« | »

‘Constitutional Lawyer’ Obama Disagrees With SCOTUS

From the Washington Free Beacon:

White House: ‘The Constitutional Lawyer in the Oval Office Disagrees’ With the Supreme Court

June 30, 2014

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the “constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office” disagreed with the Supreme Court’s assessment of religious freedom Monday during his daily press briefing. The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of the Christian-owned company Hobby Lobby, saying by a 5-4 vote that Obamacare’s mandate that companies pay for insurance coverage for contraception violated its religious freedom.

“There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views that are held not by them, necessarily, but by their bosses,” Earnest said. “We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court, primarily because he’s concerned about the impact that it could have on the health of those women.”

None of this is true, of course. Hobby Lobby will still provide insurance coverage for 16 kinds of birth control. They just will no longer have to pay for four kinds of abortion pills.

The constitutional lawyer has seen things differently than the judicial branch on several issues lately. For instance, Obama was rebuked last week when the Supreme Court struck down three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as unconstitutional…

In fact, the Obama administration has lost 15 Supreme Court decisions in a row, since 2012. And in the five years Obama has been in office, SCOTUS has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision a whopping 20 times.

Besides, some might argue it is a bit of a stretch to call Obama a Constitutional lawyer. He certainly never practiced as such. In fact, as we have noted for years, Obama really only taught race and gender grievance law.

From the archives of the New York Times:

Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart

By JODI KANTOR | July 30, 2008

CHICAGO — The young law professor stood apart in too many ways to count. At a school where economic analysis was all the rage, he taught rights, race and gender. Other faculty members dreamed of tenured positions; he turned them down. While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship…

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance

His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law. Mr. Obama improvised his own textbook, including classic cases like Brown v. Board of Education, and essays by Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Dubois, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, as well as conservative thinkers like Robert H. Bork.

Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers…

Yep, that’s the kind of thing a constitutional lawyer would teach.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, July 1st, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “‘Constitutional Lawyer’ Obama Disagrees With SCOTUS”

  1. yadayada says:

    “There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views that are held not by them, necessarily, but by their bosses,”

    oh those poor victims. totally incapable of determining they’re options; let’s see,
    1) buy their own condoms (or get them for free from da gubmint)
    2) buy own pills (or get them for free from da gubmint)
    3) go to planned parenthood
    4) keep their legs closed, and their seat backs in the upright position
    5) find new employment (preferably at a lib 501(c)3)

  2. untrainable says:

    Why do women suddenly have a “right” to make someone else pay for their contraception?

    Why do people think it’s wrong for the employer to “force” their beliefs on the employee, but that the employee should be empowered by the full weight of the government to “force” their beliefs on the employer?

    Pro abortion groups have been screaming at the top of their little lungs for years that what they do with their bodies is their decision and that Government should not have anything to say about it. They call it “choice”. OK then, if the choice is yours and yours alone, then why are you dragging your employer into it all of a sudden? Why is it their RESPONSIBILITY to pay $$$$ for your CHOICE?

    I’m sick of hearing that not paying for something that someone else wants is the equivalent of taking away their right to it. You still have a right to whatever you had a right to before. The only thing that’s changed is that instead of paying your own way, you now want to FORCE someone else to PAY FOR IT! Whose rights are really being taken away (along with a considerable amount of their money)??

    If you want to live in that world, fine. But leave me and my meager wages out of it. Why not set up a fund for free contraception. If you believe in it, then contribute to the fund. If you don’t, then don’t. Then we’ll see just how popular the idea really is. Please send your money to “The National Contraception Moochers Fund” – save a child from being accidentally born to the hopelessly irresponsible.

  3. canary says:

    Josh Earnest, another good liar. Aside Earnest lying they would not get birthcontrol, Earnest said Obama was a lawyer.

    I literally tried to google and find the name of Obama’s personal lawyer advisor.

    This WH spokesman may be more a liar than the last one.

  4. Mithrandir says:


    Our representatives MEAN NOTHING. We live in a system similar to IRAN’s Guardian Council.

    We can’t make decisions, because good or bad, the American courts will strike it down eventually.

    We waste money to elect people from our own areas to represent our wishes and desires, but it’s all for naught. Don’t want homosexuality? Vote it down time and time again? Doesn’t matter, the court’s decide everything.

    We are nothing more than subjects to THEIR WILL in whatever fiefdom we reside in. Every single problem must wind its way through the court system, not by the vote, not by The People.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »