Obama’s Preemptive Strike on the Supreme Court

By W. James Antle, III on 4.3.12 @ 6:11AM

What’s ahead if the president doesn’t get his way on the health care decision.

Harry Truman ran against the “Do Nothing” Congress in the 1948 presidential election. Will Barack Obama run against the Supreme Court this year? Answer: he will if the nation’s highest court repudiates his signature health care reform law as unconstitutional.

The president nearly gave away the game during his press conference yesterday. After a long soliloquy about the “human element” the justices would be letting down if they ruled against his administration, Obama slipped and almost said he expected the law to be overturned rather than upheld. (He corrected himself mid-sentence.)

“Ultimately I am 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,” Obama averred. Perhaps he meant “democratic” with a capital d. Only Democrats voted for the law and it passed the House by just seven votes despite a three-fifths Democratic majority in that chamber.

According to one careful estimate, the Supreme Court has struck down 53 federal statutes between 1981 and 2005. So in post-Marbury v. Madison America, it wouldn’t be exactly “unprecedented.” Didn’t Linda Greenhouse teach us that “unprecedented” was a word used by people whose legal arguments are without merit?

Obama chided conservative commentators who complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” when “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” He concluded: “Well, this is a pretty good example.”

Supporters of the president have been laying the groundwork for this reaction ever since it became clear that the Supreme Court wasn’t simply going to rubber stamp the adminstration’s request for untrammeled federal power. Greenhouse insisted the constitutional challenge was baseless but sighed “the justices will do what they will do.” Paul Krugman asserted “while most legal experts seem to think that the case for striking the law down is very weak, these days everything is political.”

This has nothing to do with the law, they chant. It is simply the “wingnuts” on the Supreme Court deciding to impose the Tea Party’s vision of the Constitution on America. (Yet if the law is upheld, the same people will celebrate the Court as a great and powerful body whose wise rulings should go unquestioned, with the “wingnut” who cast the deciding vote venerated as the preeminent jurist of modern times.)

What is at stake here isn’t the Tea Party’s Constitution. It is the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the American people. It is the idea that the federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed, consent given not merely every two to six years at the ballot box but when a large majority of the states and the people expressly delegate power to the central government.

Nowhere in the confident declarations of the health care law’s constitutionality do we see any evidence that the people who wrote or ratified the Constitution intended to give the federal government these powers. More than half the states in the country have joined in the constitutional challenge and plainly don’t want to delegate this police power to Washington.

What we see instead is the insistence that liberal policy preferences simply must be constitutional. “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” said Obama.

For all the talk of ideologically rigid conservative justices, it was always the four members of the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc who were viewed as locks to uphold Obamacare. The persuadable justices were John Roberts, the chief justice nominated by George W. Bush, and Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan. They tried in vain to get the solicitor general to establish some limiting principle for the power he ascribed to the federal government, to tie the mandate to something enumerated in the Constitution.

“The plaintiffs had no coherent constitutional theory on severability and on Medicaid,” writes American Enterprise Institute legal scholar Michael Greve. “For that reason they will lose on both issues, and all the partisanship on the Court, real and imagined, won’t help them.” Greve continued by noting “the justices gave the government every chance in the world to draw a constitutionally grounded enumerated powers line. It couldn’t, and so it will lose.”

Just as he did when he lectured the justices about Citizens United, Obama plans to demagogue any Supreme Court ruling that is unfavorable to his health care program. The same president who holds Roe v. Wade inviolate, a decision that invalidated the laws of all 50 states on an issue no one had previously imagined to be under federal jurisdiction, will inveigh against judicial activism.

But Obama’s cheering section also gives away the game when they lament that the Supreme Court has for the past 75 years allowed Congress, with the president’s permission, to act as a national problem-solving machine without the Constitution getting in the way. What changed in the last 75 years? The Constitution or the composition of the courts? Raw political power, indeed.

In fact, it was 75 years ago that FDR unveiled his “court packing” scheme to scare justices away from enforcing the enumerated powers doctrine when it interfered with his legislative agenda. It worked then. Will Obama’s version work now?

About the Author
W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Conservative Bob| 3.28.12 @ 11:02AM

Again we sit, holding our breath trying to get some clue as to how the ‘Oracles’ will decide our future.

