Eleanor Clift: President Sent ObamaCare to Supreme Court Because He's Afraid He Won't Get Reelected
Newsweek's Eleanor Clift made a rather shocking prediction on this weekend's "McLaughlin Group."
"Obama’s justice department took the, asked for healthcare ruling from the Supreme Court because they’re nervous that they’re not going to be in office a year and a half from now" (video follows with commentary):
Makes you wonder what her thinking is here.
Does the Obama-loving Clift think the Supreme Court would be less likely to overturn ObamaCare while its creator was still in office, or does she believe a ruling regardless of the decision would improve the President's reelection chances?
Maybe Clift saw syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on Fox News's "Special Report" Friday saying that this is a win-win for Obama whichever way the Court rules:
If it is upheld, then it will give something of a boost in public opinion because it will be seen as legitimate. It will help its legitimacy and slightly and at least marginally increase the popularity. If it's struck down, it removes an albatross around Obama's neck. It will be a moot issue.
Is this Clift's thinking?
As her last column was "Obama's Good News on Health Insurance," maybe she'll explain her prediction in the next one.
Stay tuned.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
She's right
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 4:51pm.
and there's two reasons they're going to the Court now.
1. They were likely to lose on Appeal in the 11th.
2. If this gets dragged out until 2013 and Obama loses in 2012, there will be a Republican-appointed Attorney General who won't defend it. It's either now or never.
Agreed....
Submitted by C-townGiant on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 5:23pm.
But unlike Krauthammer, I do not believe this will be a political victory for Obama, whichever way the SCOTUS rules.
If they overturn it, which seems highly likely, then Obama will be seen as someone willing to circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America to achieve his political goals. Add that to his end-run on the illegal immigration issue, and telling the DOJ to NOT enforce the DOMA, and you have ample evidence that Obama cares nothing about "law."
If they uphold it, then ObamaCare has the stench of legitimacy, but the people still oppose it by overwhelming margins. Thus, they will vote to get rid of ObamaCare the only way they can: get rid of Democrats, at all levels of federal government. Not saying they would be successful, but it woul dbe highly motivating, regardless of who the GOP nominee is.
C-town---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 5:44pm.
I agree with your 'agreed' post.
Nicely done.
MD
Very good post C-town
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 6:06pm.
That was a great take on Barry, I think you nailed it. Good job!
Ctown...
Submitted by packman on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:15pm.
Where have you been...???...talk about hitting the proverbial nail on the head! This prez & WH does nothing except what benefits them. They are not interested in what is good for the country, only for what keeps them in office. I think that beyond your obviously excellent reading of the situation, they are literally afraid for their political lives.
And I especially like your take - "I do not believe this will be a political victory for Obama, whichever way the SCOTUS rules.." You have no idea how much hope that engenders for us who truly love this country! What a great thing to ponder on...that no matter which way it goes, Odumbo loses!
Yippee-yi-yo-ki-yay!
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
I guess we are about to find out if the SCOTUS really is...
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 5:44pm.
...conservative.
Obamacare should be declared unconstitutional in its entirety, as the federal government has no constitutional basis for being involved in health care at any level, and getting rid of this hideous law will be a big step toward (hopefully) making that happen.
The federal government is out-of-control and rapidly encroaching into areas it has no business being in.
We have to start knocking it back for-real, or we will soon find ourselves living under tyranny, which we are already sliding into.
What concerns me here is that this is essentially the same "conservative" court that brought us Kelo.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
No way it's conservative, Dave.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 5:51pm.
Unfortunately, I have a very sick feeling that they will give the little RFBSOB exactly what he wants.
I wonder if Kagan will recuse herself. Don't bet on it.
It is going to be messy.
All the liberals
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 6:00pm.
........saying Thomas should recuse himself pay no attention to Kagan. If Thomas should, Kagan should even moreso.
Nb,
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 6:07pm.
It is going to be messy.
And not a little scary, either.
As I see it, it's 50/50.
Maybe.
