Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on April 02, 2012, 07:24:09 PM
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/obama_supreme_court_striking_down_obamacare_would_be_judicial_activism.html
Obama is a fucking joke. I can not believe a supposed con law scholar would say what he did today. Just fucking pathetic.
-
It's not judicial activism when they do what he wants, though. Yawn. Same old song and dance from this guy. It's everyone else's fault but his. So much for all the retards that praise his "constitutional law" background.
-
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-methodically-rips-apart-obamas-scotus-intimidation-argument
Great takedown sentence by sentence on obamas con law illiteracy.
-
What a fucking joke.
I like how he says that it was passed with an "overwhelming majority of elected officials"
But leaves out that they didnt know what was in it, were told they "had to pass it to find out"
AND MOST IMPORTANT,
That the citizens they represent are "overwhelmingly" opposed to it.
Douche of the highest order.
-
I think Kagan or her staff leaked the results of some sort of the vote. no way Obama would use code words like he did today unless he was tipped off.
-
Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law
Yahoo News ^ | 4/2/2012 | Stephen Collinson
Posted on April 2, 2012 9:38:31 PM EDT by pterional
US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Code words. This communist dictator tyrant is making plans now that kagan probably leaked that MengleCare is going down.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/01/five-supreme-court-justices-put-our-health-care-on-the-line.html
Is this what you leftist fools try to pass off as intelligence?
-
Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law
Yahoo News ^ | 4/2/2012 | Stephen Collinson
Posted on April 2, 2012 9:38:31 PM EDT by pterional
US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
Code words. This communist dictator tyrant is making plans now that kagan probably leaked that MengleCare is going down.
I would sure hope that the judges cut themselves off from the outside world, cause things like this can sway people if they feel threatened, it doesnt take much to change somebodies minds on something like this.
I wish the Justices would be isolated amongst themsevles after the courtroom hearings, it would seem wrong that they would be able to be influenced by outside sources such as political intimidation once theyve heard all the arguments and are deliberating.
Seems very wrong. Itd be like a jury getting paid a visit by the offender while theyre trying to decide his fate.
-
his statement today was beyond offensive for anyone concerned w law, civics, etc
-
The Democrats are a pathetic bunch, and this is the most pathetic President we have had in the modern era. For him to attack the Supreme Court is anti Contsitutional and anti- democratic. Has he ever heard of Seperation of Powers? It is not the President's place to speak about this. When the Supreme Court strikes down this disasturous law, it is his place to accept it and deal with it. Not to criticise the Supreme Court. When the SC ruled that evidence had to be presented at Military Tribunals (which was seen as a huge setback in the War on Terror) , Bush took it like a man and followed the SC's decision. Bush never criticised the Court for it. Its pathetic that man child liberals critisize Bush, when Bush has more class in one finger than Obama does in his entire loser polititican body. THe man sucks. He is a failure. A poser. A one hit wonder. How do liberals look at themselves in the mirror and defend this guy? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Liberals have no self awareness at all. Those man children cant look at themselves objectively.
-
The Democrats are a pathetic bunch, and this is the most pathetic President we have had in the modern era. For him to attack the Supreme Court is anti Contsitutional and anti- democratic. Has he ever heard of Seperation of Powers? It is not the President's place to speak about this. When the Supreme Court strikes down this disasturous law, it is his place to accept it and deal with it. Not to criticise the Supreme Court. When the SC ruled that evidence had to be presented at Military Tribunals (which was seen as a huge setback in the War on Terror) , Bush took it like a man and followed the SC's decision. Bush never criticised the Court for it. Its pathetic that man child liberals critisize Bush, when Bush has more class in one finger than Obama does in his entire loser polititican body. THe man sucks. He is a failure. A poser. A one hit wonder. How do liberals look at themselves in the mirror and defend this guy? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Liberals have no self awareness at all. Those man children cant look at themselves objectively.
Bingo. liberals have sold their souls to defend this communist tyrant.
-
Print Close
Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
Published April 02, 2012 | FoxNews.com
ADVERTISEMENT
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.
"I'm 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.
The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace.
Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care.
"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional."
Republican lawmakers slammed the president for his Supreme Court comments. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused the president of misrepresenting the implications of a ruling against the law.
"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist,'" he said in a statement. "Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals' purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional."
The president spoke following meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Until the heath care case remarks, the press conference was focused mostly on economic issues, as well as the war on drugs.
The leaders vowed a new effort to boost North American trade and cut needless regulation that stifles it. "Our three nations are going to sit down together, go through the books and simplify and eliminate more regulations that will make our joint economies stronger," Obama said.
Obama noted trade among the three neighbors now tops $1 trillion a year, and he wants to see that number rise.
But notable by its absence from the post-summit news conference in the Rose Garden was the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Obama shelved the plan pending further review -- and has endured ferocious GOP attacks ever since, with Republicans calling the move a blow to job creation and U.S. energy needs. He maintains GOP leaders in Congress forced his hand by insisting on a decision before an acceptable pipeline route was found.
Harper has voiced disappointment with Obama's decision. He also visited China in February to explore alternatives. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves -- more than 170 billion barrels -- after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health
-
This clown is too predictable:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=420793.msg6043577#msg6043577
-
This is your president assholes!
-
I would sure hope that the judges cut themselves off from the outside world, cause things like this can sway people if they feel threatened, it doesnt take much to change somebodies minds on something like this.
I wish the Justices would be isolated amongst themsevles after the courtroom hearings, it would seem wrong that they would be able to be influenced by outside sources such as political intimidation once theyve heard all the arguments and are deliberating.
Seems very wrong. Itd be like a jury getting paid a visit by the offender while theyre trying to decide his fate.
The president could anger some of those that had approved the law. It can backfire on him. There might be a justice who may have voted in favor of the law, who after hearing the stupid comments by the president, might change his/her vote.
-
The president could anger some of those that had approved the law. It can backfire on him. There might be a justice who may have voted in favor of the law, who after hearing the stupid comments by the president, might change his/her vote.
The best part is that in 2 minutes yesterday, when off his scripted teleprompter, Obama shows himself to again be completely ignorant of constitutional law and basic civics.
-
I think Kagan or her staff leaked the results of some sort of the vote. no way Obama would use code words like he did today unless he was tipped off.
Drudge inquires if he was tipped off. It wouldn't surprise me. Respect for the process is extinct.
-
Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison
The President needs a remedial course in judicial review.
President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "I'm 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," he declared.
Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.
As it happens, probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act. Readers may recall that the law was dragooned through a reluctant Senate without a single GOP vote and barely the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Despite a huge Democratic majority in the House, it passed by only 219-212.
One reason the law may be overturned is because it was rushed through Congress without a standard "severability" clause that says that the rest of the law stands if one part is judged unconstitutional. Congress jammed it into law because it became ever more unpopular the more the public looked at it. The law is even less popular today than it was on the day it passed in 2010.
Mr. Obama's remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the Justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law. As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama's inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.
A version of this article appeared April 3, 2012, on page A14 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison.
-
Has Kagan or another liberal Justice leaked SCOTUS Friday Obamacare vote to Obama?
Bluegrass Pundit ^ | April 2, 2012 | Bluegrass Pundit
President Obama has taken a very risky course if the Supreme Court voted Friday to uphold Obamacare. If he believed that were true, he would likely have said he has confidence in the judgement of the Supreme Court Justices. If he were unsure, he would also tread lightly. Instead, he fired a verbal barrage at the Court.
US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.
In a highly combative salvo on a case which could have a critical impact on his reelection chances, Obama warned that health care for millions of people was at stake, even as nine Supreme Court justices deliberate the arguments.