We were not included in the drafting of this Obamination, congress met behind closed doors, “we have to pass it to see what is in it” they crammed it down our throat in the face of overwhelming public rejection (2010 elections), and now we wait for a group of 9, appointed for life cloistered from the real world, wise sages to decide our fate.

The Progressives on the court are in lock step once again regardless of the limits provided by our constitution and the rule of law rests on the whim of a single beating heart. I have read numerous stories about the vanity of this or that justice. My children and grand children’s future is being decided as much by what parties some old fool may or may not be invited to in the future, or how some hack journalist may editorialize about them.

More than the specific case at hand the importance of holding Obama to one term is underscored as an existential decision. He absolutely must be denied the opportunity to appoint another justice. Our liberty must rest on a foundation greater than the whim of a single vain individual. We must see more strict constructionists appointed to the court while at the same time the courts in general must see their power and reach returned to a more limited role in our

Kingofthenet| 3.28.12 @ 4:44PM

IF this gets shot down, what exactly have Republicans ‘Won’? The right to pay spiraling out of control insurance costs? the right to be denied coverage? The right to see your coverage shrink? Seems like a Pyrrhic victory.
Conservative Bob| 3.28.12 @ 6:34PM

The country will win its future, or at least a chance at it. This POS was originally sold to us because of 30-50-80 million uninsured. The number changed to fit the sales pitch. Rather than attempt to gain consensus they put this Frankenstein’s monster together behind closed doors and lied every step of the way when questioned as to details. Go back to the drawing board. Fix only what is broken; gain the support of the people. Pass something that we can agree on. The reason this is before the Supreme Court is it is poorly written and it is unconstitutional to say nothing of unworkable. The resistance was born form the way they wrote it and more so by the way they deemed and passed it.
This was an ideological grab for the brass ring, progressive/socialist/Marxists have been dreaming of this for 100 years. (Listen to Obama’s victory lap speeches on the subject) He saw himself as the one who finally delivered the socialists dream… instead because of how poorly he handled it along with Pelosi and Reid et al he will be remembered as the one who screwed it up so bad it had to be struck down by the court. There are 300 plus million of us in this country, way over half of us have profound problems with this bill and its approach running roughshod over that many people is not a good prescription for success.
The victory if this is found unconstitutional goes to the people whose future is at least partially restored

George Greene| 3.29.12 @ 7:41PM

This ISN’T a mandate. It’s a TAX CREDIT.
Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s comments that it’s a mandate and not a tax are RIDICULOUS.
It raises EVERYbody’s taxes $695 or 2.5%. Ginsburg had the nerve to say that it couldn’t be a rev.raising measure because if it’s sucessful, it will raise no revenue. Dear Madame Justice: the act has MANY clauses. The part that raises EVERYbody’s annual income taxes $695 or 2.5% canNOT HELP but “succeed” in raising revenue.
MEANwhile, the part that CREDITS BACK $695 must, AS A TAX CREDIT, “succeed” precisely to the extent that it CHANGES PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOR by enabling them to buy something they could not otherwise afford, or, if they were going to buy it either way, improves the welfare of the kind of people who would choose to buy it anyway. Separately, NEITHER the tax NOR the tax credit is REMOTELY contestable on ANY constitutional ground. Yet together, they have confused 3 allegedly smart people (Verrilli, Breyer, Ginsburg) on the liberal side.

It simply does NOT GET any more intellectually EMBARRASSING than that.

c.j. acworth| 4.4.12
I graduated from high school in 1973. Even back then, I was never in a history or civcs course that required examination of the Constitution. I imagine that if you tried to implement such a requirement today, you would be told that gender and race sensitivity training is more important and can’t be dropped to make room. Thus the people are progressively dumbed down, and Republic gives way to Dictatorship through ignorance of what is being lost.

Dmac| 4.4.12
When I took American History if you couldn’t name all the amendments to the Constitution you were not going to pass the class. We studied the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance and we knew what they were and what they meant. We also had to study Texas history. When you study the two of them it makes you fiercly indepnedant and proud of who you are and where you are from.
Every student should be required to not only know, but understand the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States. It will only make us stronger as a people and nation to know it.

