RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

“Could health care ruling redefine federal power?”

Jan Crawford Greenburg (Click image to read her influential article.)

UPDATE: I’m listening via my DVR to Neil Cavuto who interviewed Mark Levin. Like Sen. Mike Lee, Levin mentions Jan Crawford’s article (“Roberts switched views to uphold health care law,” CBS). Levin says Chief Justice John Roberts was “focused on the optics” while Justice Kennedy was “focused on the Constitution.” Levin: “Roberts went political … they want these courts named after them,” e.g. the “Roberts Court” like the “Rehnquist Court.” Levin continues, “It is the most reckless, activist decision … since Roe v. Wade.” More Levin: “If we buy that he threw it to the political branches … he concocted, he rewrote [the Act]. … He reads the tea leaves. This is just the first.” Levin argues we need term limits for justices. (MORE BELOW.)

Original: Earlier I caught this segment of Megyn Kelly’s show and have been waiting for the video to appear so that, if you missed it, you can listen. This Mike Lee is one sharp guy. Megyn isn’t too shabby herself.

You don’t need a wrap-up from me. The video says it all. But I’d love to find out if — as I suspect — you’re hearing similar viewpoints and/or have considered Senator Lee’s points all on your lonesome.

Okay, lonesomes. Have at it.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

More on Jan Crawford Greenburg:

1) She blogs for CBS News at Crossroads. OF NOTE: She is CBS’s chief correspondent for the 2012 presidential election.

2) She authored a book on the Supreme Court: Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court.

Drawing on unprecedented access to the Supreme Court justices themselves and their inner circles, acclaimed ABC News legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg [she formerly worked for ABC News] offers an explosive newsbreaking account of one of the most momentous political watersheds in American history. From the series of Republican nominations that proved deeply frustrating to conservatives to the decades of bruising battles that led to the rise of Justices Roberts and Alito, this is the authoritative story of the conservative effort to shift the direction of the high court-a revelatory look at one of the central fronts of America’s culture wars by one of the most widely respected experts on the subject.

The paperback is available for $6.40 (or less from third-party sellers).

  • yuer442

    tinyurl.com/cozaa3k

  • Pingback: The Supremes Feud + Open Thread : NO QUARTER

  • TexMexSoup

    I personally correlate the Bilderberg group’s recent DC meeting to decide the upcoming election and this supreme court decision. I may be overly cynical though.

  • Popsmoke

    Mark Levin? Bang my head on my desk….

    • scottymac54

      Agree!
      (Savage I can deal with….he reminds me of ten or twenty guys I grew up with).

    • Hokma

      You’re defaming “The Great One” or close to the Great One (next to me).

  • Hokma

    Slightly OT – - – -

    Romney can definately win this election but ONLY if he fires this senior campaign advisor, Eric Ferhnstrom.

    This is the jerk that said that from the primary campaign to the general election campaign, Romney can change his positions because it’s like an Etch-A-Sketch.

    Now this moron was on MSLSD and saying that Romney believes that the mandate IS a Penalty and is NOT a tax.
    The campaign went into overdrive to backtrack from that idiot remark.

    I would strongly suggest that Romney put gaffer tape over Ferhnstrom’s mouth and also lock him in a private sound proof room with no windows until election day.

    • scottymac54

      You may be right. That comment will not appeal to Romney’s base (although they’ll vote for him anyway).
      It might affect his donations.

    • jrterrier

      i already sent an email to the campaing telling them that ferhnstrom has to go. i am hopeful that enough of us (small donors) will do the same that the campaign will get the message.
      on top of that, he was on one of the sunday shows last month and he did not impress me at all.

      • scottymac54

        Well, I’ll tell you, I’m always so absorbed with equating the two parties, I forget to remember just what Dem partisans do, when confronting with this kind of “opportunity”….
        http://www.mediaite.com/tv/top-romney-advisor-eric-fehrnstrom-romney-does-not-believe-health-care-mandate-is-a-tax/
        Scroll down to the middle of the comments…
        Now, some are typically overwrought, but I would think folks are going to be watching Romney VERY carefully to see how he reacts.
        Ferhnstrom may HAVE to be fired, because his poor judgement in messaging is totally going to be projected onto Romney, and GOP leaders and spinmakers will be furious, if this is played off as Romney not having his own ducks in a row.
        It will be seen as a harbinger for how Romney would handle “rogues” on his staff, which really isn’t fair, but…..
        Some of the Republican commenters seem to indicate a lack of confidence in Ferhnstrom specifically.
        It seems to me to be a tempest in a teapot, but, I guess it would piss me off as well, if I were a donor.

    • Wisewoman2

      I agree. He was pathetic. I agree with Rupert Murdock Romney needs to get some pros who understand this is the big times. He needs to put someone in charge of his campaign who knows what he is doing and has been around the track. They will be going up against Axelrod and his dirty politics. It is not a place for the faint of heart or measly mouth vanilla, amateurish people who keep putting their foot in their mouth. The man doesn’t dress right and he needs to get a reasonabIe haircut. I take that back he does not need to ever appear on TV again. I have contributed to him and I will e-mail him with words to that effect.

      • HoosierinDixie

        I agree that Ferhnstrom has to go but I have been impressed thus far with the Romney campaign. They don’t back down from a challenge and are great at counter-punching. In fact, I think Axelrod and his pals have looked pretty amateurish when every attack on Romney has fallen flat. They knew early on in the Rep. primary that Romney would be their opponent but they look like they have no strategy going forward. Someone suggested to me that Ferhnstrom said that today because it was called a penalty in Mass. rather than a tax. If so, than they need to be consistant or they will use that against him. I’m not sure I can agree with that theory but it is something to consider. I think the majority of people view it as a tax and the debate is good because it keeps it in the forefront and gets people fired up. Romney has collected 6.7 million since the SC decision and have over 70,000 new small donors. The madder people get, the more they are going to donate and take an active role in making sure Obama is one and done. GO MITT.

