Mark Levin on Hannity Radio: SCOTUS Ruling Is “Most Radical Activist Decision In Modern Court History” (Audio)

Mark Levin went on with Sean Hannity last Friday to discuss the Supreme Court ObamaTax ruling. Levin had this to say about the controversial ruling,
“This is the most radical activist decision in modern court history.”

Hat Tip Mara Zebest

1 2 Newer Comments >>
`

#3 July 2, 2012 at 6:56 am
Samual Alito commented:

When I was in law school, Supreme Court decisions regarding the constitutionality of a law under review required the court to look at “Legislative Intent”. In other words, the court would read the congressional record looking for evidence of what was the intent of the lawmakers when they enacted that law. The legislative intent would serve as a starting point for their analysis.

In this instance, the “legislative intent” was absolutely clear that this was not a tax. So, the court completely ignoring the congressionl record and imputing legislative intent (where the exact opposite was true) in order to make a law “constitutional” is, in my opinion, quite a radical move indeed.
#4 July 2, 2012 at 7:14 am
snap boy commented:

Would someone please explain why Congress and federal employees like the Supreme court are exempt from Obamacare; why are some workers allowed expensive health insurance? Even the unions given passes were only granted temporary exemptions. Congress has put itself above the rest of us.
#5 July 2, 2012 at 7:22 am
Militant conservative commented:

Get ready for one hell of a

Backlash due to this.
#6 July 2, 2012 at 7:45 am
Finncrisp commented:

There will be blood. Now the deathmatch for the heart and soul of the nation begins in ernest. I must admit , I was really sobered by the court decision. What they are saying, in no uncertain terms, is ELECTIONS MATTER. It is now, once again, up to us to soberly consider what kind of country we want going forward when we vote. Do we submit, or do we fight? I chose the latter…

We must prevail, or the whole world is at risk. This is the country of medical miracles. After Deathcare is fully implemented, no more. The entire world has benefuited from our research and facilities. If we step through the door into Deathcare, we will cease to be the leader in – anything. There will be no money to defend us, but there will be unlimited funds to kill us. Ever wonder why there are no armies , navies, or air forces of any consequence in Europe? Because their socialist policies have sucked up so much cash that there is no money to fund common defense. Our forces in Europe have been the only deterent for decades. Once that is gone, what do you think happens, first there, and then to us? Do you really want to go THERE?
#7 July 2, 2012 at 7:51 am
Finncrisp commented:

#4. Once Deathcare is implemented, they will all fall into the same trap. Healthcare rationing will affect all of their plans because of the lack of doctors, facilities, and care givers. There will be no where to run or hide. They won’t be able to keep separate, caddilac facilites just for them. Care, drugs, and cures will be rationed, more for the elderly and disabled, but also for everyone.

It won’t matter, so why ask the question?
#9 July 2, 2012 at 8:26 am
MCPO Airdale commented:

Snap Boy – Because some pigs are more equal than others.
#10 July 2, 2012 at 8:27 am
Kissmygrits commented:

My blood pressure had just started to get back to normal when I listened to Hannity and Levin. It went back up again. I’m no lawyer but can recognize when someone ties himself in pretzels to make a point. I still don’t understand this excuse being put forward for Roberts about side stepping slings and arrows from the libs. He had to know he’d be catching flak from the right, hence his joke about the impregnable fortress.
#11 July 2, 2012 at 8:57 am
ponderon commented:

He was more afraid of the scorn from liberals,because he knew conservatives would try to find a SILVER LINING………NO SILVER LINING…….HE SCREWED CONSERVATIVES , THE CONTITUTION AND OUR FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES……..
#12 July 2, 2012 at 9:25 am
Minty commented:

#3
You do not seem to grasp that legislative intent is a factor and not an element for constitutional analysis. This leads me to conclude that either:
A- you law school was unaccredited;
B- your Constitutional Law professor was subsequently fired for incompetence;
C- you have a medical reason(possibly stroke) for remembering this incorrectly; or
D- you never attended law school

I see “D” as being most likely since there is no shortage of commenters on this blog who have no real understanding of law. You sound more like those “sovereign citizen” nutbars who don’t understand Marbury v. Madison.

If you actually attended law school, please provide some evidence: what is the second most important Supreme Court decision to date?
#13 July 2, 2012 at 9:26 am
Patty commented:

And this is why we must vote Obama and democrats out of office come November.
#14 July 2, 2012 at 9:36 am
theBuckWheat commented:

This is the Dred Scott decision of our generation. It brings us closer to calling a Constitutional Convention to clarify the relationship of the federal government to the people and States.
#15 July 2, 2012 at 9:45 am
bg commented:

oops, someone forgot an italics close tag..

++

July 1, 2012

A Vast New Taxing Power

[It's an elegant theory whose only flaw is that it is repudiated by Chief
Justice Roberts's own language and logic. His gambit substitutes one
unconstitutional expansion of government power for another and
rearranges the constitutional architecture of the U.S. political system.]

==
#17 July 2, 2012 at 10:53 am
Minty commented:

#15
Mea Culpa
#18 July 2, 2012 at 11:20 am
valerie commented:

#3 July 2, 2012 at 6:56 am
Samual Alito commented:

In my experience, appellate courts have never had trouble re-writing the parties’ arguments. They’ll put something in an opinion that makes counsel roar “That’s not what I said!” They characterize it as reframing the argument in order to clarify the issue, which is judge for “cutting through the sh!t.” During oral argument, the judges made it absolutely clear they understood that both Congress and counsel for the President had taken inconsistent positions.

As for legislative “intent” — I think the US Supreme Court just called the Democrats, specifically including the President, a bunch of liars.
#19 July 2, 2012 at 11:25 am
Minty commented:

#18
Thank you for being a voice of reason.
#20 July 2, 2012 at 11:40 am
Rose commented:

The Court has no legitimacy remaining – no validity, and any remaining shred of Confidence in the Federal Government is gone.

If Romney wins, he will have a much tougher job trying to restore credibility than he can imagine. If he tries to “REPLACE” instead of SHRED Big Govt, there will be nothing left to try to “govern”.

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior”
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Article III – The Judicial Branch

THEIR APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS!

Patrick Henry:
” They tell us sir we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary, but when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of that means which a gracious God hath placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God Who presides over the destinies of nations and Who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
Besides Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery our chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston. The war is inevitable and let it come. I repeat it Sir, let it come! It is in vain to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”