R Martin| 4.4.12
I often comment that the only government job I would accept is, coincidentally, the only one I am entirely qualified for–Supreme Court Justice. My argument is that although I have never taken a class in law, I can read, I can apply logic, I know what words mean (and if not, I know what dictionaries are) and I understand fully the intent the writers of the Constitution expressed for how government should work and how its powers should be limited. How hard can the job be?

For those of you who would like proof of Ms. Fabrizio’s thesis, a pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is available for free from the Cato Institute by calling 800-767-1241.

Obama’s protests against an “activist” court are amusing and delightfully cynical and reveal a “living Constitution” that means whatever Obama says it does and therefore, anyone who disagrees with him, by definition, is a manipulative, dishonest, bigot. Number 1, he’s right. Number 2, you’re wrong. And any further discussion is simply the “denier” being unreasonable. In his view, he’s God and he’s a sore loser when that reality doesn’t always work out.

RJ| 4.4.12 @ 1:52PM

I had four Constitutional law courses in law school and in only one of those courses was reading the Constitution part of the agenda and the professor was considered by much of the faculty as a kook. Most “Constitutional” classes in law school consist of reading case opinions, many of which are sophmoric legalisms to justify government action which is clearly inconsistent the text of the Constitution and the concerns of the Constitutional Convention.

“The plaintiffs had no coherent constitutional theory on severability and on Medicaid,” writes American Enterprise Institute legal scholar Michael Greve. “For that reason they will lose on both issues, and all the partisanship on the Court, real and imagined, won’t help them.” Greve continued by noting “the justices gave the government every chance in the world to draw a constitutionally grounded enumerated powers line. It couldn’t, and so it will lose.”

Just as he did when he lectured the justices about Citizens United, Obama plans to demagogue any Supreme Court ruling that is unfavorable to his health care program. The same president who holds Roe v. Wade inviolate, a decision that invalidated the laws of all 50 states on an issue no one had previously imagined to be under federal jurisdiction, will inveigh against judicial activism.

Jack in Wi.| 4.3.12 @ 7:36AM

Jackson said. ” They made their decisions let them enforce it. ” He openly defied the Court. Lincoln refused to follow the Surpreme Court on the issue of Habeous Corpus and wanted to arrest the Chief Justice. FDR attacked the Court and wanted to pack it. Jefferson never believed the Court should have that kind of power and said so.

Violating one’s oath of office is a pre-requisite for conducting any business in DC. To every criminal who populates the place, it’s an archaic formality.

That’s what we’re looking at, and this All Encompassing Health Care Omnibus Decree from on high, is the 1st step, in a Journey that will undoubtedly lead to one certain end: With the Emperor’s thumb UP. Or with it DOWN.

Hail Caesar!

And read the book “The Giver”. No better outline of the world the progressives want to implement.

Obama is one of the most narcissistic self enamouring elitists we’ve ever had to suffer through in our nation.

Stamp it “Return to Sender” and dump it on Obama’s desk and make it Washington’s problem. They created a bill they didn’t read and rammed it through (how does it pass constitutional muster if they didn’t even read it?) Make Washington start over and do it honestly and correctly this time.

The SCOTUS is the last line of defense against an over reaching arrogant government like Obama’s administration.

They have to strike this down. Otherwise, they’ve essentially told the nation there is no one left in our government to protect us from dishonest politicians and Washington’s tyranny. The SCOTUS would be saying “broken arrow.”

The only correct decision is to strike it down entirely, and send it back and make Washington do it over, the right way.

He’s childish, and petulant. He was obviously coddled as a kid, and no one ever blatantly made him take responsibility for his behavior. As he rose through the ranks, he got his way gaming the system, never really taking positions or responsibility for his behavior.

Ergo, anyone that challenges his “oh so brilliant” positions in his mind . . . .he will bully and villify. Because he’s never wrong. It’s always someone else’s problem.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 12:06PM

[what are they to do?]

According to you, they’re supposed to wait for me to pay for it.

Care to explain the logic by which they are freed from responsibility for providing for their own health care but I am saddled with the responsibility for providing for their health care? From where does my indebtedness to them arise? What do I get in return?

You know what they used to call people who are involuntarily compelled to provide for the material needs of others? They used to call them “slaves”. Then again…considering the history of slavery in America and the Democrats ties to it, I guess it’s not surprising that a Lefty like you wants to see it re-instituted.