    • http://www.alexlogic.com AlessandroMachi

      lol, I think it is a penalty as well.

      When a person has a credit card debt they cannot pay, sometimes they “settle” and pay anywhere from 30% to 50% of the total due. However, the IRS then comes in and declares the unpaid amount that was due as INCOME, and charges tax on it. It’s called a tax, but it can also be called a penalty.

      The healthcare initiative is the same thing. If you don’t pay for health care coverage, the IRS calculates what you avoided paying in healthcare premium, and tacks that amount onto your income, as additional income. It’s a penalty for not participating. I’m not sure why anyone would that that is less onerous.

    • http://www.alexlogic.com AlessandroMachi

      On another note, the Hillary Clinton ad was so poorly done, that is my reason why he may need to go.

  • http://www.alexlogic.com AlessandroMachi

    Maybe, just maybe, the supreme court healthcare decision has brought us one step closer to a flat tax? Here is an article I wrote about that possibility. http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-flat-tax-could-be-more-equitable-if.html

  • jrterrier

    Lee clerked for one of the Supreme Court justices. Don’t remember which. My only problem with him is that last year he was hawking his then-recently penned book everytime he was asked to comment.
    My concern with the CBS story is that it claims to have insider info about the debate between Kennedy & Roberts & the other justices. at this point i’m a bit skeptical. these were the same people who have been opining for 3 months that the law would be struck down and intimating some inside info.

  • lola828

    More spin and reporting the Republican spin on NQ with this post on the website that asks the question: “Tired of spin?”

    Always the hypocracy on NQ.

    You just cannot accept that the very conservative Roberts believes healthcare reform is constitutional.

    Mark Levin is quite a constitutional scholar and expert. Megyn Kelly is another expert. Lee is another idiot. His argument is complete BS. He talks in generalities and does not actually back up his spin with any actual logical substantive arguments.

    • jrterrier

      I’m curious, if you are tired of the spin and hypocricy on NQ, why do you come to the site to read and post?

      • scottymac54

        Can’t speak for the above, but I’ve asked myself that question, and I think it’s because most of the other blogs are just as bad in terms of hypocracy, but here the negative aspects characteristic of Republican blogs are more upfront and then out of the way, letting the viewpoints of the posters shine.
        I only wish that liberal viewpoints weren’t considered anathema by so many here.

        • Earl Stick

          Liberal viewpoints are not a problem. They are just out of sync with this blog, which obviously has a political slant, like most blogs. It’s adult swim, all viewpoints are considered. But those who come in and spew insults to the writers, readers, and commenters here just because they are NOT Democrats, are obviously trolls looking to disrupt and start arguments. There’s absolutely no reason to tolerate them at all. I think they should be banned if they are abusive and insulting.

          Liberal issues: I’ve seen universal healthcare promoted on this blog many times. There is certainly an openness toward LGBT issues and concerns. There’s not a racist here that I’m aware of. Most people here wouldn’t object to paying more in taxes for worthy causes, as long as it was fair and open. Most people here are ex-Clintonistas, and some are not ex. I think this is a moderate blog, not conservative.

          So how can anyone say with any credibility that liberal viewpoints are anathema. They’re just not popular.

        • jrterrier

          many of us are not republicans. i am a life-long DEM, who became disenchanted with the anti-hillary bias in the party. my eyes were opened to the bull that comes out of the DEM party leaders and the double standard of the MSM.
          looking back, it is difficult to believe how gullible and accepting i was of the party-line.

    • scottymac54

      “You just cannot accept that the very conservative Roberts believes healthcare reform is constitutional…”
      I’m certainly having a hard time accepting it at face value. My better angels want to believe he did it out of a sense of integrity, but my cynical side says he did it out of greed, or was under some sort of duress.
      I’d like to believe the spin I’ve read, that Roberts was trying to restore the reputation of the court, after Bush v Gore, and the faith so many of us lost at that time.
      Can’t take Levin’s voice for more than thirty seconds.

      • Hokma

        “I can;t take Levin’s voice for more than thirty seconds” . . . . .
        Here’s abut 20 minutes:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVmvZa-G4Fk
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1uVfC7-5y8

        • scottymac54

          Speaking of voices, do you remember Lynn Samuels, of blessed memory?
          She passed on, around the holidays.

          • Hokma

            Heard that more recently. Very sad when you don’t realize they are even ill.

      • jrterrier

        sense of integrity? not hardly. i think roberts caved to something — political pressure coming from the DEMS, fear that the court would become one more delegitimate branch of govt. unlike congress which has the power of the purse and the power to pass laws, and the president who is elected and has the power to enforce laws, the SCT only has the power of persuasion. if the President and the DEMS had engaged in all out effort to call into question that legitimacy, as it appeared they were prepared to do, the SCt would have lost a lot.
        the minority had it right with respect to the taxing power. as they wrote, the question is not whether congress has the power to tax but whether that is what they did.
        if that is not what congress intended, then it should not have been upheld on that basis. it became nothing more than judicial activism to rewrite the law for congress because it is not clear that congress would have been politically willing to enact a tax. and that is the stop that the constitution provides against the near-plenary power to tax.
        can see where roberts was coming from. not sure it was the right thing to do.