Was there collusion and intimidation between Obama and the Supreme Court regarding the ObamaCare ruling?
Most will deem those who raise the question to be conspiracy theorists. But we are already called conspiracy theorists for stating Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud. Even Darrell Issa has been lumped into the crazy, knuckle-dragging category for suggesting that Operation Fast and Furious was not a “botched” gunwalking program, but was specifically put in place to demonize U.S. gun dealers and ramp up gun laws. Of course, the fact that Issa has an email stating this doesn’t seem to put a dent in the accusations.
I think the suspicion of a Supreme Court collusion and intimidation is a valid question, given that most of the public and the mainstream media were sure the ObamaCare mandate would be struck down. Given that Obama initially came out swinging with his ludicrous statements about the possibility of the Supreme Court striking down ObamaCare as an “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” This was false on two fronts: 1. This is what the Supreme Court does on a regular basis. 2. ObamaCare squeaked by with a handful of votes, not a “strong majority.”
Obama went further calling the Supreme Court “unelected,” openly mocking the Framers’ wisdom in designing our government.
But as suddenly as Obama began attacking the Supreme Court, he as suddenly dropped the subject and remained quiet. All indications were that he was going to begin a class warfare/racist narrative, calling the conservatives on the Supreme Court a bunch of rich white guys, saving the Uncle Tom designation for Clarence Thomas, which had been rolled out ad nauseam before.
But strangely he remained quiet.
When we learned that Roberts had not only sided with the liberal members on the Court, but also wrote the opinion, for most conservatives it was a punch in the stomach. But when we found out how he sided with the liberals, it was like a slap in the face. The mandate was a tax and could not be construed under the Commerce Clause. One could not be mandated to buy broccoli simply because someone had determined individuals who didn’t eat broccoli were unhealthy, and therefore drove up health costs and therefore affected commerce. But per Roberts one could be taxed arbitrarily if the government deemed it beneficial. Who was Roberts to judge the wisdom of the government? he opined in his opinion: “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness” (44). Well, actually he is there to determine the wisdom, specifically the constitutionality, of our government.
What Roberts didn’t take into account, which the dissenting opinion did, was the fact that the mandate was not passed in Congress, was not signed into law, as a tax. In deciding a court case, even before the Supreme Court, one takes into account witness statements, whereby Obama and a huge gaggle of Democrats had said ad nauseam that the mandate—specifically the penalty for not following the mandate—was not a tax. We, in effect, had Obama on the witness stand, on video, stating it was not a tax, because no one would have voted for it if that word would have been used. So that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy, writing in the dissenting opinion, stated: “[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it (24).”
In simpler terms: words matter.
But as we know, words don’t matter for Obama. That is, he tends to lie repeatedly. We know there are at least forty lies in his memoir Dreams From My Father. He has lied about his radical ties. He lied when he stated that he didn’t know Green Jobs czar Van Jones was openly Marxist, as a simple search on Google showed him stating unequivocally that he was a Marxist.
So we have a man who lies repeatedly. Lied about ObamaCare, not once, but did so on a year-long whirlwind around the country, selling it to the American people. But that doesn’t prove collusion and/or intimidation between Obama and the Supreme Court.
Many on the Right consider the ObamaCare ruling a blessing in disguise. That it will energize the base. That removing Obama now becomes a mandate on repealing ObamaCare. But that interpretation only holds if Roberts’ majority opinion ruling was on the level. If it, in fact, is a Trojan Horse to allow Congress to in effect compel and forbid any behavior—which it basically is, then it is not a blessing. Now the Commerce Clause does not need to be invoked. Congress cannot simply say, “Obese people drive up health costs, thus affecting commerce, so that we have a right to forbid them from eating fast food. We have a right to compel fast food restaurants to stop selling fattening food. We have a right to compel that everyone eats fruits and vegetables.” Now Congress can simply state, “You shall eat fruits and vegetables, and if you don’t, we shall tax you. End of discussion.”
Like most logical conclusions, there is not a definite Yes or No in regards to whether there was collusion and/or intimidation between Obama and the Supreme Court. What we do know is that Obama has proven himself to be a stealth socialist, and that by virtue of the this fact, virtually nothing that he says can be taken at face value. We know that it was extremely odd for a conservative justice to side with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. We know it is odd that Roberts literally had to rewrite the law in order to fit his interpretation.
But there are three valid arguments for a suspicion of collusion and intimidation:
1.Justice Sotomayor seemed to have attempted to steer Obama’s Solicitor General Verrilli towards the mandate-as-tax argument during oral arguments:
“JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: General, could you turn to the tax clause?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I have looked for a case that involves the issue of whether something denominated by Congress as a penalty was nevertheless treated as a tax, except in those situations where the code itself or the statute itself said treat the penalty as a tax. Do you know of any case where we’ve done that?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, I think I would point the Court to the License Tax Case…” (45).
2. It appears that the ObamaCare ruling was leaked to Wall Street insiders ten minutes before it was released. And if it was leaked ten minutes before it was released, there is no reason to doubt that it wasn’t leaked to Obama weeks prior to the decision.
3. National Review Online and other outlets are now reporting that there substantiated allegations of a concerted effort by Democrats and the mainstream media to change Roberts’ decision and/or to intimidate him to strike down the Individual Mandate after it had been learned that he had already sided with the conservative wing of the Court.
Proving collusion and intimidation, however, is another matter.
Photo Credit: McConnell Center Creative Commons
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.