[the republican mantra is ive got mine screw everyone else . prove me wrong.]

Easy. Do I have a right to reach into your pocket and take money from you…just because you have more than I have? Does someone else have a right to reach into your pocket and take money from you in order to give it to someone else…just because you have more than they have?

No?

There…your “argument” has just been demolished.

Now…where were we? Oh yeah…answer the question, Lefty: what entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

“Ultimately I am 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.”

“judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” when “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

“I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,”   And also cites legal scholars.
Do we really need any more proof of who and what this person really is.

Dave Williams| 4.3.12 @ 12:49PM

I assume by “single-payer,” you mean that if I need health care, I pay for it myself, just like I pay for my own food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and entertainment…..? Sounds good to me.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 5:19PM

The American Way is for folks to pay for what they get.
The Communist, collectivist way is to have others pay for what you use.
50 years ago everybody paid their medical bills and there was a thriving healthcare industry.
The difference between then and now is the inculcated sense of entitlement.
That must end or America will.

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 5:30PM

Well, the most obvious benefit is that he has a state that protects his wealth. I’d say that’s a pretty decent benefit. We’ve decided that part of that protection is a social safety net. It’s beneficial for the society as a whole. Not having an underclass of starving, angry, disease ridden and probably revolutionary poor is beneficial to social order and most especially to those who stand the most to lose, who are the rich. Every modern western capitalist country has some form of redistributive taxation. Not coincidentally, they’re the freest, most prosperous countries in the world. Why are you so eager to cast aside the wisdom of your ancestors and radically reform society into some libertarian utopia? Which of the worlds most prosperous countries are libertarian?

So tell us: what is the reciprocal consideration that Citizen A receives in return for having his money/wealth confiscated by the govt in order to hand it over to Citizen B?
DRed| 4.3.12 @ 5:30PM

Well, the most obvious benefit is that he has a state that protects his wealth. I’d say that’s a pretty decent benefit. We’ve decided that part of that protection is a social safety net. It’s beneficial for the society as a whole. Not having an underclass of starving, angry, disease ridden and probably revolutionary poor is beneficial to social order and most especially to those who stand the most to lose, who are the rich. Every modern western capitalist country has some form of redistributive taxation. Not coincidentally, they’re the freest, most prosperous countries in the world. Why are you so eager to cast aside the wisdom of your ancestors and radically reform society into some libertarian utopia? Which of the worlds most prosperous countries are libertarian?
DeRp| 4.3.12 @ 5:43PM

. . . premised the consistently proven dreadful liar.
rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 6:56PM

[Well, the most obvious benefit is that he has a state that protects his wealth…babble, babble…pointless unsupported-by-law-or-anything-else nonsense…]

I think I’ve clearly established that you have no fact-based, law-based response to my inquiries about Constitutionally-authorized wealth redistribution.

And I think I’ve clearly established that you have no fact-based, philosophically-based response to my schooling you in what “the social contract” entails.

…just lots of “social justice” nonsense.

Thanks for playing 🙂
DRed| 4.3.12 @ 8:22PM

God, the lord and father of all has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods, so that it cannot justly be denied him when his pressing wants call for it, and therefore, no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions, since it would always be a sin in any man of estate to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty.

Charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise.

John Locke, First Treatise on Government

DeRp| 4.3.12

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger
on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending,
on the objects of benevolence,
the money of their constituents.”

– James Madison

The interesting thing about that Madison quote from Congressman Madison is that others in Congress disagreed with him, citing the general welfare clause. Congress also wound up granting the aid to the refugees. So, what do we do when members of the founding generation can’t even agree what the constitution provides?

DeRp| 4.3.12
The interesting thing about the members of the founding generation is the self-evident truth that these members of the founding generation were unanimous in agreement that the constitution of the constitutional republic provides a vote only to those entitled to vote; that this vote be entitled only to those with an actual financial stake.

The interesting thing about this unanimous agreement among members of the founding generation is that the aid granted through their vote was aid provided with their own money; that they did not vote to provide that aid with the money of others.

The interesting thing about the Madison quote is that Madison could not find anywhere in the Constitution where Congress was granted the right to spend money on charity; that Madison could not find this anywhere in the Constitution that Madison himself wrote.

