« | »

Obama Holds The Supreme Court In Contempt

From a cheering Reuters:

Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare

By Jeff Mason
Mon Apr 2, 2012

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.

In addition to the blatant hypocrisy of such a charge, this shows that Mr. Obama does not even know the meaning of the term ‘judicial activism.’

But now we know why we have never seen Mr. Obama’s grade transcripts.

[T]he president — who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law — made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.

"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 said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

In reality, there was no "strong majority" in support of Obama-Care. In fact, there was bi-partisan support against it.

Lest we forget, Obama-Care passed the Senate, late on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for it, and all the Senate Republicans voting against it.

It passed in the House on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with all of the 178 House Republicans and with even 34 Democrats voting against the bill. And it was all done through a legislative maneuver, budget reconciliation, that has never been used for legislation, let alone landmark legislation.

Historically, major legislation such as this has been passed by large and bipartisan votes.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

"And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said

Mr. Obama is declaring war on the Supreme Court. Again.

"It’s not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court," said Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman. "But it’s also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president’s central legislative accomplishments."

Huh? The Supreme Court isn’t threatening anything.

The president, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said the "individual mandate" that requires most people to buy insurance was critical to the success of the healthcare overhaul…

"I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care," Obama said.

"So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate."

And never mind that during the 2008 campaign, Senator Obama strongly implied that an individual mandate would be unconstitutional because it would mean the government would have unlimited power to mandate anything. Obama chided Hillary: "I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."

We hope that is not forgotten in this political debate.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Obama Holds The Supreme Court In Contempt”

  1. dasher says:

    How gloriously hypocritical of him. I saw this article late yesterday and prayed you’d post it. It is nearly the perfect example of Obama’s arrogance.

    • River0 says:

      There are only two possibilities: He’s so dumb that he doesn’t understand the three branches of government and how they’re intended to work; or he’s so craven, corrupt, and power hungry that he will stoop to any level, lie, and betray the whole nation and his oath.

      His words and deeds must shock everyone with a conscience or an ounce of integrity left.

  2. untrainable says:

    …”I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,”

    Doesn’t that statement perfectly address the case against severability?The rest of the bill won’t work without the mandate, so if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law must be tossed out. Thanks Barry. Why didn’t you say so? You could have saved the Supreme Court and your lawyer a whole day of mindless deliberations with that one statement.

    • Dupree says:

      The whole law should be thrown out and found un-severable because it will not work, but not for the reasons Obama demagogues. Many states have already banned pre-existing conditions clauses without imposing individual mandates.

  3. AcornsRNutz says:

    I love the bit about how he was a constitutional scholar, and because of this when he whines “but we need the mandate or the whole thing collapses”, this must mean the whole thing stands up to constitutional scrutiny.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Obama’s ass is showing yet again. When petulant, arrogant children have no respect for elders or authority, their actions are very visible and usually very childish.

    Such is the case here. He is also patently unaware of the roles of the three branches of government, as Steve has so clearly pointed out.

    At the base of his whole psyche is that inability to be objective because he’s been trained all his life that objectivity means that everyone should agree with his point of view. Failing to do so is “lacking in objectivity”. It’s also “racist” “ignorant” “stupid” and a slew of other adjectives he’s used over the past three+ years. The same holds for “compromise”.

    So how does one deal with such a person? The left is already doing it though we will never hear anything about it. I’m pretty sure they shut him out of things he’s not in control of. To them, he’s the classic ingrate; After all the national socialists have done for him, he won’t “spread the wealth” for democrats seeking office, pretty much criticizes everyone, either behind-their-backs or to their faces and when things don’t go his way, I’m pretty sure he runs off and sulks.

    I’m also pretty sure that he’s not liked at all by his own party. And the reason for this is his ignorant and casual insults that probably occur several times a day. He’s a very frustrated little twirp because things don’t happen fast enough, don’t go exactly to plan and people keep getting in the way. “Oh why can’t I enjoy ONE minute to myself?”, he must moan.

    Conservatives have disliked him from the moment he was a child. National socialists are learning to dislike him. It’s kind of like Himmler. He was in charge of a lot of stuff but everyone treated him nice to his face, but when he left, they cursed the day he was born. Fascists, Socialists, democrats are much like that. They do not have his best interest at heart and, unlike a conservative-based team, which operates on knowing how the whole must function and get along and work the two-way street, it’s a one-way street with Obama. But for a leftist, it’s also, “How can I maximize my take on this…I want notoriety, profit or a career-boost or all three”.