"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.
The US Supreme Court held compelling legal arguments on the health reform law, the centerpiece of Obama's political legacy, last week, amid a flurry of commentary predicting the law will ruled unconstitutional.
Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example. Read more here...
Justices rarely change their opinion after the initial vote, but it does happen. Justice Kennedy has been known to switch sides on major cases after the initial opinions are written. President Obama may be hoping to pressure him to do so again. If he doesn't, President Obama has laid the groundwork for using this to motivate his base this November. It looks like he has been tipped off and the news wasn't good for him. If Obama was tipped off, many would suspect Kagan who was Obama's Solicitor General and an Obamacare supporter before her SCOTUS appointment.
-
Ex Parte Obama
Editorial of The New York Sun | April 2, 2012
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/ex-parte-obama/87772
It’s been a long time since we’ve heard a presidential demarche as outrageous as President Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare. The president made the remarks at a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. It was an attack on the court’s standing and even its integrity in a backhanded way that is typically Obamanian. For starters the president expressed confidence that the Court would “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.”
Reuters’ account noted that conservative leaders say the law was an overreach by Obama and the Congress. It characterized the president as having “sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.” Quoth the president: “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.”
It is outrageous enough that the president’s protest was inaccurate. What in the world is he talking about when he asserts the law was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act barely squeaked through the Congress. In the Senate it escaped a filibuster by but a hair. The vote was so tight in the house — 219 to 212 — that the leadership went through byzantine maneuvers to get the measure to the president’s desk. No Republicans voted for it when it came up in the House, and the drive to repeal the measure began the day after Mr. Obama signed the measure.
It is the aspersions the President cast on the Supreme Court, though, that take the cake. We speak of the libel about the court being an “unelected group of people” who might “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This libel was dealt with more than two centuries ago in the newspaper column known as 78 Federalist and written by Alexander Hamilton. It is the essay in which Hamilton, a big proponent of federal power, famously described the Court as “the weakest of the three departments of power.” It argued that the people could never be endangered by the court — so long as the judiciary “remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.”
It was precisely the separation of the courts from the other two branches, Hamilton argued, that gives the court its legitimacy. He asserted that “the natural feebleness of the judiciary” puts it in “continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches” and wrote it’s “permanency in office” — meaning life tenure for judges — was “an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.” Continued he: “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.” Then the famous sentences:
“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable. There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .
“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. ”
Eventually the Supreme Court itself, in the case known as Marbury v. Madison, spelled out the logic of judicial review. We’ve always felt it was important to note that the Court’s authority does not stem from the Court’s own assertion of its own powers. It is deeper down, in the writings of the Founders themselves, and part of the American bedrock. It exists at the Federal level and in the constitutions of the states. The idea of separated powers was first put down in plain language in our laws in the constitution of Massachusetts, which noted that the aim was to have a government of laws rather than of men. It is a mark of our cynical age that Mr. Obama would challenge these assumptions. One can attribute the error of judgment to the fear that once the Court gets its back up and decides to hold the Congress to the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, it’s not just Obamacare that is in danger but the whole regime of runaway power in Washington.
-
What can Obama do to the Supreme Court if they rule the entire law unconstitutional?
All he can do is demonize them politically. That's about it. He can't throw them out. They are in the supreme court until they decide to leave.
There is nothing that the Supreme Court justices need to fear because Obamatheclown is a joke.
-
What can Obama do to the Supreme Court if they rule the entire law unconstitutional?
All he can do is demonize them politically. That's about it. He can't throw them out. They are in the supreme court until they decide to leave.
There is nothing that the Supreme Court justices need to fear because Obamatheclown is a joke.
Unless they have something to lose on the downlow, something Obama may have.promised them under.the table. :-X
-
Unless they have something to lose on the downlow, something Obama may have.promised them under.the table. :-X
Baby Doc Barack went full gangster yesterday. The worst part was that it was in the front of two foregin leaders.
He hates this country and only the delusional drones like we have on this board don't realize it.
-
Baby Doc Barack went full gangster yesterday. The worst part was that it was in the front of two foregin leaders.
He hates this country and only the delusional drones like we have on this board don't realize it.
I think he hates the fact that he doesn't have the power to just change.whatever he wants by executive decree, he hates that his.decisions are subject to the citizens, cause he knows what's best for us and we just get in his way.
-
I think he hates the fact that he doesn't have the power to just change.whatever he wants by executive decree, he hates that his.decisions are subject to the citizens, cause he knows what's best for us and we just get in his way.
Watch these two and ask yourself what Baby Doc Barack thinks of this country:
-
Nice Court You Have There, It Would Be A Shame If Something Happened To It
PJmedia.com ^ | 3/29/2012 | Richard Fernandez
Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:39:33 AM by servo1969
The Talking Points Memo headline reads: “Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut, pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court would damage itself if it did something so ridiculous as find Obamacare unconstitutional:
"The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it."
Blumenthal was clearly engaged in “begging the question”:
"A type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion."
By saying Obamacare is so self-evidently wonderful and legitimate that only someone crazy would disagree with it, Blumenthal makes you wonder why this matter is even before the Court in the first place. For the answer to that question, see “begging the question.”
What is less clear is whether Blumenthal, in reminding the court that the executive branch had the monopoly on physical power, was not engaged in a kind of subtle menace. After all, the Court’s power is not based on “credibility.” It is based on power vested in it by the Constitution. What would the administration say if someone argued that the president’s authority was based on “credibility” rather than his legal power as chief executive?
By saying Obamacare is so self-evidently wonderful and legitimate that only someone crazy would disagree with it, Blumenthal makes you wonder why this matter is even before the Court in the first place. For the answer to that question, see “begging the question.”
What is less clear is whether Blumenthal, in reminding the court that the executive branch had the monopoly on physical power, was not engaged in a kind of subtle menace. After all, the Court’s power is not based on “credibility.” It is based on power vested in it by the Constitution. What would the administration say if someone argued that the president’s authority was based on “credibility” rather than his legal power as chief executive?
So unworthy a sentiment as intimidation would not occur to Blumenthal any more than it would to Winston Churchill, who when speaking to Stalin in 1944, trying to persuade the Generalissimo to give Poland a break after the war, drew from him one of the bon mots of the 20th century.
Churchill was telling Stalin:
"That is why I attach such paramount importance to good neighborly relations between a restored Poland and the Soviet Union. It was for the freedom and independence of Poland that Britain went into this war. The British feel a sense of moral responsibility to the Polish people, to their spiritual values. It is also important that Poland is a Catholic country. We cannot allow internal developments there to complicate our relations with the Vatican …"
Then:
"“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill’s line of reasoning.
Churchill stopped short. He had not expected such a question. After all, he was speaking about the moral influence of the Pope, not only in Poland, but, also, throughout the world. Once again, Stalin reaffirmed that he only respected force, and brought Churchill back down to Earth from the nebulous heavens."
You had to hand it to old Uncle Joe: cut to the chase. All business, all the time. But maybe the real question the Obama administration is asking itself now is not: “How many divisions has the Supreme Court?” Rather, it could be: “How much of this Obamacare money have we already promised to the boys? And what the hell are we going to do if it doesn’t go through?”
Administrations which are not very particular about spending money from the future in the today are probably the improvident sorts who hire people in advance.
Perhaps one answer to Blumenthal’s observation is to flip the statement:
"An administration that can’t come up with the vig can lose an awful lot of support from the base real quick. The only reason people obey it is because they get a check in a brown envelope. And the administration risks grave damage if a promise of that magnitude and importance doesn’t come off, because people have already made down payments on cars and vacations in expectation of that commitment."