The interesting thing about this post is that it responds to a consistently proven liar; a consistently proven liar who quoted a foreign philosopher while questioning the words of the author of the Constitution of the United States about the Constitution of the United States itself.
DRed| 4.3.12
It does a pretty good job of showing us what Madison thought the constitution meant. But does the Constitution only means what James Madison thought it meant? What if every person who voted to ratify the constitution disagreed with Madison? Alexander Hamilton, for example, pretty clearly disagreed with Madison on the constitution. In the debate concerning the Haitian refugees, Rep. Buodinot, thought the general welfare clause would allow Congress to spend money on the refugees. Madison wrote the constitution, but he didn’t ratify it. If he wrote something that everyone else understood differently from how he meant it, who should we give more weight to? You think you can answer that without veering into repetitive gibberish or pasting irrelevant things I wrote months ago?

Hmm, skip, I can’t think of any reason why someone would quote John Locke while discussing John Locke’s beliefs. Maybe you can use your reason and experience and whatever else is in the doggerel you always repeat to help me figure that out.
rvastar| 4.4.12 @ 8:51AM

[John Locke, First Treatise on Government]

That’s all wonderful…and if this was a nation of men, you might have a point. Unfortunately for totalitarians such as yourself who love to see nations ruled over by strong men, this is a nation of LAWS, and the underlying foundation of those laws is the US Constitution.

So it’s time for you to put-up or shut-up, Lefty. Answer the question:

What entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

HudsonValleyWest| 4.3.12

The reason everyone, including illegal aliens, must be treated at emergency rooms is because the very same type of activist judges BHO is now whining about made it happen. Thanks to activist judges, the children of illegals must be educated for free at public schools, even though voters in several states overwhelmingly passed ballot initiatives to the contrary. Thanks to activist judges, the police are not allowed to ask about an illegal alien’s immigration status and medical personnel are not allowed to report them when they show up for free treatment. But BHO and the rest of imbecile left don’t see any problem with activist judges as long the outcome is right in their view. Personally, I’ll be happy to sign up for Obamacare as soon as he and all the rest of the clowns who voted for it are covered by it. Until then, No to Obamacare.

kwan| 4.3.12

Like the leftist global warming scamboozle the leftist healthcare scamboozle or ObamaCare is about leftist tyrants wanting to transform the free citizens of America into a BORG collective controlled like automatons by the central government. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe-size knows that ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with actual health care.

RJ| 4.3.12

Obama again shows us the grace and charm of a surly child. As I recall, Richard Epstein, former Professor of Law at Chicago University said that when Obama was a part-time lecturer there, he was ideologically inflexible and would not discuss serious issues with informed people who disagreed with him. Hypocrisy and mendacity are every day traits of Obama. He is unqualified to serve as President

HudsonValleyWest| 4.3.12

The reason everyone, including illegal aliens, must be treated at emergency rooms is because the very same type of activist judges BHO is now whining about made it happen. Thanks to activist judges, the children of illegals must be educated for free at public schools, even though voters in several states overwhelmingly passed ballot initiatives to the contrary. Thanks to activist judges, the police are not allowed to ask about an illegal alien’s immigration status and medical personnel are not allowed to report them when they show up for free treatment. But BHO and the rest of imbecile left don’t see any problem with activist judges as long the outcome is right in their view. Personally, I’ll be happy to sign up for Obamacare as soon as he and all the rest of the clowns who voted for it are covered by it. Until then, No to Obamacare.

Now…answer the question: what entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

Oh…and when you’re done NOT answering that question, maybe you could take a stab at answering these: by what logic is a person freed from responsibility for providing for their own health care but I am then saddled with the responsibility for providing for their health care? From where does my indebtedness to them arise? What do I get in return?

