Supreme Court justices and claiming if it is overturned in part or as a whole, then it is judicial activism.

Quick education for those folks and to make as easy as possible for them, let's use the Congress For Kids website:

Judicial Branch: Headed by the Supreme Court. Its powers include interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding cases involving states' rights.

There is a system of checks and balances set up in our Republic, consisting of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch.

One of the powers inherent of the Supreme Court is "The power of Judicial Review gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn state laws and laws passed by Congress."

There are checks and balances for a reason and that is stop any one branch from becoming too powerful and the Judicial Branch is to protect states rights and the constitution.

There have been claims of judicial activism from conservatives when the Court had more liberals on it and there have been claims from liberals when the opposite is true. Anytime a 5-4 decision happens and it falls between those that were nominated by a liberal and those nominated by a conservative, those accusations fly and they always will.

The fact is that Democrats, liberals and Barack Obama have had two years since the passage of the bill to convince Americans that it is constitutional and they have failed, as is evidenced by multiple polls from a variety of organizations showing that the public, by a majority, feel that Congress and Obama violated their constitutional rights by passing Obamacare.

Yet liberals now want to criticize Solicitor General Don Verrilli for being unable to defend what even ordinary Americans find indefensible and he attempted to do so in front of the highest Court in the land.

To top it off, the same people criticizing Verrilli, make no allowances for the fact they they also have not been able to defend the law to the satisfaction of the American people who still find it unconstitutional. Then they criticize him without offering up any better defenses other than they want it so it should be legal.

They are so busy screaming judicial activism because of the questions the conservative justices of the Court asked, they ignore the questions themselves, which if you read the transcripts are valid constitutional questions on the power Congress and Obama attempted to grab when they included the individual mandate in Obamacare to begin with and removed the severability clause which was present in earlier versions of the bill.

Now there is headlines talking about political fallout if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional and parts or even the whole law is struck down.

This is news? This is a surprise? No, it isn't.

Democrats knew there would be political fallout when they passed Obamacare, evidenced by Nancy Pelosi herself saying they had to be prepared to "sacrifice" their jobs to pass it.

Obama himself insisted Congress pass the bill, even against the opposition of the majority of Americans and told Congress to let voters render a verdict, saying "That's what elections are for."

Voters did render their verdict and Democratic politicians did, indeed, sacrifice their jobs, and in 2010 Americans voted Democrats out of power in the House of Representatives in the largest turnover of seats from one party to another, in 70 years.

A recent study has shown that those Democratic losses were a direct result of their votes for Obamacare.

Liberals can blame Verrilli all they want. Democrats can scream judicial activism until they are blue in the face. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, every Democrats that voted for Obamacare that still holds their seat, liberal media and progressive bloggers and now Solicitor General Don Verrilli have proven one thing..... you cannot defend the indefensible.

Obamacare will once again be front and center in an election as it was in 2010, and for once I agree with Obama, voters will render their decision.

"That's what elections are for."


Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Two Arguments

Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Three Arguments