Robert Bennett: Republic will survive Obamacare ruling

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RagnarL4 Kaysville, UT
    April 11, 2012 9:41 p.m.

    Mr. Bennett appears to believe that America will ever endure and her people prosper regardless of any number of bad policies of any magnitude. I appreciate optimism, but this is pure naivete. Though this great country has persevered through decades of metastasizing socialism, eventually the cancer CAN kill the patient. Not even America can survive socialism; in the end, no nation ever has.

    Contrary to Mr. Bennett's lackadaisical tone, this Supreme Court decision is VERY important. If the Court definitively rules that the government CAN force consumption of a good or service (though obviously the government already does that in many instances) then all bounds upon government power are broken.

    Thanks for the pom pom job, Senator, but I'll keep my eyes on the game rather than the cheerleaders. And I'm cheering for the Pretty Lady.

    Long Live Lady Liberty

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    April 11, 2012 2:57 p.m.

    It came by a vote of 7-2. So where was the terrible, partisan 5-4 vote?

    There were 2 votes concerning the Bush vs Gore Case. The 7/2 vote was that the way the recount was going was not good.

    The dissenting opinions strongly criticized the five justice majority for involving the Court in state-level affairs. Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) concluded as follows....doesn't fit in 200 words. You'll have to look it up.

    But they basically said that the Supreme Court has no place in State affairs. Especially not in deciding a presidential election.

    Bennet want's you to believe that Florida, Governed by Bush's own brother and run by republicans was trying to steal the election for Gore......

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 11, 2012 7:48 a.m.

    Hemlock... not sure what exactly you are referring to, but if "tax for 10 years and spend for only 6 years" equates to being dumb or mendacious, well then being dumb and mendacious is the standard proceedure for all parts of the government. Everytime a bond referendum passes, you are taxing for more years than the term of the project - what ever that may be. If you look at social security, I will be taxed for over 40 years, and yet receive direct benefit for less than 20 if I live the average life expectancy. What you complain of as immoral behaviour is a basic construct of government funding of large projects.

    Now I do agree that there isn't clarity in the fiscal impact of this, but I also have confidence that if we elect reasonable and sensable people, they can course correct as needed. It is only the shouting from the extremes that will prevent us from getting to where the country needs to be.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 11, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    I too agree the Republic will survive what ever is coming. But lets not pretend for a second that these decisions are not coming down on idealogical or political lines. For 3 decades we heard from the right that the Supreme Court was legislating from the bench. Now that the court leans right through appointments, the concern seems to have disolved and the Republic now no longer hangs on a thread because of a legislatively agressive Supreme Court, but because we have a Democrat leading the country.

    From the article 'The ruling did not "overturn a century of precedent"; SuperPACs funded by rich individuals were already legal. It merely opened the door for more speech by more people.'

    I don't think the issue here is entities being able to promote their issues, but that we seem to have no right to know who is behind these entities. Under Clinton, there were issues with money flowing in from China supporting him. These same issues have not gone away. Elections are for the American people to decide, not nameless organizations that hide the identity of those who back them. Transparency is critical for people to have faith in the system.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2012 10:28 p.m.

    In 2009 Obama said the ACA would save money, Pelosi said it would save $1.3 billion while the government budget office said that the only way it was even budget neutral was to tax for 10 years and spend for only 6 years. This display of either ignorance or dishonesty is unacceptable. Either Mr. Obama is dumb or mendacious and he is not dumb.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    More lies and garbage from the gop hypocrites. The affordable healthcare act will be found constitutional, because it is. Even our forefathers had the foresight to see that ammendments would be needed to change the constitution. It was written over 200 years ago. One could not even imagine what changes there would be in the world. FDR tried to write a second bill of rights, that included national healthcare. That was 70 years ago. The CBO says the bill will save trillions of healthcare dollars over time. These are facts! Lie about them or arguements about them, doesnt change the facts.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 10, 2012 4:12 p.m.

    A well reasoned, thought out letter from the Senator. While I generally do not consider myself Republican, I think the nation lost when he was defeated in Convention. If we could step back and analyze a problem on its merits, rather than "who came up with the idea" I think a lot more good could be done in this Country.

    No other President? Look at FDR and the new deal. He wanted to place 6 more judges on the court, so they would stop striking down his achievements.

    The President has a vested interest in the upholding of this law, so of course he would campaign for it. Was he trying to intimidate anyone? No. Even so, it says more about the Court if 1)they allow it or 2)even address it. I am confident the President is clear on how the 3 branches of government work.

    When Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in California, the LDS Church used much of the same language the President did, they were saddened a law , legally passed by the People, would be stricken down. Was that intimidation?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 10, 2012 12:48 p.m.

    @ @Charles, when you say "No one has done what Obama did in trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to leave an unconstitutional law on the books", I simply respond that you should go back to school and take some history classes. President's have complained about the Court since the early days of the nation.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 10, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    Not only survive, but thrive. The so-called Obama/Romney care concept is a step in the right direction. We just need to go further with it and serve the people of this nation instead of monied special interests.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 10, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    Living with prosperity is different than just survival.

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2012 6:45 a.m.

    So should Clarence Thomas since his wife is part of a political group that vows to take down Obamacare.......

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    April 10, 2012 5:59 a.m.

    The reality is this: The decision is a no-win for the GOP either way.