Indy| 4.3.12

I think he knows exactly what he is doing, every decision / spoken word is all about November 2012. The bully pulpit and the media are his tools along with social media, too much of the electorate are uninformed / misinformed and make up a large percentage of those receiving something from the Federal Government.
Oldefarte| 4.3.12

It’s ironical that liberals and Democrats have used the SCOTUS for most of my lifetime to their advantage to the circumvent public opinion of legislation in order to ramrod into existence special interest oriented laws/decisions that were/are beneficial to their socialistic causes, ie quid-pro-qupisms. Now with the possibility of an adverse opinion by the Court that would negate this socialistic WELFARECARE, the president and his liberalistic minions are screaming bloody murder and accusing same of court activism etc. What a croc! Again even though I’ll be delighted by the Court ruling against them on this issue, I simply do not hold much hope in an institution that is rightfully dominated by lawyers and judges [as same are some of the most liberal-progressives within our society at large]. My one/true hope resides with the election in November and with the awakening from their 11/4/08 STUPIDITY!!!!!

Orwell| 4.3.12

The argument about human elements and the Constitution being a living breathing entity is the “Greatest trick since the Devil convinced us he did not exist!” The whole point of a Constitution is to be rigid and unwavering so that the rights it guarantees can not be eroded or chipped away by the legislature or executive branch at one particular time according to political fancy. The Constitution contains set procedures on how to amend it when need be and the citizens decide it needs to be. Obama know ZERO about the Constitution and has tried to destroy or minimize it since he got into office. This fact alone tells me the Constitution is drafted correctly to stave off the zealots who would change us from within.

I’m constantly amazed that there are actual adults who continue to refer to ObaMao as a ‘Constitutional professor’…the fool has OBVIOUSLY never heard of “marbury v. madison”
Jack in Wi.| 4.3.12 @ 6:41AM

It’s a good stategy. He is trying to scare Kennedy into caving, just like he did in Casey case back in the early 1990’s. Kennedy is one weak link that nobody knows where his blackmail point is. Roe could have been overturned if Kennedy had voted right on Casey. He was supposed to have changed his mind suddenly on the subject. To me, that hints at blackmail. I have seen some comments on the subject by other people who also believe that.
Teaghan| 4.3.12 @ 7:32AM

Has anyone here ever heard a sitting president threaten the supreme court before? No, didn’t think so. He’s a mentally ill, self centered, narsassistic, dangerous man with a personality disorder. He astounds daily.
Jack in Wi.| 4.3.12 @ 7:36AM

Jackson said. ” They made their decisions let them enforce it. ” He openly defied the Court. Lincoln refused to follow the Surpreme Court on the issue of Habeous Corpus and wanted to arrest the Chief Justice. FDR attacked the Court and wanted to pack it. Jefferson never believed the Court should have that kind of power and said so.
oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 7:48AM

Exactly right Jack, it has happened three times before, where it is become public knowledge. I am sure there were ‘several’ instances of behind the curtin threats.
Frankly I think the Pretender in Charge looks to Lincoln as a role model of how far you can push the system and a President who made war on it’s citizens and got away with it.
We are past March so Beware the Ides of June.
Pete| 4.3.12 @ 8:56PM

All the supreme court has to do is accept the case of Obama’s qualifications to be president in the first place, and unless he can handle a coup, is done.
steve in mass| 4.3.12 @ 10:17AM

Hey Jack if the supreme court strikes down this unconstitutional abortion and he tries to enforce it what do you imagine will happen? Real Americans will not comply with anything this kenyan dictator orders
OLD SCHOOL| 4.3.12 @ 11:27AM

“this kenyan dictator ” is a duly elected president of United States. Stick to policy disagreements and respect the Office of the Presidency.
Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 11:45AM

When The One starts respecting US, I’ll start respecting him.
Till then, I like “Kenyan dictator”.
It’s far more polite than most of what was said about GWB.
glassfinger| 4.3.12 @ 7:00PM

Correct. Weren’t there two films about assassinating Bush? No hand wriging from the left over those. What about the sainted and oh-so-funy Alec Baldwin’s foaming at the mouth diatribe against the life of the special prosecutor & his family during Clinton’s intern problem? That was late night entertainment, right? Respect the Office? Clinton scandalized it, getting bj’s in the Oval Office. The kenyan (no caps, please) is at least a marxist, at worst a communist. The list of clear violations he has done to his oath of office is too long to print here. Respect? Seriously? He has none for the most powerful position in the free world. It used to be that. Ain’t no more. Respect the office, sure-respect the one with the title? hardly-you have to earn that one. This is America, for God’s sake, not a 3rd world dictatorship. Novermber 2012 is coming.
Controse| 4.3.12 @ 1:15PM