And by the way, the Soviet Union is gone, but there’s still a Poland. And last I heard, there was still a pope.
-
This is such a bad law and it was passed in a very bad and underhanded way...although it's certainly not alone in that distinction.
Why not end the enforcing of the insurance company monopolies? Stop all the mandated crap that gets tacked on to everyone insurance whether they need it or not? Plenty of fat to trim and other bullshit to end as well.
But no, the President has to pass a law, which no one read, that is 17x over budget, that forces people under penalty of law to buy insurance from a private firm.
Yeah, that's awesome. Every one is covered....except those that just pay the fine....which throws everything off.....and now there isn't a parallel increase in Dr's, facilities, equipment and such to cope with what will be higher demand....
How is this supposed to work?
-
An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional Scholar [Excellent]
America's Right ^ | April 2, 2012 | Jeff Schreiber
Dear Mr. President,
Supposedly, you are some sort of constitutional scholar. At the very least, you can read, you can write, and despite being merely some sort of guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, you once famously referred to yourself as a “Constitutional Law professor.”
Ringing a bell so far, Mr. President? Great.
While my Juris Doctor is from the Rutgers School of Law in Camden, New Jersey, and while Rutgers-Camden is hardly Harvard Law School, within the first three days of Constitutional Law class those who did not already know of and understand perhaps the single most important decision in the history of the United States Supreme Court were introduced to Marbury v. Madison.
In Marbury, the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts across our nation not only have the authority, but also the duty, to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress–including statutes and treaties–and to designate as void those acts of Congress which countermand the United States Constitution. The term you’re searching for between those flappy ears of yours, Mr. President, is “judicial review.” And, while it has been nearly two years since I opened up a Constitutional Law book and can now debate divorce and family law in South Carolina better than I can the Constitution, I recall enough from law school and bar exam study to know that the doctrine of “judicial review” is now settled law.
In other words, since the landmark Marbury decision came down from the Court you belittle as “unelected” in 1803, because of “judicial review,” federal courts in the United States of America have the power–and duty–to review laws passed by Congress, decide whether or not those laws either comport with our Constitution or countermand it, and either uphold those laws that pass constitutional muster or declare void those laws that do not.
Not a difficult concept, Mr. President. Not a difficult concept for a first-year law student at Rutgers-Camden, and certainly not a difficult concept for a Harvard Law grad who lectured on Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School and later went on to deceive a nation into crowning him president of the United States. This ain’t race-baiting or class warfare, Mr. President, but Marbury and judicial review should nonetheless certainly be in your wheelhouse.
So, what’s the problem? Earlier today, according to Fox News and other sources, this apparently happened:
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.
“I’m 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.
Those statements are so indicative of ignorance of not only Constitutional Law but basic civics that I don’t even know where to begin.
First, even a second-grader understand that the the United States Government is split into three separate branches in order to insulate one from another and provide checks and balances for each. While it is easy to understand how a totalitarian like yourself would have trouble distinguishing the lines between the various branches; after all, you have an established penchant for making illegitimate recess appointments and facilitating regulatory and other extra-legislative mechanisms designed to eschew and usurp the traditional role of the Legislative Branch — is it no surprise that you are utterly incapable of understanding why Justices of the United States Supreme Court are indeed unelected?
Second, that you would preemptively describe as “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” the prospective decision by the Supreme Court that your signature piece of legislation is unconstitutional and therefore void shows that your ignorance is surpassed only by your myopic inability to see past your political ideology and goals. According to the Congressional Research Service’s The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation (the 2008 supplement, pages 163-164, in case you’re looking), as of 2010 the United States Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional and therefore void a whopping 163 acts of Congress. You do know what “unprecedented” means, right? The Supreme Court overturning ObamaCare would hardly be “unprecedented” — perhaps it could be “unprecedented, unless you count those previous 163 precedents.”
Want to know what is “unprecedented,” Mr. President? Congress forcing free Americans into private contracts and penalizing those who disobey. That’s unprecedented.
At this point, Mr. President, just give up. Please. Every time you denigrate the Court and its Justices, who have more legal knowledge in their smallest toenail than you have in your entire body, you look more and more like the dullard that you apparently truly are. No wonder you don’t want to release your transcripts — any undergraduate student who fails to understand the most basic concept of Separation of Powers and any law student that fails to understand the settled doctrine of judicial review probably did not have marks worthy of tacking on the refrigerator door.
I understand that, ideologically, your signature piece of health care legislation is the perfect progressive fix. I understand how it works. I understand how it slowly but surely interferes with insurers’ ability to assess risk and thus slowly but surely facilitates an increase in premium costs, therefore driving more and more people to clamor for a government fix. It’s a brilliant political maneuver.
But it’s also unconstitutional.
And when the Justices of the United States Supreme Court tell you as much mere weeks before November’s election, it will not be because they are “unelected,” nor will it be because they somehow don’t understand the legislation. The law simply runs afoul of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and no amount of “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” will change that.
Wave the white flag, Mr. President. Or, preferably, you can continue to make a fool of yourself. In my Trial Advocacy class at Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let it happen.
Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure ain’t Harvard. Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and smiling.
Good luck with your re-election.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey M. Schreiber, Esq.
-
http://americasright.com/2012/04/02/an-open-letter-to-president-barack-h-obama-constitutional-scholar
Obama is now showing not only is he legally illiterate, but he does not even understand the most basic of civics.
-
Do you think anyone at Harvard is embarrassed?
-
Do you think anyone at Harvard is embarrassed?
His High School teachers should be horrified. He does not even grasp the most basic of issues!
____________________
Monday, April 02, 2012
Self-professed Constitutional scholar doesn't know Supreme Court has struck down laws like Obamacare only 1,315 times before
If find it curious that a self-professed Constitutional scholar doesn't know that the Supreme Court has struck down more than 1,300 laws since the founding of the Republic
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.
"I'm 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.
That's quite a sequence of lies by the President, all packed into a single, steaming sentence of manure:
• A "strong majority" of Congress? The bill was passed using a budget reconciliation maneuver that allowed it to bypass a Senate filibuster with just 51 votes.
• A "democratically elected" Congress? Actually, the 111th Congress had roughly a half-dozen appointed Senators and one turncoat (Arlen Specter), elected as a Republican but who switched to the Democrat Party.
• Unprecedented step of overturning a law? Oh, gee, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, as of 2002, the Supreme Court had only struck 1,315 laws down as unconstitutional, the first in 1803.
Does the arrogance of this President know no bounds?
For you drones and irregular Americans following along, that's a rhetorical question.
-
President Obama versus the Constitution
Volokh.com ^ | April 2, 2012 | David Kopel
President Obama today fired his opening salvo in an unprecedented attack on the Constitution of the United States. Regarding the impending Supreme Court ruling on the health control law, the President said, “Ultimately, I’m 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.”
His factual claims are false. His principle is a direct assault on the Constitution’s creation of an independent judicial branch as a check on constitutional violations by the other two branches.
It is certainly not “unprecedented” for the Court to overturn a law passed by “a democratically elected Congress.” The Court has done so 165 times, as of 2010. (See p. 201 of this Congressional Research Service report.)
President Obama can call legislation enacted by a vote of 219 to 212 a “strong” majority if he wishes. But there is nothing in the Constitution suggesting that a bill which garners the votes of 50.3% of the House of Representatives has such a “strong” majority that it therefore becomes exempt from judicial review. To the contrary, almost all of the 165 federal statutes which the Court has ruled unconstitutional had much larger majorities, most of them attracted votes from both Democrats and Republicans, and some of them were enacted nearly unanimously.
