Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Since the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, Swingin’ Anthony Kennedy has been the swingingest swinger on the Supreme Court, the big Numero Cinco on all those 5–4 white-knuckle nail-biting final scores. So naturally Court observers have been paying close attention to his interventions in the Obamacare oral arguments. So far he doesn’t sound terribly persuaded by the administration’s line:
“The government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” As John Hinderaker wrote at the Powerline blog, “In that last observation, Kennedy seems to be channeling Mark Steyn.” Which is true. As I wrote in National Review only two or three issues back, “I’ve argued for years in these pages that governmentalized health care fundamentally transforms the relationship between citizen and state in ways that” — and here’s the bit Justice Kennedy isn’t quite on board with yet — “make it all but impossible to have genuinely conservative government ever again.” So I’m naturally heartened to hear him meeting me halfway. This was one of the highlights of a week that a shell-shocked Jeffrey Toobin, crawling out from under the rubble of the solicitor general’s presentation, told CNN viewers was “a train wreck” for the government’s case.
[More]
Steyn: Swingin’ Kennedy (1),Related:
Mark leads today. Some visitors who come in here don’t appear to like him very much, perhaps because he speaks truth to power so eloquently. From my perspective he is a breath of fresh air continually wandering the hallowed halls with jaundiced eye our “betters” are known to frequent and I never hesitate to carry him. In short, he is a “hoot”.
Regarding today’s criticism of Obamacare I think he’s correct and while few would be so bold as to predict what the US “Supremes” will decide (it’s likely they already have — they just have to find someone to write the decision and take the inevitable heat) I will call this now. Common sense dictates that they will reject the entire mess “in toto” and send it back to Congress for a “re-write”. That would be the “mess” nobody has read — including them. They will also specify that the matter be reduced to a law not to exceed thirty pages in length in order to encourage everyone to actually read “said law” before voting.
It’s called “self preservation”. They are also no doubt aware of the “K.I.S.S. principle” and as a group subscribe to the idea.
At that point ambulances will be called as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s heads explode. Not to mention Obama’s. They take this “stuff” very seriously “ya know” and are going to be badly “bent out of shape” as the news comes in.
My personal view — I think the Secret Service will have a huge problem guarding their “principles” on this one. Rapidly rising blood pressure is a medical situation and unless they are also “medical doctors” there is no hope.
Probably, not even then.
Not that I care.
My point: The US “left” went behind closed doors and would permit nobody to see what they were “up to”. Then they had the temerity to walk out in front of the American public and dare Congress to pass it stating with absolute conviction in regard to a 2000 “+” page bill “Pass it and then everyone can read it” knowing full well that nobody would bother subjecting themselves to such “torture” and so they didn’t. The bill passed along party lines.
And now they expect the “Supreme’s” to support them?
Just how stupid is that? How arrogant?
It is beyond belief but here we have it this day as the “lefty” media in America “weep and wail” because the people they have appointed to make a decision might well find they went a “bridge to far”.
And indeed they did as Steyn has correctly pointed out. I see no other outcome than for the court to toss it back and tell them to redo it all. Not that they can now.
Tea Party (a Republican controlled House) and all that.
The bill as written will fail and “what goes around comes around”. Shady Democrats are about to “come a cropper” as US judges do what they are paid to do. Protect the Constitution.
You can “take that to the bank”.
“End of message.”
Steyn is the thinker that Canadian-lite abhors. Every single day.
Mainstream Canadian media types wholly despise Steyn. They say that he is so impolite, he shocks and laughs while expecting to be taken seriously, he makes one feel uncomfortable, he implores others to act as he does. Steyn is said to be rude and rough. Steyn is a heartless right winger who would prefer to dismantle much of the so-called nanny state. To that, Mark might say “Hey Nan pass them another soother”.
Some of us adore Steyn for all the above reasons.
Most media pundits in Canada would find a myriad of excuses for bowing out of a debate with Mark Steyn.
Mark Steyn does not offer us bromides of ever-repeating progressive themed memes.
Steyn offers unique, outside the box ideas and lays it out for all to dissect and criticize. Given that, it is truly amazing how much of his past writings, stand up to the scrutiny of today, including the benefit of hindsight.
Given the masterful pleasing-to-most budget that Conservatives just tabled in Canada, I can understand what Steyn is saying about the increasing difficulty of ever electing a true conservative government once we’ve moved to the pleasing-to-most premise whether in federal budgets or universal healthcare. In Canada we are starting to comprehend the long term viability of our system of healthcare. Will it become 3 year waits for most surgeries or will it become 100% of government expenditures, up from 42-45% at this time? Is this sustainable?
If we urge government to fulfill our needs, we forfeit ourselves, eventually.