    Though any politician is lured by their own selfishness, it is especially apparent in the left. The minute Obama stops being profitable to them, they will abandon him. When he’s unelected this fall, watch how many say, “Obama who?” As well as the heavy-critiquing of the once sea-lowering wunderkinder.

    I think his political infrastructure is very shaky. It’s inherent in the way he does business. And people don’t like being abused. I don’t care if they’re democrat or republican….eventually, they get fed up.

    • tranquil.night says:

      One has to wonder if behind the scenes the relationship between Obama and his party in some way parallels that between Olby and Current TV. Supreme ideological solidarity betweeen the collectivists is a total farce. Sure there are some useful idiot true believers but no one in the upper eschelons of Leftist power is that naive. They’re all self-worshippers through and through. Constantly taking it politically on the chin for a means to an end with a spoiled manchild’s authority being that end has to be irritating. Especially for the Clinton wing.

      They’re united in their contempt for Conservatives; American Exceptionalism; the Constitution. Remove the major resistance to them and they’ll turn on eachother like the Bolsheviks. But the country is lost by that point when the truly scary totalitarianism emerges.

  5. dasher says:

    eventually, they get fed up

    Oh Rusty, how I do hope you are correct. I also hope the Republican nominee has the backbone to use all this material when the time comes to debate Obama.

    Hope, that thing with feathers…


    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I sincerely doubt that Romney will take advantage of the voluminous material available to him. He is frightfully unaware that 60+ % of the American public is categorically politically uninvolved. By that I mean, he lacks the awareness that, come crunch-time, he must present his case to those who only listen to him in the last few weeks of the campaign.

      Americans prefer to avoid the rabble of campaign rhetoric and are rather lazy about the process. Although this time around I think more are engaged than have been in the past. But Romney thinks (or appears to think) that because he’s “the” candidate, and that he considers it important, that all of America also thinks it’s important. He is detached enough to lack the understanding that conservative Americans are busy working at their jobs, paying bills, talking to their kids, paying their mortgages and not all that concerned with his stand on things, other than they dislike Obama intensely, but really don’t fully grasp why voting for him would be any better than having the current disaster in office.

      Many also feel it’s a foregone conclusion that Obama will be re-elected. This is due to the thinking that it’s all a scam; That the elections are fixed and there’s little they can do to change it. A lot of middle-class Americans do not vote. I’m sure many more will this time around than last, but they are still largely uninvolved.

      Being middle-class comes with it the slightly cynical tinge that we are forced to deal with political buffoonery but that the best thing we can do is just try to work within the system and protect ourselves as best we can. In short, “We’re on our own”. We don’t spend a lot of time in court, engaged in political rallies, protesting, devouring the latest thing a politician said or did and dissecting it in the manner that Rush, Hannity, Levin or Beck does, though we like their uptake on such things. Largely we feel helpless but know that we’re the largest segment in the bell-curve where the politicians like to get the money from. And that irks us no-end. Sure, our tax-rate is lower than the mega-millionaires but they still get billions more from us as a segment than any from the upper financial echelon. And, when our taxes go up, we feel it more than the very rich. However, we harbor no resentment in that as we still feel everyone should be able to keep the majority of what they earn. And we also understand that they pay a much larger percentage than we do and we don’t consider that fair by any stretch of the imagination.

      In the 80’s the middle class grew as never before since after WW II. It is now shrinking.

      But most Americans would be hard-pressed to tell you as to why. Perhaps it’s indifference or ignorance or otherwise-occupied or perhaps all three and more. The middle class generally resents politicians anyhow. We are not too interested in the incessant babble that emanates from Washington, or even our own local town square. The people who we know who are engaged in local politics we find extremely annoying.

      So there is a huge separation. Our frustration largely stems from “So…why did they do that? And how much is that going to cost me?” Parents need to clothe, feed and protect their kids and eventually, hope to send them to college some day. Ironically, many send their kids to college to get some basket-weaving degree and then wonder what the hell just happened when their beloved child cannot find work in the city even though they have a degree.

      But still middle-America, though slightly concerned about the political sphere, is largely uninvolved for their own reasons. It’s not a good thing. But Romney won’t recognize that middle America doesn’t fully comprehend what the Marxist in office is doing and how he’s gone and used his crayola outside the lines on so many occasions. Many are also afraid to openly criticize the man because of fears of being called racist. Where I work, discussions about this guy are hushed and confined to a small few and brief.

      Romney is unaware of the middle-class concerns, and also unaware of how to get the middle-class’s attention. He’s certainly no Reagan where Ron would give a sound-bite and middle Americans would hear it and say, “You know what? That’s a very excellent point”. Obama was excellent at broadcasting the sound-bites that got the terminally frustrated’s attention and got them to come along for “hope ‘n’ change” but I don’t think the middle class largely voted for the guy and they certainly weren’t motivated to go vote if they hadn’t before.