That the Supreme Court would declare as unconstitutional congressional “laws” which illegally violated the Constitution was one of the benefits of the Constitution, which the Constitution’s advocates used to help convince the People to ratify the Constitution. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton explained why unconstitutional actions of Congress are not real laws, and why the judiciary has a duty to say so:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. . . .
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Because Hamilton was the foremost “big government” advocate of his time, it is especially notable that he was a leading advocate for judicial review of whether any part of the federal government had exceeded its delegated powers.
Well before Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court recognized that the People had given the Court the inescapable duty of reviewing the constitutionality of statutes which came before the Court. The Court fulfilled this duty in cases such as Hylton v. U.S. (1796) (Is congressional tax on carriages a direct tax, and therefore illegal because it is not apportioned according to state population?); and Calder v. Bull (1798) (Is Connecticut change in inheritance laws an ex post facto law?). The Court found that the particular statutes in question did not violate the Constitution. (The ex post facto clause applies only to criminal laws; the carriage tax was an indirect tax, not a direct tax.) However, the Court’s authority to judge the statutes’ constitutionality was not disputed.
It would not be unfair to charge President Obama with hypocrisy given his strong complaints when the Court did not strike down the federal ban on partial birth abortions, and given his approval of the Supreme Court decision (Boumediene v. Bush) striking down a congressional statute restricting habeas corpus rights of Guantanamo detainees. (For the record, I think that the federal abortion ban should have been declared void as because it was not within Congress’s interstate commerce power, and that Boumediene was probably decided correctly, although I have not studied the issue sufficiently to have a solid opinion.) The federal ban on abortion, and the federal restriction on habeas corpus were each passed with more than a “strong” 50.3% majority of a democratically elected Congress.
As a politician complaining that a Supreme Court which should strike down laws he doesn’t like, while simultaneously asserting that a judicial decision against a law he does like is improperly “activist,” President Obama is no more hypocritical than many other Presidents. But in asserting that the actions of a “strong” majority of Congress are unreviewable, President Obama’s word are truly unprecedented. Certainly no President in the last 150 years has claimed asserted that a “strong” majority of Congress can exempt a statute from judicial review. President Lincoln’s First Inaugural criticized the Dred Scott majority for using a case between two private litigants for its over-reaching into a major national question, but Lincoln affirmed that the Court can, and should, provide a binding resolution to disputes between the parties before the Court. And in 2012, the government of the United States is one of the parties before the Court. (And the government is before the Court in part because the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to ask the Court to use its discretion to decide the case.)
Alone among the Presidents, Thomas Jefferson appears as a strong opponent of judicial review per se. Notably, he did not propose that Congress be the final judge of its own powers, especially when Congress intruded on matters which the Constitution had reserved to the States. Rather, Jefferson argued that in such a dispute the matter should be resolved by a Convention of the States, and the States would be make the final decision. Given that 28 States have already appeared as parties in court arguing that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, we can make a good guess about what a Convention would decide about the constitutionality of the health control law.
President Obama, however, wants Obamacare to be reviewable by no-one: not by the Supreme Court, not by the States. You can find professors and partisans who have argued for such lawlessness, but for a President to do so is unprecedented.
The People gave Congress the enumerated power “To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” According to the Obama administration, this delegation of power also includes the power to compel commerce. Opponents contend that the power to regulate commerce does not include the far greater power to compel commerce, and that the individual mandate is therefore an ultra vires act by a deputy (Congress) in violation of the grant of power from the principal (the People). Seventy-two percent of the public, including a majority of Democrats, agrees that the mandate is unconstitutional. Few acts of Congress have ever had such sustained opposition of a supermajority of the American public.
President Obama today has considerably raised the stakes in Sebelius v. Florida. At issue now is not just the issue of whether Congress can commandeer the People and compel them to purchase the products of a particular oligopoly. At issue is whether the Court will bow to a President who denies they very legitimacy of judicial review of congressional statutes–or at least those that statutes which garnered the “strong” majority of 219 out of 435 Representatives.
(Emphasis added)
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-botches-legal-precedent-in-citing-supreme-court-20120403,0,4125715.story
Ha ha hah a. !!!!! ow fucking dumb is this wannabe thug? No way he passed the bar.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/03/krauthammer_obama_trying_to_bully_the_supreme_court_while_liberals_are_in_shock.html
the leftist drones and communists are still in shock.
-
The thing is,many people just hear it and think,ok OB isn't worried because the SC never over turned a law passed by congress but they bother to check it out.
-
The thing is,many people just hear it and think,ok OB isn't worried because the SC never over turned a law passed by congress but they bother to check it out.
hundreds of laws have been tossed out! and still supporters of this wannabe communist tyrant can't point to even one case to where the court upheld the notion that congress can create commerce in order to regulate it.
-
He is such an embarassment. I bet Kagan got word to him that the preliminary vote by the SC last week was to strike down the individual mandate.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-favorability-plummets-according-to-poll-2012-4
Ha ha ha. Defend this youbcommunist Marxist obamabots.
-
The Week Obama Jumped the Shark
Peter Wehner
04.04.2012 - 10:02 AM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/04/obama-congress-and-the-constitution
In a press conference on Monday, President Obama said, “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.” Obama went on to say that the court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns the law because it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Set aside the fact that the House, despite a huge Democratic majority, passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by a margin of 219-212, hardly a “strong majority.” In fact, it barely qualifies as a plurality. Let’s turn instead to the substance of what the president said.
Obama, a former community organizer who is perhaps unaware of the finer points of the law, might want to acquaint himself with an obscure 19th century case, Marbury v. Madison, which established the doctrine of judicial review and grants federal courts the power to void acts of Congress that are in conflict with the Constitution. What Obama describes as “unprecedented” has, in fact, been done countless times since 1803.
Then there’s Obama’s confusion about judicial activism. It is not, as he insists, simply the act of overturning an existing law; it is when judges allow their personal views about public policy, and not the Constitution, to guide their decisions and often invent new rights out of thin air. For Justices to invalidate a law they deem to be unconstitutional is precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. (“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution, can be valid,” is how Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist #78.) If one takes Obama’s words literally, he believes an unjust and unconstitutional law, if passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, cannot be overturned.
What the president said, then, was so ill-informed, so ignorant, that people assumed he must know better. There’s no way we can know. But whatever the case, this has been quite a bad stretch for the president. His comments about the Supreme Court, when combined with his astonishingly dishonest attack on the House GOP budget (see here for more), portray a president who is living in a fantasy world — a place where facts and history are inverted, lies become truth, where everything is subordinated to ambition and you simply make things up as you go along. Nietzsche referred to this mindset as the “will to power.” In American politics it’s known as The Chicago Way.
I don’t know what the political effect of all this will be. But intellectually, this is the week where Barack Obama jumped the shark. In a deep, fundamental way, he is no longer a serious man. Nor an honest one. His public words are now purposefully bleached of truth. And that is a painful thing to have to say about an American president.
-
Again! WH warns of 'unprecedented' SCOTUS ruling
Washington Examiner ^ | 4/4/2012 | Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.
"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.
But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."
The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.
Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.
Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.
-
He's such a hack. This was a partisan bill. He had to practically bribe some folks to vote for it. Couldn't get bipartisan support. The country doesn't want it.
-
Skip to comments.
President Obama Smooth Player In Political Lying Game
IBD Editorials ^ | April 4, 2012 | THOMAS SOWELL
Posted on April 4, 2012 10:01:15 PM EDT by Kaslin
One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.
That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional.
He replied: "I'm 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."
But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?
The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years!
Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history — Marbury v. Madison in 1803 — Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution.
They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way that Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be "unprecedented" after two centuries of countless precedents.
