Marti Oakley      Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved


Having talked with numerous individuals about the case in the Supreme Court challenging the individual mandate which is the pivotal constitutional assault in Obamacare, I found it curious that there are people out here who actually believe SCOTUS will do the right thing. After all, most of us are very aware that this KILLED BY SCOTUSmonstrosity of a bill is clearly unconstitutional on many levels and the Supreme’s will surely point that out and strike it down, won’t they?

But then I got to thinking…….why is it that they will not have a ruling until June sometime?  Why will it take these supposed experts months to render a five-minute decision?  Most of us knew before this assault on the public was passed that it was unconstitutional…….but these legal constitutional experts don’t?  They have to decide if it is or not and it will take them a long time?

I am also waiting for Elena Kagen to recuse herself from hearing the case on Obamacare.  Her past, but oh so recent, affiliation with the president should disqualify her from sitting in on the hearing or contributing to the ruling.  Of course she never recused herself when the issue of the birth certificate came up either.

I can only speculate that Kegan is following the example set by Clarence Thomas, former Monsanto attorney, who refused to recuse himself from cases involving Monsanto.  Gosh….I wonder how those turned out?  Oh! That’s right!  Monsanto got everything it wanted.  Imagine that!

What is the enabling clause for Obamacare?

When Nancy Pelosi claimed it was being passed under the commerce clause, then had to back track and claim it was under the taxation clause, because although the feds can tax they were never supposed to be involved in regulating commerce within the states, no one said a word.  In fact, the claim that the fines that would result if individuals refused or could not afford the artificially bloated insurance rates that are the result of Obamacare, were actually taxes but would not be treated as taxes, should have sounded an alarm.  Pelosi and the criminal gang on CRAPital Hill never batted an eye even after they were caught with their constitutional drawers around their ankles.

There is no constitutional authority or power that enables or justifies the claimed power of the federal government, to intrude on, dictate to the citizens of the states, or otherwise enforce a federal mandate which would force private citizens to buy a product they do not want or to intrude on their physical person as Obamacare intends to.  Pelosi went on to say that it was under the general welfare clause along with the taxation clause.

The power to levy taxes can not be construed to mean forced commerce.  And whether taxation or commerce, or the public welfare, none of them negates our unalienable right to be let alone by government, or anyone else for that matter.

Having watched this so-called [supreme] court over the years, hand down rulings and opinions that were obviously  unconstitutional on numerous occasions and regardless of whether they were controlled by conservatives or liberals, I can only presume that based on past activities, these extra months are needed to construct another of those illegible, unreadable, nonsensical and painfully contorted rulings that no one will understand and the Supreme’s won’t be able to explain.  This of course leaves the ruling open to interpretation; and that is the pitfall that will be intentionally created.  It is simply a matter of handing off the issue so as not to bring any misery on one’s self or position while trying to make it look as if you worked really hard to reach the decision (or no decision) that you did.

I read with much interest the biographies of each of the “justice’s”on the court.  This got me to wondering, why, with all the offices these people held collectively, with all the experience accumulated over their careers, would it take these nine people supposedly schooled in the law and the constitution, months to render a decision that is so blatantly obvious to the common man (or woman)?

Of course after they voted down Citizens v United and claimed that corporations have free speech that is composed of cash and this cash can come from foreign countries and corporations, and could be used to interfere with and influence our federal elections,  I also wondered why they still had jobs.

But this is the same judicial body (now with some new members) who unconstitutionally and unlawfully overthrew a national presidential election, over-riding the popular vote and handing the presidency to the GOP resident crazy person, GW Bush.

It is this court that refused to hear the Obama birth certificate case.  I don’t know if his birth certificate is real or not, but wouldn’t it have been in the best interest of the country to make a judicial determination?  Would this not have settled the issue once and for all and stopped all the speculation?

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Eligibility Case — Again

[WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval    The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama’s eligibility.]

This court, regardless of what political party has a death grip on it, has long outlived any useful purpose.  Not to mention that the lower courts are following the example of SCOTUS and have also become so overtly corrupted in most cases that law and the constitution are not even a consideration; both issues getting in the way of predetermined rulings and judges who claim the law is what they say it is.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms.  The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690).

The U.S. Supreme Court issued orders in Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690 in which the justices refused to honor their oath to defend the Constitution. The justices effectively forfeited the justification for their existence as the Supreme Court for the United States.

Who needs the supreme court?

No one that I can think of unless the word [corporation] is attached to their name.  These days the Supreme’s are far more concerned with protecting corporate interests and political allies.  The obvious protectionism that is evident in the rulings and opinions from this court is apparent on most levels.

This is not to say that there have not been instances when consumer protections have been upheld, or that on occasion this court has not voted to protect the public from various corporate misdeeds.  They most certainly have.  But in too many other cases which were imperative with regards to protection of our unalienable rights against government intrusion, harassment and intimidation, they have failed miserably to uphold the Constitution and have ruled as if it did not exist.

I would like to believe that this court would throw the whole Obamacare mess out, but there is money involved and lots of it and more corporations than you could shake your gavel at.  I have no doubt these black-robed bench jockey’s will twist the constitution until the men who signed that document spit up the nails in their coffins.  Even so, I have no doubt that  time spent between now and the final word from SCOTUS will be used to fabricate some kind of irrational, unlawful  justification for Obamacare and the individual mandate.


Upholding Constitutionality of Individual Mandate Would Set a Dangerous Precedent