    If the Supreme Court throws out Obamacare, it will become a rallying cry for the left and sweep Obama and Democrats back in office for a second attempt.

    If the Supreme Court votes in favor, it becomes the law of the land and then Obama will be able to point to it as a key accomplishment for poor and middle-class Americans.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2012 8:44 p.m.

    The Republic may survive, but millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions will not.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 9, 2012 8:24 p.m.


    Sorry the word "threat" came from the media reports. But have it your way I'll use the word "intimidate".

    The President is hardly intimidating the Supreme Court (and I would find it nearly incredible that any of them actually feel intimidated).

    Please feel free to provide the evidence of how the President is intimidating the Supreme Court (given the Justices benefit from life time appointments).


    I understand the Court views their jurisdiction differently. They are certainly entitled to have a different opinion. And so am I.

    I assume there are cases in which you disagree with the court. And on those, you are also entitled to your opinion (despite it, like mine, being moot).

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    April 9, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    @Twin Lights: I've read over my comments and don't see where I used the word threat. Not sure how you got hung up on that word since I never used it. Nice straw man though!

    No one has done what Obama did in trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to leave an unconstitutional law on the books.

    This should be overturned 8-0 with Kagen having recused herself from the proceedings. That inactivity should have been loudly condemned since she was the one who was writing the arguments to support the law. She apparently has no integrity.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 9, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    Re: Twin Lights Louisville, KY

    Obviously the US Supreme Court view their jurisdiction over national elections differently than you do. Your opinion on the matter is moot.

    Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals federal judge Jerry Smith ordered the Department of Justice to write him a three-page, single-spaced letter discussing the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation. The Obama Administration meekly complied. I think that little "stay after school" punishment was rather funny.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 9, 2012 2:08 p.m.


    "there was nothing to clarify. all who read or heard his comments knew exactly what he was trying to do -- intimidate the Supreme Court. No other POTUS has done what Obama did, ever"

    First, I have tried to find the threat made by the President to no avail. The quote most often cited is this one: "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."

    You can easily (and appropriately) criticize the president for being wrong in his analysis. The Supreme Court routinely overturns laws that are passed by a wide majority. You can also criticize him for jumping in at a point where his doing so might well backfire. But I simply do not see the "threat".

    Second, look up the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Now that was a threat.

    Rifleman, (I loved that show)

    I understand that Bush v. Gore was an issue with national importance. But (even before it was settled) I thought the State should determine how the voting was going in those districts.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 9, 2012 1:10 p.m.

    Re: atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    "Obama's remarks (which were quickly clarified) ...."

    Yeah, Obama started backpedaling faster than the Egyptian military in the Sinai during the Six-Day War when Israel cut them off from their retreat.

    Let's be honest here. A federal appeals judge ordered the Justice Department to explain President Obama's comments on the health care case, and Obama asked for help getting his foot out of his mouth.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    April 9, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    @atl: there was nothing to clarify. all who read or heard his comments knew exactly what he was trying to do -- intimidate the Supreme Court. No other POTUS has done what Obama did, ever.

    And how is it judicial activism if SCOTUS strikes down the law as unconstitutional? They aren't creating law like Roe v Wade or the Calif Supreme Court in Prop 8.

    All they will be saying is, Congress, you wrote a law that is unconstitutional and Mr President, you signed that law which is unconstitutional. Go write another one if you want but this time, read the Constitution BEFORE you write it so we don't have to pass it to find out what's in it.

    Sounds good to me.

    Bennett is irrelevant these days. He's a big government guy so he's okay with Obummercare.

  • John Stewart Pill Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 9, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    I appreciate your thoughts, Mr. Benet.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2012 9:26 a.m.

    Conservatives rail against "judicial activism" all the time. Obama's remarks (which were quickly clarified) are what is considered standard operating procedure by conservatives whenever a case doesn't go their way.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 9, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    Re: Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    "I have always thought that the US Supreme Court should have stayed out of it. It was a Florida election issue and should have been settled by the Florida Supreme Court"

    Actually Bush vs Gore election was a national issue to determine the next US president. Obama has been backpedaling ever since he put his foot in his mouth and questioned the authority of the US Supreme Court. He has known since he signed Obamacare into law that it was unconstitutional. When the ruling is announced Obama is going to get his hand slapped.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 9, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    The Republic survived Dred Scott too. That doesn't make it okay.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    April 9, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    This is a shockingly naive opinion letter from Bennett. The America we know and love will not survive if the Supreme Court cowers and gives in to the attack from the left wing executive.

    Obama's threats towards the court are unprecedented. He has thrown all of his training in constitutional law out the window in an effort to frighten the court into advancing his welfare state agenda.

    If the court gives in and upholds Obamacare, all Americans will suffer. America will truly become just another failed European-style post-Cristian welfare state.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 9, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    Senator Bennett,

    I often agree with you. Two points of disagreement here.

    First, reference the Florida Bush v. Gore case, I have always thought that the US Supreme Court should have stayed out of it. It was a Florida election issue and should have been settled by the Florida Supreme Court. Had it been in Utah, Utahns would likely feel similarly.

    Second, reference Citizens United. It did not open "the door for more speech by more people". It opened the bomb bay doors of corporations (which, despite anything else we may think, are decidedly not persons in the most widely understood sense). More money simply means more influence by the few (who already had plenty anyway) - which is not good for the Republic.