In short, he is simply lying.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama flunks constitutional law
washington times ^ | 4/3/2012 | staff
Posted on April 4, 2012 9:25:51 PM EDT by tobyhill
For someone who once taught classes at a law school, President Obama doesn’t seem to know much about the powers of the Supreme Court.
At a press conference Monday, Mr. Obama said he did not think the high court would rule that forcing Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional. “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,” he said.
There’s plenty of precedent for voiding a law like Obamacare. The top justices have invalidated more than 150 federal laws in part or in whole. Nor would there be anything extraordinary about such a step, as courts frequently make these types of rulings. In fact, it would be unprecedented and extraordinary for it to let stand the unconstitutional aspects of Obamacare.
There’s also no truth to the suggestion that Obamacare passed by a “strong majority.” The vote was 219 to 212, a razor-thin margin in which 34 members of the president’s own party voted no. The margin of passage has never been a factor in the Supreme Court’s review of any law. That’s simply not a part of American jurisprudence. In fact, if Mr. Obama believes what he says, he ought to be very satisfied with the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 by a whopping 275 margin in the House and by 71 votes in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
WONDER LAND Updated April 4, 2012, 7:39 p.m. ET
Henninger: The Supreme Court Lands in Oz
Like the original wizard, Barack Obama doesn't want anyone to look behind the curtain.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
'I am confident," announced the president of the United States, "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." And so it was on Monday that Barack Obama, anticipating a loss before the Supreme Court, added the third branch of government to the list of villains he will run against in his re-election campaign.
Many are saying the president should know Marbury v. Madison. He does. It doesn't matter. If something gets in his way, Barack Obama hammers it—whether courts or Congress. The left likes that. It remains to find out if the rest of the country wants the judicial and legislative branches subordinated to a national leader.
Martin Kozlowski
Many schools of thought have emerged on the subject of why Barack Obama does some of the things he does, such as the job-killing Keystone XL pipeline decision or vilifying the Supreme Court justices seated before him at his State of the Union speech or inviting the GOP leadership to his speech on the deficit so he could insult them, and then hit them both again this week. Calculation? Intimidation? One school holds he acts out of personal belief (the school I subscribe to). Or that he polls it before he says it (also plausible).
It appears to be unprecedented, however, for a U.S. president to have attacked the Supreme Court before it handed down its decision. Some think Mr. Obama and his progressive infantry are trying to intimidate the Justices, specifically Justice Anthony Kennedy. But most legal commentary has said the president's attack is likely to anger the justices, perhaps including some of the court's liberals. Mr. Obama's notion of judicial review diminishes all the members of any court, not just its conservatives. It doesn't help the always difficult struggle for an independent judiciary in other countries if an American president is issuing Venezuela-like statements on U.S. courts.
Another possible explanation occurs. It's in one of the grandest moments in "The Wizard of Oz," when the Wizard, fumbling at the controls inside his throne room, shouts to Dorothy and the others: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." Barack Obama, a wizard of another kind, has been trying with fulminations and denunciations to keep anyone from attempting what a law professor might call discovery of what the president actually has done in the past three years. We already know, for instance, that the stimulus's $825 billion went up the chimney. What else?
It was the Supreme Court's great debunker, Justice Antonin Scalia, who came closest in the ObamaCare oral arguments to pulling the curtain back on the Affordable Care Act's inner machinery. That was the moment when Justice Scalia asked: "What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?"
Related Video
Like the original wizard, Barack Obama doesn't want anyone to look behind the curtain.
The point beneath Justice Scalia's jest is this: The 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, the Obama presidency's policy masterpiece, at best won't work very well. At worst, its house-of-cards complexity will damage nearly anything it touches—citizens, doctors, medical institutions. One only has to venture inside the law's text to discover why, and to see why Justice Scalia wanted to protect impressionable law clerks from the experience.
Where better to begin than at the mandate itself. The mandate is the probable cause of the law's demise and so the source of the president's rage. In fact, the word "mandate," as argued before the court, appears nowhere in the ACA. What they were litigating was Subtitle F, Part I. Rather than "mandate," its Orwellian title is the "Individual Responsibility Requirement."
We already know that 67% of polled people think the mandate, which compels individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional. That number might go closer to 100% if people got a look at the law's language.
The ACA calls the act of purchasing insurance a "required contribution." Naturally, many will wonder if they can get out of this. That depends on the meaning of "required contribution," as defined in "Chapter 48—Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage, (e) Exemptions, (B) Required contributions:
"For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'required contribution' means . . .: (ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to purchase minimum essential coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange in the State in the rating area in which the individual resides (without regard to whether the individual purchased a qualified health plan though the Exchange), reduced by the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered by a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange for the entire taxable year)."
In the original "Oz," the wizard voluntarily abandons the yellow brick road, discovers humility and returns to earth. The ending in our version will require an election.
Write to henninger@wsj.com
-
Geez, you've posted the same story from 15 different sources....come down little Adolf. ;D
-
Geez, you've posted the same story from 15 different sources....come down little Adolf. ;D
Yeah thats righ vince - I'm a nazi but obama is not . Got it =- remind who again is trying to take over aspect of the society and mold it into his ideas? Remind who is nationalizing companies? Remind me who goes around the country making propaganda speeches to legions of delusional dopes and hacks like yourself?
-
Obama should know better on Supreme Court's roleBy Stephen B. Presser, Special to CNN
April 3, 2012 -- Updated 2102 GMT (0502 HKT)
Editor's note: Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger professor of legal history at Northwestern University School of Law and a professor of business law at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. He signed two of the amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court challenging the health care law.
(CNN) -- In what must be the most extraordinary statement of his presidency, Barack Obama on Monday blasted the possibility that the United States Supreme Court might overturn the Affordable Care Act. Obama said the court would take an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" if it overturns the law, because it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Setting aside the point that the ACA did not pass with an overwhelming majority, but by a party-line vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House, and without the support of a single member of the Republican Party, the most astonishing thing about Obama's diatribe was the fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional tradition it revealed.
Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.
Stephen B. PresserThis is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.
That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.
Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.
Opinion: Supreme Court is playing with fire
This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a measure regarded as fundamental by those who argued for the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791, provides that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people thereof.
As the Supreme Court told us in the Lopez (1995) and Morrison (2000) cases, this means that there must be some limits on the powers of the federal government, and it also means that the basic law-making power, the police power, must reside in the governments closest to the people themselves, the state and local governments.
This is our tradition, and the ACA's individual mandate is a fundamental break with that tradition. If, as it should, the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional, it will be reaffirming our traditions, and not usurping them. The president, a former constitutional law teacher, should be ashamed of himself.
Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.
-
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT
President Petulant
By John Fund
April 4, 2012 4:00 A.M.
I spoke last night at a symposium on “The Obama Presidency” at the University of California at Berkeley. In a radical city known sometimes for its liberal anger, it won’t surprise you, many of those in the audience were upset at the prospect of the Supreme Court’s overturning part or all of Obamacare. After all, Berkeley voted 88 percent for Obama in 2008. But almost no one present at the symposium was as petulant as President Obama was yesterday, when he incorrectly claimed that if the Court rules against his landmark legislation it would be taking “an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
The implication of his statement was that he hasn’t heard of Marbury v. Madison, in which the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of judicial review in 1803, and by which the Court can strike down unconstitutional laws. Indeed, since 1981, the Court has struck down 57 specific legislative acts of Congress, an average of two per year.
The president’s statement was so extraordinary that a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the administration indeed respects the right of court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. As CBS’s Jan Crawford reported, Judge Jerry Smith became “very stern,” telling the lawyers arguing a separate case on the constitutionality of Obamacare that it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. He also noted Obama’s remarks yesterday in the Rose Garden about judges being an “unelected group of people.” The court was clearly not amused.
