NRO Newsletters . . . Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty
March 27, 2012
|
Here's your Tuesday Morning Jolt!
Enjoy.
Jim |
| 1. Obamacare in Court: Oyez, Oyez, Oy Vey!
Get ready for a Supreme Court decision later this year, warns Phil Klein of the Washington Examiner: There seemed to be little appetite from [the] justices of the U.S. Supreme Court for delaying a ruling on the underlying constitutionality of President Obama's national health care law in this morning's oral arguments, though they differed on their reasoning.
In 90 minutes of oral arguments justices considered whether an 1876 law called the Anti-Injunction Act bars the Court from ruling on the suit at this time. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, people cannot challenge a tax in court until after they have paid it. If the act were found to apply, it would effectively punt the issue until at least 2015.
Both the Obama administration and the 26 states challenging the law along with the National Federation of Independent Business agree that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply in this case, for different reasons. At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orrin Kerr notes: In today's argument, Chief Justice Roberts had an interesting series of questions on a matter that we debated a bit here at the blog: If the penalties for violating the individual mandate are really weak, is the regulation really a "mandate"? The exchange arose when Greg Katsas (a lawyer challenging the mandate) argued that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the real purpose of the lawsuit is to challenge the individual mandate, not the collection of taxes, and that the mandate and the penalty for violating the mandate should be construed as two very different things. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog adds: When Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., commented at the end of Monday's first day of hearings on the health care law, "We'll continue argument on this case tomorrow," it seemed to have a secondary meaning even if he did not intend it. The comments and questions of the Justices during the 89-minute exchange left the distinct impression that they are prepared to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, and not push the issue off into the future. The exact route they would take was a bit uncertain, but their skepticism about taking a pass now was clear.
That did not mean, of course, that the Court would ultimately uphold the mandate. That is tomorrow's question, although the Justices asked many questions about the mandate, showing they are deeply curious about its scope and meaning. But an argument that at times seemed almost to bog down in the dense complexity of the tax code pointed toward a refusal to bar the lawsuits that had challenged the mandate and had put its survival before the Court this week. One of the telltale signs of that sentiment was that not one Justice, and no lawyer at the lectern, said that it would be premature and a contradiction of the Court's tradition against deciding constitutional issues prematurely for the Court to rule promptly on the mandate's validity. Our Charles Cooke observes, "It's bizarre how many people seem to think that their personal like or dislike of Obamacare determines its constitutionality." |
2. Give Me Space, Comrade!(Director's note: This section of the Jolt is best enjoyed while listening to the soundtrack of The Hunt for Red October.)
Sure, there's nothing unnerving about this exchange: At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him "space."
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange: President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you . . .
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir. All of Obama's fans will insist that this is nothing new -- that the president is just observing the obvious.
Poppycock. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the United States and Russia are at loggerheads much more often than they are in agreement. We want tougher sanctions on Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, or any other trouble spot, but you usually can count on the Russians to threaten a veto at the United Nations and bellow their tired talking points about Western imperialism. They invaded Georgia. They've had the Russian fleet do maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy. They send their arms to just about anybody who's willing to buy them. Their notion of "free elections" is a sick joke. Before the so-called reset and after, the Russians seem to define their interests in opposition to ours.
If Obama wants more "flexibility," it can't be the flexibility to take a tougher line. Republicans in Congress would back that. No, if he wants flexibility, it must be the freedom to make concessions that would be politically difficult -- or even outrageous -- today.
At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey concludes: This, to quote our Vice President, is "a big f*****g deal." What solution does Obama envision that would pay off for Putin so much that the Russians would agree to the "space" necessary by keeping quiet about US plans for its deployment? The only possible answer would be the dismantling of even the smaller missile-defense system to which Obama committed in 2009. And it looks as though Obama has already tipped his hand to the Russians -- against whom this particular defense system would be mainly ineffective anyway -- in exchange for political assistance to influence the election. "The man has big plans for us -- the kind of plans he won't be sharing with the American people. Not yet," warns Scott Johnson. "Something tells me this next election is a big one. Let's kill Obama's 'space' program."
"What you've seen during his first term is nothing compared to what you'll see if he gets a second term," concludes Bruce McQuain at Questions and Observations. There will be no constraints on him by the need for re-election. Although it may be hard to believe, that has held him back somewhat this term. He has also shown more than a slight propensity to go off on his own if he doesn't get what he wants from Congress. Given how the Congressional races are shaping up, that seems to be something he'll probably suffer again during his second term.
While that may slow him down a bit, he feels he'll have enough "flexibility" that he'll be able to act on his own and through the agencies and departments he owns to push his agenda. If, by some horrendous turn of events he is re-elected and the Democrats somehow wrest full control of Congress from the Republicans again, then the scenario becomes even darker. We can't afford to take that chance.
The hot mic reveals a man biding his time and planning an unrestrained second term in which he'll pursue his agenda by whatever means are available to him.
Hopefully, by this time next year, the only flexibility he'll be exercising is deciding whether or not he should go golfing, work on planning his library or do both on a beautiful Chicago day. |
3. Who Knows What Newt Will Do without Anyone Watching Him? Hey, where's everybody going? This primary is just getting started! Newt Gingrich has lost his last embedded print reporters, reporters on the trail confirm.
The last two print reporters covering Gingrich full-time on the trail -- from POLITICO and the Atlanta Journal Constitution -- pulled out on Friday. The Associated Press pulled its embed after Tuesday's Illinois primary.
These and other print outlets will continue to cover Gingrich on occasion, but the sustained traveling press has been reduced to the television networks, which will remain. If you thought Newt Gingrich's rhetoric was provocative before, just wait until he starts trying to get attention! |
4. Addendum
Iowahawk makes sense of the legal arguments over whether the individual mandate's fee is a tax or not: "Apparently there was a big argument at the Supreme Court today between the Obama Administration and itself." |
| | | | Save 75% . . . Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the regular subscription rate. Click here for details. Check out all of NRO's free newsletters: Morning Jolt, The Goldberg File, NRO Digest, and NROriginals. Click here for details. 
|
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Join the Morning Jolt Mailing List - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | |
Comments
Post a Comment