      I guess what I’m saying without actually saying it is that the middle class is fine with the status quo so long as it doesn’t change all that radically. However this time it has and people’s homes are upside-down, getting refinancing is the current topic of discussion at work…while also….putting kids though college is another. No one I’ve heard has been a regular annunciator of going to the polls this fall and getting Obama out of office. And that, to me, is the fault of the candidates who are not doing the thing you mention; Bringing the failures of this administration up and repeating them clearly, loudly, with conviction.

      I doubt Romney will do that. He’s unaware of what motivates the middle-class or just assumes that our vote is “in-the-bag”. What he fails to comprehend is that those who don’t come out to vote just might if he starts saying the things that are meaningful. He’s possibly also under the severe misconception that his “message” is getting out there via the media. I don’t watch mainstream news. It categorically sucks…but I do know that the media doesn’t spend any time helping any republican candidate broadcast their talking points. They talk about where the primaries are, then they flame each candidate for their being republicans and that’s about it. But they learned from their “mistake” with Reagan and they gave him far too much coverage in the comprehensive sense. They’ve adjusted so that what looks like reporting is just tearing the republicans apart and no discussing of what any of them stands for.

      This is also partly the candidates’ fault. Gingrich and Santorum have stood up and chastised media for what they’re doing..but it has made no difference.

  6. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    “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 said

    Unprecedented??? Really??? There were numerous New Deal acts deemed unconstitutional in part or whole, such as National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act of 1934, Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, National Industrial Recovery Act, Railroad Pension Act of 1934, Bituminous Cal Conservation Act of 1935. Apparently Obama is as ignorant of history as he is of…well…everything.

    Not a single statement he made during that entire press conference was factual. Barak Obama, pathological liar.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”Apparently Obama is as ignorant of history as he is of…well…everything…….”

      I don’t want to come off as the grammar and syntax police, but that is a needlessly wordy sentence. Perhaps I can help.

      Apparently Obama is…..ignorant.

      Glad to be of service.

  7. canary says:

    Once again Obama’s intimidated and obstructed justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; the highest court in the land. Though this was done done in a speech addressing the entire Nation in which the Supreme Court Justices were stunned and shook their heads no to Obama’s false allegation against them. The Obama a former substance abuser and teacher’s shocking obstruction of Justice.

    The Washington Times: Obama again presses Supreme Court on health care
    Tones down rhetoric on ‘unelected’ judges

    By Paige Winfield Cunningham April 3 2012

    He said Americans must “respect” whatever ruling the court makes, but again urged the justices to show “restraint” in reviewing the law, which passed a politically divided Congress in 2009 and 2010 with strong Democratic support but no Republican votes.

    “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue like health care — as I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. So we’re going back to the [1930s], pre-New Deal,” he said.

    Many conservatives noted that it is the essence of the court’s job to strike down even highly popular laws if they determine that they violate fundamental constitutional principles, and that the court has done so often in the past.

    Constitutional scholars said judges overturn laws all the time.

    “I think he must have been just thinking on his feet when he said that,” said Russell Wheeler, a legal expert at the Brookings Institution.

    …Jefrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, who said
    Mr. Obama has opposed judicial activism for a long time, even writing a chapter about it in his book “The Audacity of Hope.”

    “This is something he’s been doing since long before he became president, so he has standing to make this argument,” Mr. Rosen said.

    “He’s been preparing for more than a decade to criticize judicial activism; whether it’s supported by conservatives or liberals.”


  8. Anonymoose says:

    Obama has the problem that he was put into office not only on high and vague promises of “hope and change” but also followed by the ultra-radical left who he’s disappointed at every turn–however, no electable candidate could satisfy the Che Guevara t-shirt wearing crowd.

    Ask them, any of them, about the budget reconciliation trick and they just give you a blank stare. Try to explain it to them and they just put their fingers in their ears; it’s just some evil Republican conspiracy to make The One look bad.

    So after Obama hooplas like deciding to stop opposing court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act as he just felt it’s unconstitutional or looking the other way when activist judges overturn public referendums about gay marriage, now he’s ticked off that the “unelected activist” Supremes would dare go challenge his will and rule against the healthcare act? How more arrogant can this man possibly be?

  9. MZmaj7 says:

    Steve Gilbert, April 3, 2012: “But now we know why we have never seen Mr. Obama’s grade transcripts.”

    Ann Coulter, April 4, 2012: “I guess now we know why Obama won’t release his college and law school transcripts!”


« Front Page | To Top
« | »