There appear to be few limits on how far President Obama will distort facts. In truth, his health-care plan passed the House by only 219 to 212, despite that body’s overwhelming Democratic majority. It was the first major piece of social legislation within memory to pass Congress without a single vote from the opposition party.
Even some liberals believe the president went too far yesterday. Ruth Marcus, an editorial writer who covers the Supreme Court for the Washington Post, said Obama’s assault “stopped me cold . . . for the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.” It was a mistake for Obama to “declare war” on the court, says Jon Meacham, a contributing editor of Time magazine. Voters don’t like hearing assaults on the Supreme Court itself, probably because Americans believe “life needs umpires, even ones who blow calls now and then.”
So it is surreal for Obama, a former constitutional-law professor and president of the Harvard Law Review, to go after the court as if he were a demagogue seeking reelection. As the Wall Street Journal put it: “Obama’s inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.”
Nor is this the first time the president has stepped out of line. During a joint session of Congress in January 2010, Obama lectured the Supreme Court justices sitting in front of him that they got it wrong in the Citizens United case, which swept away key campaign-finance restrictions on First Amendment grounds. “Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” Obama’s statement that the Court’s ruling allowed political contributions by foreigners was plainly incorrect, earning a “Mostly False” rating from the PolitiFact website. No wonder that Justice Samuel Alito was observed by lipreaders mouthing the words “Not true” after Obama’s groundless attack.
No one believes the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare based on bush-league attacks on its integrity. But Obama’s misstep is only the latest in a series of blunders that further undermine his position. The presentation by Solicitor General Donald Verrelli last week before the Supreme Court was widely panned by legal scholars as weak and evasive. Verrelli caused even some liberal lawyers in the audience to wince when he preposterously claimed that Congress has passed Obamacare to deal with a serious problem “after long study and careful deliberation.” Whatever you want to call the chaotic, late-night brow beating of reluctant members to pass something — anything — to reform health care two years ago, it wasn’t pretty and it was far from careful. Recall that Senate Democrats forgot to include a standard severability clause in their drafting of the bill, which would allow the entire law to stand even if one provision is deemed unconstitutional.
And when it got to the legal substance, the Obama Justice Department didn’t do much better. “The court began where it should have begun with limiting principles (to the federal government’s power),” noted Jonathan Turley, a well-known liberal law professor at George Washington University. “And what was remarkable is that the administration seemed almost unprepared or unwilling to answer those questions with any clarity.”
The incoherence with which the Obama administration has addressed the entire issue of its signature domestic achievement continued yesterday when the president began a spat with the judiciary that was factually wrong, fatuous, and one he can’t possibly win. Several of the liberals I spoke with at Berkeley last night could only shake their head at how the man they voted for on the basis of ”hope and change” in 2008 looks like he’s in over his political head.
— John Fund, a writer based in New York, is the author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
Permalink
-
Supremely Disturbing, Boorish Obama
scottfactor.com ^ | 04-05-12 | Gina Miller
Of course we should not be surprised at anything that comes out of his mouth, but comments this week by Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) were simply stunning. Not only were they stunning, but they were chilling. When he issued a thinly veiled threat to the Supreme Court concerning their ruling on the atrocious Obamacare legislation, we saw a brazen, boorish, wanna-be dictator showing his ugly, arrogant face.
Here is part of what he said,
“Ultimately, I’m 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. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve 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. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Lies. There is nothing “unprecedented” about the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional legislation. They have been doing it for over 200 years. He lies about the definition of “judicial activism.” Judicial activism is a very real problem in our nation, and it has been a problem for many years now. Judicial activism occurs when judges depart from constitutional law and create new laws contrary to the Constitution, and that happens all too often. Judges who uphold the Constitution are not judicial activists, but of course, Obama never lets the truth get in the way of his outrageous assertions.
Speaking of outrageous assertions, did you hear what Obama said about the Paul Ryan GOP budget?
As reported by Real Clear Politics,
“We wouldn't have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat. Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to launch new satellites and that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane. That's just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget.”
This is simply breathtaking. This man has never met a lie he is not willing to tell. Absolutely nothing in that statement is true. There is no government agency or program that could not stand budget cuts—even huge budget cuts. If we could truly analyze the waste and redundancy and then eliminate them, we would be amazed at the money we could save while still having good weather forecasting, air traffic control services and air, food and water safety. Give me a break, Obama! He sounds desperate.
But, is he really desperate? When you consider the hot-mic, “after my election, I will have more flexibility” remarks he recently made to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, it would seem that Obama is quite confident that he will be “reelected.”
We may wonder how he can be so sure of himself. There is no doubt that Obama is unpopular, despite the “polling results” being constantly released by Obama-fawning media outlets that show close to half the nation approves of his terrible, treasonous performance in office.
I understand that there are plenty of uninformed or otherwise ignorant people in America who do not have the slightest clue about what the communist Obama administration has been doing since January of 2009, but many, many millions more have been jarred wide awake in the past few years and are watching closely as this man and his fellow travelers in Congress and his administration systematically destroy our economy, our military, our freedoms and our Constitution. Now, this process has been going on bit by bit for many decades, but we have never seen such an acceleration of it as we have seen under Obama.
I do not believe for a minute that Obama could re-take the presidency in an honest election. Without massive election fraud, it simply is not possible. When you consider the fact that a glaring majority of Americans oppose the government takeover of the health care industry and the forcing of all Americans to buy health insurance, how can you believe that many of them also support Obama for reelection? If 60 to 75 percent of the nation wants nothing to do with Obamacare, I find it hard to believe that a third to a half of those people want anything to do with Obama being reelected, unless they somehow stupidly do not associate Obama with his “signature” legislation.
We already see the stage being set for widespread election fraud. You have the Obama “Justice” Department fighting like deranged thugs to prevent states from enacting common-sense voter identification laws. The Democrats are so desperate to stop voter ID, that they are even waging a boycott of Coca-Cola and Walmart for those companies’ support of voter ID laws—all the more reason to shop at Walmart and buy Coca-Cola!
We also see the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) working feverishly to implement stealth amnesty for illegal aliens by granting certain illegals so-called “unlawful presence waivers” for those criminal aliens who can prove they have an American citizen relative. The DHS has been steadily hustling to grant amnesty to illegal aliens since Obama took office.
As Judicial Watch reported on Monday,
“This appears to be part of the Obama Administration’s bigger plan to blow off Congress by using its executive powers to grant illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty. The plan has been in the works for years and in 2010 Texas’s largest newspaper published an exposé about a then-secret DHS initiative that systematically cancelled pending deportations. The remarkable program stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who said the government bounced their clients’ deportation even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed.
In late 2011 a mainstream newspaper obtained internal Homeland Security documents outlining “sweeping changes” in immigration enforcement that halt the deportation of illegal aliens with no criminal records. This also includes a nationwide “training program” to assure that enforcement agents and prosecuting attorneys don’t remove illegal immigrants who haven’t been convicted of crimes.”
Why all these treasonous efforts by the Obama regime? For millions more fraudulent Democrat votes, of course. These people from south of the border are already acquainted with socialism, and they bring that ready-made, Democrat mindset to our country.
In addition to the enabling of the illegal alien invasion and the war against voter ID laws by this despicable administration, we also have the very disturbing report out of the Argonne National Laboratory that was featured at Salon.com last fall. Researchers for Obama’s Department of Energy at Argonne demonstrated the amazing ease with which they can remotely hack into voting machines and change the results undetectably. A researcher quoted in the column said he is confident that it can be done on most any voting machine in America. That’s just great!