The entire law has to be tossed, and not just merely the "mandate" part of it., as even without it, Obamacare will wreck our health care system completely.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Not only will it wreck our
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 6:51pm.
Not only will it wreck our private healthcare system (which it is designed to do), but by doing so, it will also put even MORE negative pressure on our allready poor economy and financial status - which it is ALSO designed to do!!!
My bet is the Supremes
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 9:14pm.
My bet is the Supremes overturn o'bamacare -- and then outlaw o'bama ignores the ruling. And the MSM backs him up on it. It might even go completely unreported by the MSM.
Why not? Who says this isn't plausible? o'bama has broken so many laws now that he is feeling real, real comfortable doing so.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
If it is overturned, most likely it will only be certain parts.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:19pm.
Without the mandate, the bill is useless. That is really the core question before the court. Although they have supported expansion of the commerce clause into previously uncharted territory, it remains to be seen if they will have the cojones to stop this horrible overreach once and for all. Like many of their recent decisions, I fear they may reach some kind of limited decision which puts everything back into the hands of Congress rather than slapping down the overreach by the legislative and executive branches. Should they accept the case, before the hearing I hope they play O'batears insult to them at the State of the Union where he openly harrassed them over the "Citizens United" case. That might remind them of the type of slimy nonsense that brought them to this point and hopefully they will administer a much needed smackdown to the Democrat political orgasm of socialized medicine.
While we give C-town appropriate kudos
Submitted by packman on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:25pm.
you also come behind in no category, Dave. You succinctly state, and very eloquently I might add...."the federal government is out-of-control and rapidly encroaching into areas it has not business in..." Good point. And one that every American should be waking up to, if they haven't already.
Somehow state's rights have fallen into the gutter, as the spectral entity known as "The Federal Government" has risen to a new level of power under the Odumbo administration and now slowly and insidiously injects itself into practically every aspect of our lives. We are told what kind of car we must drive, what kind of food we must eat, that we cannot prosecute illegal immigrants....the list goes on. And of course we "must" purchase a product, i.e., "health care."
I wonder how many of our fellow countrymen realize how far down the slope we have slid toward tyranny under the ZERObama regime...???
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Careful, Noel
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 6:51pm.
I think it best to not delve too deeply into Eleanor's mind or you might go over the Clift.
President Monroe's Response...
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:16pm.
....to Obamacare.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2010/03/president_monroes_response_to_obama...
The Hammer is a smart man, however
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 9:33pm.
He has it wrong. If it passes in court, the bummer will be hated more. Does the Hammer really think we love all the rules/laws that are forced upon us? Does he really think that attempting to force this and failing can show as a positive for the bummer?
How could his bill's defeat be a good thing for him? What planet was the Hammer on when he made such a statement? A planet apparently where having your signature piece of legislation flushed down the toilet (as it should be), is a good thing.
Perhaps he's bought into the
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 12:54pm.
Perhaps he's bought into the alleged "foregone conclusion" that Romney will be our nominee. In that event, Obeyme will be able to hang Romneycare around his opponent's neck. "I tried it too and it didn't work."
You don't need to deceitfully shove "legitimate" through
Submitted by TerryWest on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:10am.
The majority of the country will never see Obamacare as legitimate no matter what the supreme court ruling is, I'm not sure where Krauthammer got the idea people will accept it as such if they uphold it.
Was he in the country as it was being shoved through, as deception after deception moved it along it's back alley path? What part of the bills conception, introduction, it's vague content and untruthful claims, method of passage deems it legitimate under any circumstance?
Krauthammer is an enormously respected psychiatrist.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:19am.
As I practice psychiatry and neurology (dual board certifications), Dr. Chuck is enormously respected within the medical specialty for being a trailblazer in treatment of resistant bipolar disorder, major depression and certain forms of schizophrenia. He was one of a handful of psychiatrists who bucked the normal trend of throwing up your hands in desperation and actually did major clinical research that made a difference in the lives of thousands, if not millions, of patients. He truly was a medical pioneer and has earned a voice in the health care dialogue precisely because he witnessed first hand, as as policy maker, what a pit of ignorance and stupidity that Washington is when it comes to caring for patients. I don't give the man the status of anything but a pioneer in the care and treatment of mental illnesses to which he has contributed so much. I have not always agreed with him, but his research and contributions alone are enough to give him instant credibility.
