Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Is the argument that Kennedy is a "swing vote" the only prayer Dems have at Obamacare not being struck down?

All these Obamabots keep chirping off how Kennedy is a "swing" vote and that he will side with the liberal minority on OUR conservative controlled court. They cite GITMO cases as evidence for this fact.

Do Numnuts even understand that criminal procedure is not the same as deciding federal v. state rights issue?

So far Kennedy has cited 100% w/ the conservative majority on issues involving federal and state rights.

In other words,

In the end you lose 5-4 Libtards and your Obamacare gets struck down.

Update:

Stevens said he might retire.

Nice try picking up a swing vote.

You still fail.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Kennedy will defend states rights. Always has Always will. Obama care Smells like

    Dog crap.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Aside from your unnecessary and childish insults, you may have a point. The conservatives on the current Supreme Court have proven to be activists when they want to push their conservative agenda. Kennedy is one of them. He may however, as he has shown in the past, act with some integrity and decide on the basis of rationality. That makes him a swing vote.

    I am also not sure on what basis these states that are threatening suit would pursue a successful lawsuit. They have to show some harm. Perhaps you could explain how they are being harmed.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • DAR
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    They are nuts. Ron Paul is for applying the Constitution to suspects as well, but exactly how do you think he'd decide on state's rights?

    Let me dispel any illusions: http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=24116

    " The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court’s responsibility. "

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I'm a bit worried tho because Kennedy expressed his desire to retire under Obama's administration so he could pick the judge to replace him. idk if that's a sign that he'll vote with Obama. I hope not. He was spot on on the 2nd amendment issue last year.

    Bill, we're not talking about old uncle keg. We're talking about Anthony Kennedy, supreme court justice. How the h*ll are you a top contributor?

    Oh, and Moderates Unite, auto insurance is different in each state. Because they constitute state laws. The federal government isn't involved. and since that's what would be called into question in a healthcare lawsuit they do not even apply. How the h*ll are you a top contributor either?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • julitz
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    I agree, i think of there will be a great backlash to Democrats interior the subsequent election. I advise, whilst the Democrat management says that they'll bypass a undesirable bill into regulation that maximum people of the people do no longer p.c. skill that they think of that they are better then us and comprehend extra beneficial than us.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I love the part where someone who knows nothing about the law, the Supreme Court, or the Constitution pretends to know how the Court would rule about a non-existent lawsuit. That's funny.

    If you want to learn why you're completely wrong, take a look at Kennedy's vote in Rapanos v. U.S. But that's only if you asked this "question" because you wanted an answer. You know, a real answer? And not someone who knows nothing just agreeing with you?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Moderates unite- Exactly all of what you stated are state laws, not federal. I think you need to quit calling yourself a moderate and admit to being a progressive.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I wouldn't count on the Supremes behaving too politically one way or the other.

    Their credibility has already been called into question recently.

    It has cause a lot of people (like you) to view them as a political branch of government... which essentially erodes their power.

    They are smart enough to shape up.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    if the sup. ct. took the case, which I doubt they would... it would bring into question a TON of federal mandates on all kinds of issues over the past 200 years... from highways to NCLB...

    and I doubt the court wants to wade into that pool...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Liz
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I sure hope your right. This bill is a travesty.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.