More of the lecture

On and on:

With respect to health care, I’m actually — continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That’s not just my opinion, by the way; that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case. I think it’s important — because I watched some of the commentary last week — to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions. The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don’t have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can’t be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That’s part of this law. Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law. So that’s just the part that’s already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014. And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that

in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care.

So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate. Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

The length and defensiveness of this political speech, as well as the trashing of the court, make it seem highly likely that the initial vote was to rule the mandate unconstitutional. We’ll be pretty surprised at this point if that is not the outcome.

3 Responses to “More of the lecture”

  1. Frank Says:

    Wow. Obama thinks he’s the king doesn’t he? I’m hoping our checks and balances work as the founding fathers intended them to work.

  2. F Says:

    So far in his administration, the checks and balances have been prevented from working by our complicit press. When will they learn that they, too will one day be the target of his monomania. “First they came for the gypsies. . .” When will we see an opinion piece in the NYTimes that begins “And now they’re coming for ME”? Because if he has his way, they too are in the crosshairs. Stalin’s purges are instructive. I’m thinking even Rahm Emanuel and Axelrod are expendable someday.

  3. MarkD Says:

    OK, let’s say the court can’t strike down laws. I guess that means Dredd Scott is still in effect…

    This is the emotional tantrum of a fundamentally unserious and thoughtless man.

Leave a Reply