Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 The speculation around the web has been that Champ got some leak from the USSC and is trying to pressure them back before a decision is formally announced.
I think it's more basic: he sees that he's going to lose, and he doesn't like losing. Champ is going to do what all progressive thugs do; when confronted with a losing political situation they're going to look for a way to delegitimize the politics, the players, and the situation.
Posted by Steve White 2012-04-03 20:11||
#2 The questions posed on the SG showed the lack of faith in an overarching Commerce Clause constitutional right to do anything Congress wants. That said - a leak from Kagan's or Sotomayor's staff is not an unlikely event. I particularly like the prevalent spin from lbtard "experts" that a partisan 5-4 split shows the Republican-leaning justices are radical partisans, while the loser side of Donk-justices voting lockstep is judicial excellence
Posted by Frank G 2012-04-03 20:14||
#3 There are few real secrets in Washington. Obama could have made the statement weeks ago. He did not. I would put my money on a staffer leak. The timing of his statement is quite revealing. He is a desperate man. Perhaps he will issue an Executive Order and have the SC decision "sealed" similar to personal and professional records until some unspecified future date.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-04-03 20:34||
#4 Obama had a choice between framing the question dishonestly and in an intimidating manner or framing it honestly, e.g., "the SCourt has acquiesced in greater and greater federal power at the expense of the vanishing 10th amendment and it would be unprecedented in the past few decades for the 10th amendment to win one."
Of course presenting it that honestly would give the game away somewhat.
Posted by lord garth 2012-04-03 21:19||
#5 Losing is different from the perception of being a loser.
Losing this case will help Bammo. What can hurt him is the perception of being a losing. So he will frame this as an attack by a radical, right-win court, then run against that court. Now he's not a loser--he's a fighter for justice! Meanwhile, the SCT will helpfully remove the Obamacare straightjacket from the economy so the markets can recover in time for November. It's win-win.
Oh yeah, and since this was Romney's baby in the first place, that helps Bammo too.
Posted by Iblis 2012-04-03 21:23||
#6 "an unelected group of people"
So, he supports those who used the same point about Roe vs Wade. Of course not. It's not and never has been about principle. It's been about POWER.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-04-03 21:41||
#7 "Obama had a choice between framing the question dishonestly and in an intimidating manner or framing it honestly"
Oh, don't be silly, lord garth - in his mind (and I use the term loosely), Bambi never has the choice of being honest.
Posted by Barbara 2012-04-03 22:39||
#8 Unelected group of people?
First of all, Supremes must be confirmed, is that not an election by elected officials?
Second, Richard Cordray.
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-04-03 23:15||
#9 Agree w/ Besoeker's logic. The consesus among the adults at work today was that if Bambi wanted to insult the SCOTUS he could have done it anytime after last Wednesday, but he waited until Monday. That's a trail of bread crumbs so obvious even Wile E. Coyote couldn't phuque it up.
Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-04-03 23:27||
#10 Actually, if Zero loses the case, it's a big win for Romney, in that his past problems with the issue get taken out of his hands, more or less.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-04-03 23:40||
#11 Spent time crafting an unconstitutional boondoggle instead of the economy. Only a fool couldn't use that to advantage.
Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-04-03 23:59||