ObamaCare: Have They Conceded Defeat?

Last week, when the Supreme Court held three days of hearings on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, everyone was paying attention to the remarks of Justice Anthony Kennedy since we can pretty much predict how the other eight justices will vote. Those who dare to read the tea leaves concluded that Kennedy will go with the conservatives to hand a 5-4 defeat to President Obama's one legislative achievement. Yet, history has shown that reading tea leaves from justices' questions and remarks isn't always accurate. In spite of that, the Democrats and the White House are talking as if they already know the outcome. Do they?

Last Friday, the Court held what is called a straw vote on the matter. That is not publicly disclosed, but from there, briefs and opinions are drafted by each justice and probably by June, a final decision will be announced. Of course, individual justices can be persuaded and change their minds, but within the Supreme Court itself, the outcome is very likely settled. We just don't know.

Yet, if you listen to the liberal pundits, they are already speculating on whether a health care defeat may work on their behalf in the November elections. President Obama's controversial remarks this week about the Court indicate he may be laying a foundation for his re-election speeches-how an un-elected group of 9 persons is taking away the health care of Americans (hard-working Americans no less).

Of course the idea of a leak in Washington is unprecedented, as we all know, but is it just possible that the White House has been tipped off about that straw vote last Friday? Is it just possible that they have a connection in the Supreme Court?



Nah.                                                      "If you go to Dick Morris.com......"

( I still say she looks like Dick Morris, and we all know no secret is safe with Dick.)

Leaving that aside, is Obama correct when he implied that conservatives are always railing about an activist court that sets aside legislated law? Fair enough, but the hypocrisy argument goes both ways. Liberals have always relied on activist judges to accomplish what they could not achieve legislatively. In this case, it is one thing for someone like Rush Limbaugh to complain about the Supreme Court, but it is quite another for a sitting president to do so. Obama is also incorrect in stating that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to set aside a law passed by a democratically-elected Congress. How do I know? Because Fox's beautiful Megan Kelly told me so today on her show when she mentioned two decisions in the 90s. (You don't think I heard it from MSNBC oaf Ed Schultz, do you?)

I also object to Obama stating that the Affordable Health Care Act passed with a strong majority in Congress. It passed along party lines in the Senate and by 219-212 in the House.

At any rate, I'm not ready to pop the champagne cork just yet. Justice Kennedy is too unpredictable. Maybe it all depends on whether the decision will come down on an odd or even date.