You see OLD SCHOOL, the only way the rule of law works if for it to apply to every citizen without regard to position in government. Every since he put forth a fake birth certificate ( short form ) he has been breaking the law. He was not “duly elected.” That is the problem. Books have been written detailing all the laws he has broken since becoming President. Other books have been written detailing all the laws he broke to become President. Who has shown more disrespect for the Office of the Presidency than Obama, or whoever he is, by his crass disregard for that office’s limits as detailed in the Constitution?
skip| 4.3.12 @ 1:41PM

Justice O’Conner twisted Justice Kennedy’s arm. She also allowed him to insert much of his own ideas into the majority opinion. There is no Justice O’Conner in this case. O’Conner played to Kennedy’s vanity by pointing out that they (O’Conner and Kennedy) held the power on the high court. Niether the Progressives or Conservatives could get a majority without first satisfying them. O’Conner was replaced by Alito. And I don’t think that either Breyer or Gingsberg hold much influence over Kennedy.

Kennedy ultimately is a libertarian when it comes to personal freedom and federal controls over that freedom. If you steer clear of the social issues (gays and abortion), he usually sides with the Conservatives.
keith| 4.3.12 @ 6:56PM

BINGO !
Theilmann| 4.3.12 @ 8:34AM

Are you kidding me? “Roe could have been overturned if Kennedy had voted right on Casey.”
How pretentious does one have to be to think that one knows better than a Justice of the Supreme Court? Or perhaps one does not have to be pretentious at all, perhaps one merely needs to be a religious nutter.
For anyone to believe that anyone other than the impregnated woman should hold any rights over the fate of the fetus is ridiculous and smacks of a mindset akin to Sharia. But then again a religious nutter is a religious nutter no matter which imaginary friend they have!
Scotty V| 4.3.12 @ 9:39AM

How pretentious does one have to be to think that killing an unborn human is okay as long as it’s the unborn human’s mother that makes that decision? Or, perhaps one does not have to be pretentious at all, perhaps one merely needs to be a moral relativist nutter, worshipping at the altar of ‘self’.
Purp| 4.3.12 @ 2:40PM

Men have rights to their children too Purp. And when will you on the left get it through your heads that abortion isn’t about “a woman’s right to choose”? It couldn’t be any clearer than now, obamacare, “free birth control” and urging college aged girls to be sterilized. No, this is about culling the herd. I still can’t figure out how they will convince or “mandate” that the muslims can only have 1 child…..when they typically have 8-10.
Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 4:55PM

The Constution is silent on abortion. The states and Federal government with their elected majorities had restrictions on this horrible practice. The Surpreme Court stole this power from the people and states and declared this practice as a constitutional right. It was a dictatorial decision in total violation of the history and constitutional scholarship on this issue. Kennedy was the deciding vote on if this abomination would be overturned. By the way I had a drink with Casey at a right to life dinner some years after this. He was the liberal Democrat governor of Penn, when he took on Roe.
Pete| 4.3.12 @ 9:00PM

I find your “religious nutter” argument very persuasive as to who gets to commit murder in the event the victim finds itself in a womb. The issue here larger than murder is the Constitution. Our country does not exist distinct from other countries unless we follow the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about in-utero murder otherwise known as abortion. It doesn’t permit it, it doesn’t forbid it. The Supreme Court never should have taken the case. The voters should decide not the Supreme Court.
Peggy Rios| 4.3.12 @ 2:20PM

This is the 21st Century my friend, there are a dozen different ways for a woman, who is in charge of her reproductive health, to keep from getting pregnant. Any woman who wants to vote for the current President and his party in November on the basis that they are “friendly” to womens needs are playing right into their hands and you will rue the day you did – think things are tough now, just wait ladies. There are literally DOZENS and DOZENS of more critically important things going on OR NOT going on in this country for the topic of women’s reproductive health let you get so distracted and I feel sorry for any woman who puts her family in the hands of the worst set of elected officials in American History on that basis! Women – you want to take care of your reproductive health? Then DO it! Men want to have a say in it? Take responsibility for YOUR part in the whole pregnancy choice discussion – get a condom!
Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 11:59AM

That is correct. Obama was only a guest lecturer. He never earned the title Professor.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s