Bachmann Rails Against Activist Court After Health Care Ruling

I know I can always count on Michele Bachmann to highlight the unique intellectually dishonest ways of wingnut conservatives, and she did not disappoint with her indictment of the Supreme Court after hearing the results of the ruling on the

1 year ago by David
up

[h/t Scarce]

I know I can always count on Michele Bachmann to highlight the unique intellectually dishonest ways of wingnut conservatives, and she did not disappoint with her indictment of the Supreme Court after hearing the results of the ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

Forget that she lied about the mandate being a tax, because the ruling specifically said it was "like a tax."

Let's turn to her "denial of liberty" claim.

This is a denial of liberty: Telling people to die because they can't pay for prescriptions or hospital care or even to see a doctor. A denial of liberty is being an innocent bystander and losing everything because some random car breaks your bones. A denial of liberty is losing everything you worked for because you dared to get sick. That's a denial of liberty, Rep. Bachmann. Choosing a $695 penalty over health insurance? That's a choice, not a denial of liberty.

But really, the crowning moment in this five-minute rant was her claim that "an activist Court rewrote Obamacare." Um, no. That didn't happen, Michele. It never happened. Not one word of the Affordable Care Act was rewritten. Like Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann doesn't like the decision, but nothing was rewritten.

Here's my question for Michele Bachmann: If the Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare, does that mean we call it SCOTUScare?

We can all be grateful that Michele Bachmann is a Representative and not a Supreme Court justice, since she clearly does not understand what just happened, since she declared it unconstitutional, because she's Michele Bachmann!

Her final threat is to use the reconciliation process under Mitt Romney to overturn the whole law, claiming that it was passed under reconciliation and so its repeal can also be passed under reconciliation. Only, she's going to have to explain the $1.3 trillion addition to the deficit that repeal would inflict on the budget. There's that pesky fact again -- the Affordable Care Act not only saves lives, it saves money.

Full transcript below the fold if you can't abide her whiny voice. Today for some reason I found it almost amusing.

Let's bring in Congresswoman Michele Bachmann right now. The Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, who was a Republican presidential candidate.

I take it, Congresswoman, you were inside the Supreme Court when this decision was read, and you heard the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, declare that, under the tax-writing provisions of the Constitution, the Affordable Health Care Act is in fact constitutional.

What went through your mind when you saw that 5-4 decision?

REP. MICHELLE BACHMANN, (R), MINNESOTA: Well, it really is a turning point in American history. We'll never be the same again. What went through my mind is the court first went through the Commerce Clause argument. They rejected Obama-care and the individual mandate as constitutional under the Commerce Clause. And so across the courtroom, it appeared that the court had struck down the constitutionality of the individual mandate in Obama-care. But then the court turned to the tax argument, which was bizarre. Because the court ruled that Obama-care was not attacked for purpose of jurisdiction to hear the case, and then just several pages later they said, no, it is a tax. So therefore, Congress has the power to regulate the tax and create this tax and it's constitutional. For my mind, this is clearly unconstitutional. There is no basis in the Constitution for the government to have this level of history-making expansion of power. Because now this means for the first time in the history of the country, Congress can force Americans to purchase any product, any service that Congress wants them to, which means that Congress then determines the price. And we are forced to, which is a denial of liberty. This is a turning point in American history. We'll never be the same again with this denial of liberty interests.

But also, it's a black cloud pragmatically speaking on economic recovery. There will be no hope of economic recovery between now and the election. We've exhausted now our legal solutions, to be able to rid the nation of Obama-care. Now we have to look for a political solution. So in the short term, what you'll see from the job creators, and employers in America, you'll see more of them by the millions dropping their employer health insurance because it's wildly expensive. It's increased by a factor of three, just this year alone. You'll see millions of Americans lose their employer insurance. You'll see millions of employers move their businesses outside of the United States to do business out of the United States. So you'll see massive job loss as a result of this as well. This isn't unexpected but this is the pragmatic effect of what we'll see.

BLITZER: In terms of pragmatic effects, the practical developments that will unfold right now, there are limits to what you can do to repeal this Affordable Health Care Act. Even if there's a lopsided Republican majority in the House of representatives. Correct me if I'm wrong. You need 60 votes in the United States Senate, even if Mitt Romney is elected president, to go ahead and repeal it, or revise it. Is that your understanding, that you need to break a filibuster in the Senate in order to change it?

BACHMANN: No, that's not true at all. Because when the vote was passed in the Senate, they did so with a reconciliation bill. And that took a 50-person vote. So if there is a majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House, and if we have a Mitt Romney as the next president of the United States, we can, and we will repeal Obama-care. That is the hope that America needs to hold on to, that we will repeal Obama-care, and we will finally see economic recovery in the United States. There is no hope of that if Barack Obama wins a second term, and if Harry Reid continues to hold the gavel in the United States Senate. In all likelihood, you will see the House of representatives put forward a full-scale repeal bill, in all likelihood we will pass that even before the November election. But that will be for show only. Because in all likelihood, Harry Reid and Barack Obama are not about to deviate from what the Supreme Court did today.

We're profoundly disappointed in the decision from the court. But I urge people to read the dissent that was read from the bench by Justice Kennedy and joined in by Justices Alito and also Scalia. Because that opinion said very clearly, this was an activist court that you saw today. What they did is not just uphold Obama-care, this Supreme Court re-wrote Obama-care in line with its own designs. So this is an even more far-reaching decision than anyone had expected or imagined.

WOLF: Because if the president is re-elected, Congresswoman, he could veto any legislation passed by the House and Senate, and then the Affordable Health Care Law would remain in effect. Is that your understanding?

BACHMANN: That's right. That's why it's extremely important to those who believe in liberty and the Constitution, and who want our economy to turn around so we can create jobs, that's why it's extremely important that we are energized and remember this at the ballot box in November. If Barack Obama has a second term, we will not be able to get rid of Obama-care, and we will remain mired in this. If we want to be a pro-growth economy and have millions of high-paying jobs, then we have to replace Barack Obama. There is no other choice, Wolf. It's only a political choice now.

About karoli

karoli's picture
Card-carrying member of we, the people.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.