I also mentioned in a column last month that the United States’ dominant election results reporting company has been sold to an international outfit out of Barcelona. As the website Black Box Voting reported, this move lets the foreign company see our election results before anyone in America sees them, and it also eliminates independently verifiable checks on vote totals. No longer will many American jurisdictions be able to compare locally reported results with the internationally reported results. We will just have to take their word for it.
If Obama “wins” reelection, it will not be in an honest way, and if we think we have seen the worst of Obama’s arrogant, unconstitutional behavior during this first atrocious term, we have another thing coming. If he gets a second term, and there is still no opposition to his dictates from Congress, and if we lose one or more conservative Supreme Court Justices, I shudder to think of what this dictator-in-waiting will do to what remains of our freedoms and Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Thomas Sowell: Political word games (Obama: In short he is simply lying)
staugustine.com ^ | Posted: April 4, 2012 | THOMAS SOWELL
One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring.
That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional.
He replied: “I’m 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.”
But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”?
The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years!
Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history — Marbury v. Madison in 1803 — Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution.
They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way that Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be “unprecedented” after two centuries of countless precedents.
In short, he is simply lying.
Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying Presidents of the United States, I prefer that they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying.
But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.
He is also counting on something else — namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies.
One of the many ways of lying smoothly is to simply redefine words. Barack Obama is a master at that as well.
In the comment on the case pending before the Supreme Court, President Obama said that he wanted to remind “conservative commentators” that they have complained about “judicial activism” — which he redefines as the idea that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
First of all, every law that the Supreme Court has overturned for the past 209 years since Marbury v. Madison was “a duly constituted and passed law.”
-
CBS reporter to Carney: President ‘made a mistake and you can’t admit it’
Washington Free Beacon ^ | 4/5/12 | staff
Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2012 1:08:41 PM by Nachum
CBS News reporter Bill Plante challenged White House press secretary Jay Carney on President Obama’s statement Monday that for the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act would be an “extraordinary, unprecedented step,” during a Thursday press briefing.
BILL PLANTE: What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment because he talked about the court not being in a position to overturn an of Congress—
JAY CARNEY: Bill—
PLANTE: You’re standing up there twisting yourself in knots, because he made a mistake and you can’t admit it.
CARNEY: No, no, Bill, I am acknowledging that—you’re sharing in the righteous indignation here that your colleagues—
PLANTE: No, I’m just being—I’m just noting that you’re twisting yourself in knots.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
-
CBS reporter to Carney: President ‘made a mistake and you can’t admit it’
Washington Free Beacon ^ | 4/5/12 | staff
Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2012 1:08:41 PM by Nachum
CBS News reporter Bill Plante challenged White House press secretary Jay Carney on President Obama’s statement Monday that for the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act would be an “extraordinary, unprecedented step,” during a Thursday press briefing.
BILL PLANTE: What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment because he talked about the court not being in a position to overturn an of Congress—
JAY CARNEY: Bill—
PLANTE: You’re standing up there twisting yourself in knots, because he made a mistake and you can’t admit it.
CARNEY: No, no, Bill, I am acknowledging that—you’re sharing in the righteous indignation here that your colleagues—
PLANTE: No, I’m just being—I’m just noting that you’re twisting yourself in knots.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
I saw that exchange. It's very consistent with Obama's personality. You rarely if ever hear him admit mistakes.
-
Why Obama Is Wrong
Townhall.com ^ | April 16, 2012 | Bruce Bialosky
I watched – several times – President Obama’s absurd statement on the Supreme Court’s obligation to endorse his humongous health care bill. He proved yet again that he is grossly arrogant, utterly ignorant, a shameless liar, or perhaps all three. It is now abundantly clear that this man deserves the re-election vote of virtually no American.
By now, you know that the President claimed that if the Supreme Court were to overturn the misnamed Affordable Care Act, it would be historically unique. You’re also quite aware that overturning would be a very ordinary act, having taken place almost 200 hundred times; after all, even 8th grade students have heard of Marbury vs. Madison. However, there would truly be something unique about overturning this law – because it’s Barack Obama’s law. How could mere mortals consider themselves worthy of sitting in judgment of his law? And so, we witness this pathetic act of hubris by the President.
The President doesn’t believe that he could possibly be wrong because he’s convinced that what is written in these 2,700 pages of confusing, controlling, and sometimes contradictory rules and regulations is decent and righteous. Isn’t that all that matters? Didn’t the President make clear in his appointment of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan that empathy was just as important as their knowledge of the law?
During the ensuing firestorm, the godfather of Obama’s legal philosophy jumped to his defense. You may not have heard of Ronald Dworkin, but the Journal of Legal Studies claims that he is the second most widely quoted legal scholar of the 20th century. He is credited with creating the theory of “law as Integrity,” which advocates interpreting the U.S. Constitution in terms of “justice and fairness.” In his opinion, every ruling should be based not on the written text or case law, but on the morality of the times. This is why someone like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg can travel to a foreign country and state that our Constitution is essentially outdated. Other, newer constitutions provide more latitude for omnipotent elites to establish benevolent programs on behalf of the masses. After all, they know better.
Dworkin laid out his argument in the New York Review of Books. He had previously written that “The popular assumption that justices can decide constitutional cases by just consulting the text of that document and the intentions of its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century authors, without relying on their own sense of justice, is simplistic and wrong.”
On the topic of ObamaCare, Dworkin wrote “The prospect of an overruling is frightening. American health care is an unjust and expensive shambles; only a comprehensive national program can even begin to repair it. If the Court does declare the Act unconstitutional, it will have ruled that Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically viable remedy—not because that national remedy would violate anybody’s rights, or limit anyone’s liberty in ways a state government could not, or would be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in the Court’s opinion the strict and arbitrary language of an antique Constitution denies our national legislature the power to enact the only politically possible national program.”
This clearly is what Obama believes, and it’s why he stood in the Rose Garden and attacked the Supreme Court for even contemplating a challenge to his creation. To him, the benefits of the law outweigh any possible interpretation of an antiquated document that was written by a bunch of white guys over two hundred years ago. Even though Obama swore to uphold the Constitution, what is good for Americans in his opinion far overshadows any obligations he previously committed to uphold. This deplorable episode demonstrates yet again that to Barack Obama, there is no promise -- not even one that he makes with his hand on a Bible -- that doesn’t have an expiration date.
So now let’s get to the part where the President is a liar. He clearly knows that any law created by Congress can be challenged and overturned by the courts. On April 4, 2012 (just two days after Obama’s statement that it would be an unprecedented step to overturn ObamaCare), the U.S. appeals court in Boston started to hear arguments to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In this case, the Justice Department has decided not to defend a law enacted – unlike ObamaCare – with overwhelming bipartisan Congressional support.
So the President knew quite well that review – and possible reversal – of a law by the Supreme Court is quite ordinary. In fact, he’s counting on it regarding DOMA. So he wasn’t utterly ignorant. He was just grossly arrogant and a shameless liar.
And that’s why he should be booted from office on November 6th.
-
Barney Frank: Obama Made 'Mistake' With Health Care Push
By Jonathan Miller
Updated: April 16, 2012 | 4:09 p.m.
April 16, 2012 | 3:52 p.m.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said he advised President Obama against taking up health care reform following a special election in 2010 that changed Democrats' fortunes in the Senate, saying that he should have instead turned his focus to financial reform.
Frank referenced former President Bill Clinton and his failed health care plan from the 1990s. “Obama made the same mistake Clinton made,” Frank said in a wide-ranging interview with New York magazine. “When you try to extend health care to people who don’t have it, people who have it and are on the whole satisfied with it get nervous.”
