TOTUS Preps Three Different Speeches for ObamaCare Ruling

Posted by on Jun 28, 2012 at 7:20 am

The stuttering White House Occupier probably has no clue what he’ll be reading later today, but at least his teleprompter will be prepared for any possible scenario. God forbid Obama just comes out and speaks extemporaneously.

But Mr. Obama has been doing more than sitting back and waiting. The president has three separate speeches prepared in anticipation of the ruling on his signature legislative achievement, a person familiar with them said.

One of the speeches addresses a complete overturn of the law, while another is crafted as if the court strikes down the law’s individual mandate but upholds other provisions. The third speech, for if the court upholds the entire law, is more celebratory, according to this person.

No matter the ruling, the White House is expected to continue highlighting provisions of the legislation that are more popular than the overall law, such as the requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions or allow parents to keep their children on their plans until they are 26 years old.

It’s unclear when Mr. Obama will comment on the decision. It’s not on his public schedule. He is scheduled to be in the Oval Office receiving the daily presidential intelligence briefing at 10 a.m., around when the decision is expected to be announced.

No word if a fourth speech has been loaded into TOTUS in the event Obama himself is ruled unconstitutional.

Tags: ,

3 Responses to “TOTUS Preps Three Different Speeches for ObamaCare Ruling”

  1. Ian on 28/28/12 at 10:27 am

    Well, I guess he gets to use the happy one. Roberts just threw you under the bus. Feel free to cry. Your salty tears sustain me.

    Oh, and your blog sucks.

  2. tom on 28/28/12 at 12:19 pm

    I’m thinking Roberts is throwing it back at the dumocrats – “It’s not a tax. It’s a Commerce Clause function” to pass the bill. When they came to SCOTUS, “It’s a tax. Sure it is!”

    That’s how dumocrats work – tell lies here to get there.

    Tweet from the National dumocrat Party chair – “It’s constitutional, bitches!”

    Really classy people – kinda like Ian. He thinks your blog sucks but the dumbass is reading it.

  3. Doriangrey on 28/28/12 at 7:40 pm

    Let us then in that case see how the ruling on the Affordable Care Act stands up when worded thusly.

    See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance A Firearm—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance a Firearm. Rather, it makes going without insurance a Firearm just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn-ing income.