Having personally met the man at a conference this past year, he is a reserved but dynamic speaker when he describes his devotion to a reasoned analysis of healthcare needs in this country. The same cannot be said of the idiot Secretary of HHS and her boss, Chairman Incompetence.
With its present configuration, a SCOTUS ruling is a tossup. But
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 2:31am.
even though Ruth Bader Ginsburg has indicated she has no current plans to retire, her remaining on the SC through the 2012 election is not a foregone conclusion. She is 78 years old and was treated for pancreatic cancer a couple of years ago. If Obama loses next November, a Republican president would choose her replacement thus making the affirmation of Obamacare [presumably] more problematic. Seeking a ruling beforehand would at least avoid that potential logistical problem for the administration.
Of course it should be pointed out that the individual mandate was at one time a provision looked upon favorably by conservative think tanks interested in preserving a market-based system as opposed to single-payer government healthcare. Once it was made an integral part of Obamacare, however, it quickly became the linchpin for GOP opposition on constitutional grounds.*
Jer
edit. *In other words, they were for it before they were against it.
"Of course it should be
Submitted by goodone91 on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 1:26pm.
"Of course it should be pointed out that the individual mandate was at one time a provision looked upon favorably by conservative think tanks interested in preserving a market-based system as opposed to single-payer government healthcare."
Do you have any EVIDENCE for this, Jer?
Do I have EVIDENCE, goodone?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 6:22pm.
Google conservatives supported individual mandate. You'll immediately be linked to voluminous EVIDENCE.
Jer
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 9:28pm.
Actually, the burden of proof is on YOU.
But thanks for admitting yet again that you believe that government's sole reason for existence is to baby people.
More medical bills arrived for me today, but I happily paid them, knowing that MY medical issue is NOT society's problem, never has, and never will be.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What???!!!! I can't believe that of all people, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 11:14pm.
YOU are the one posting that comment. You, whose customary response to a request for corroboration is one of assorted variations of "don't bark orders at me...I'm not your google monkey...read the following books..."
In this case, I, as usual, began a search for the requested evidence intending to link one or more sources for goodone. But, upon finding that typing in the words I referenced in my reply virtually the entire first page of google results linked RELEVANT, CORROBORATING information, I suggested he follow suit. I wasn't exactly creating an onerous task for goodone.
Regarding your latest mischaracterization of my position on the role of government: duly noted.
Jer
Unfortunately for you...
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 8:39pm.
Sadly, it isn't a mischaracterization. If it is, may I suggest that you can always remain on the Left while divorcing yourself from your beloved party?
I'm running a CBA now on getting medical insurance. It STILL isn't worth it...though my company offers an MSA. THAT sounds mighty appealing to me. That I might do as it is cost effective. But again, I still don't see why I can't just go to a bank and set one up that way. I don't go through my company to get auto insurance or property insurance, or to set up bank accounts, so why should I to get medical anything?
Charity, Jer. It's not spelled g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Jer is one of those who thinks Eleanor Clift is...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 6:21pm.
likeable.
I don't know Clift, webster...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 6:29pm.
nor have I read anything about her personality or general disposition, so I have no idea whether she is likeable or not. She did write a very thoughtful column about Robert Novak--an ideological adversary of many years--after his death. But for all I know, she could be a hateful shrew.
Jer
Eleanor Clift is Edith Bunker
Submitted by jkwtrading on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 12:07pm.
Eleanor Clift is Edith Bunker in the flesh.
That is an insult to Edith Bunker. Edith Bunker was...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 6:26pm.
likeable. Does anyone except the most rabid of liberals believe Eleanor Clift is likeable? I think not.