The outgoing representative from Massachusetts added that after Republican Scott Brown won former Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, breaking Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority, Obama should have backed down: “I think we paid a terrible price for health care. I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after Scott Brown won, I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care," Frank said.
He said that if the president had followed his advice, “you could have gotten some pieces of it.”
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
-
Barney Frank: Obama Made 'Mistake' With Health Care Push
By Jonathan Miller
Updated: April 16, 2012 | 4:09 p.m.
April 16, 2012 | 3:52 p.m.[/b]
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said he advised President Obama against taking up health care reform following a special election in 2010 that changed Democrats' fortunes in the Senate, saying that he should have instead turned his focus to financial reform. Medicare Supplemental Insurance Plans.
Frank referenced former President Bill Clinton and his failed health care plan from the 1990s. “Obama made the same mistake Clinton made,” Frank said in a wide-ranging interview with New York magazine. “When you try to extend health care to people who don’t have it, people who have it and are on the whole satisfied with it get nervous.”
The outgoing representative from Massachusetts added that after Republican Scott Brown won former Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, breaking Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority, Obama should have backed down: “I think we paid a terrible price for health care. I would not have pushed it as hard. Medicare Supplemental Insurance (http://www.medicaresupplemental.net/) As a matter of fact, after Scott Brown won, I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care," Frank said.
He said that if the president had followed his advice, “you could have gotten some pieces of it.”
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Medigap Insurance Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
And yet he voted for the Bill anyways...
-
Obama Has Finally Admitted That The Supreme Court Could Destroy His Healthcare Reform
Michael Brendan Dougherty|Jun. 1, 2012, 10:08 AM|453|8
Obama and Chief Justice Roberts at the 2010 State of the Union.
The White House and other Democratic surrogates have been confidently predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare in its ruling later this month. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterated that just yesterday.
But last night at fundraiser, Obama talked openly about the prospect of having to do it all over again, according to a report from Bloomberg.
President Barack Obama is confiding to Democratic donors that he may have to revisit the health-care issue in a second term, a position at odds with his publicly expressed confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act, according to three Democratic activists.
As he previewed his agenda for donors at a May 14 fundraiser, Obama said he may be forced to try to revise parts of his health-care plan, depending on how the court rules later this month, said one activist, who requested anonymity to discuss the president’s comments
That is much more candid than usual.
Bloomberg's Hans Nicols has also uncovered strategic memos outlining how the White House and pro health-care reform groups will respond if all or part of the law is overturned:
“The best way to demonstrate public outrage or public celebration about the decision is to stage an event that shows average people actually responding to the news,” according to the memo, e-mailed on May 16 by an official at the Herndon Alliance, a coalition of groups that backs the health-care overhaul.
At least Democrats are working on their strategy if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare.
Republicans still have no idea what their strategy will be, Speaker Boehner has considered replicating parts of the bill that are broadly popular– for instance, requiring insurers to accept customers with pre-existing conditions. But more conservative members of the party don't want any part of passing it.
Tags: Barack Obama, Supreme Court, Obamacare, Health Care Reform | Get Alerts for these topics »
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-already-planning-on-what-to-do-the-supreme-court-destroying-his-health-care-reform-2012-6#ixzz1wYSEpOnV
-
Obama Has Finally Admitted That The Supreme Court Could Destroy His Healthcare Reform
Michael Brendan Dougherty|Jun. 1, 2012, 10:08 AM|453|8
Obama and Chief Justice Roberts at the 2010 State of the Union.
The White House and other Democratic surrogates have been confidently predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare in its ruling later this month. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterated that just yesterday.
But last night at fundraiser, Obama talked openly about the prospect of having to do it all over again, according to a report from Bloomberg.
President Barack Obama is confiding to Democratic donors that he may have to revisit the health-care issue in a second term, a position at odds with his publicly expressed confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act, according to three Democratic activists.
As he previewed his agenda for donors at a May 14 fundraiser, Obama said he may be forced to try to revise parts of his health-care plan, depending on how the court rules later this month, said one activist, who requested anonymity to discuss the president’s comments
That is much more candid than usual.
Bloomberg's Hans Nicols has also uncovered strategic memos outlining how the White House and pro health-care reform groups will respond if all or part of the law is overturned:
“The best way to demonstrate public outrage or public celebration about the decision is to stage an event that shows average people actually responding to the news,” according to the memo, e-mailed on May 16 by an official at the Herndon Alliance, a coalition of groups that backs the health-care overhaul.
At least Democrats are working on their strategy if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare.
Republicans still have no idea what their strategy will be, Speaker Boehner has considered replicating parts of the bill that are broadly popular– for instance, requiring insurers to accept customers with pre-existing conditions. But more conservative members of the party don't want any part of passing it.
Tags: Barack Obama, Supreme Court, Obamacare, Health Care Reform | Get Alerts for these topics »
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-already-planning-on-what-to-do-the-supreme-court-destroying-his-health-care-reform-2012-6#ixzz1wYSEpOnV
I bet Kagan is reading the tea leaves for him.
-
Does Obama Already Know the Supremes’ Decision on Obamacare?
National Review ^ | 06/06/2012 | Jim Geraghty
Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:53:02 AM by SeekAndFind
Barring some dramatic break from procedure, the Supreme Court justices have already decided the fate of Obamacare, and are now just working out the written rulings and dissents.
Usually, it works like this: “For cases argued on Monday, the Justices vote on it on Wednesday. Votes on cases argued Tuesday and Wednesday are cast on Friday. The senior Justice voting with the majority assigns the job of writing the majority opinion and the senior Justice voting with the minority chooses who will write the minority opinion. While all Justices can add his or her own statements, the majority opinion stands as the final decision of the court.”
Perhaps for a decision as important as this one, the justices might want to take more time. But it was reported that the Supreme Court held its initial vote on the case Friday, March 30. The justices, and their clerks, are expected to keep the decision secret until the decision and opinions are officially announced. But many speculate that this case will be different; while there is no evidence to suggest that the newest justice, former Obama administration Solicitor General Elena Kagan, would break the code of silence, many wonder whether she would want the president to be blindsided by a decision that partially or completely nullifies his signature domestic policy achievement.
If we take this bit of evidence…
President Barack Obama is confiding to Democratic donors that he may have to revisit the health-care issue in a second term, a position at odds with his publicly expressed confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act, according to three Democratic activists.
As he previewed his agenda for donors at a May 14 fundraiser, Obama said he may be forced to try to revise parts of his health-care plan, depending on how the court rules later this month, said one activist, who requested anonymity to discuss the president’s comments. Guests at the $35,800-a-plate dinner in the Manhattan apartment of Blackstone Group LP (BX) President Tony James were asked to check their smart phones and BlackBerries at the door.
The president has made similar remarks, usually in response to questions, at other fundraising events since the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case during the last week of March, according to two other activists, who also requested anonymity.
with this bit of evidence…
Though conversations inside the White House have been kept secret, several Democratic sources said that administration officials now believe that the law can stand without the individual mandate.
….the administration has privately considered alternative reform ideas, despite publicly insisting that such considerations would be premature. One aide put it this way: “When the decision comes down, we will be ready.”
Increasingly, the focus has turned to what would happen should the court rule the individual mandate unconstitutional but declare that it is severable from the rest of the law.
It certainly does start to look like the Obama administration is bracing for a ruling that declares the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. Of course, this could just be prudence on their part.
-
So health care companies can go back to denying kids health care?
Sounds great doesnt it?
-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-administration-health-care-official-steps-down-ahead-of-scotus-ruling-on-reform-law
Hmmmmmmm?