Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sources say smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be inevitable
The Examiner ^ | July 9, 12:03 PM | Anthony G. Martin

Posted on 07/13/2010 1:45:56 AM PDT by Red Steel

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable. 

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.  

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.  A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.  And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.  The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second,  sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.  The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court.  Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.  Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona.  That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.  The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhofascism; bhosocialism; bhotreason; bhotyranny; certifigate; corruption; democratcorruption; democrats; elections; fail; fubo; liberalfascism; lping; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamacare; roberts; scotus; sixth100days; smackdown; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last

1 posted on 07/13/2010 1:45:57 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.

This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

~~~~~~~~~
Be still my heart ..


2 posted on 07/13/2010 1:50:54 AM PDT by STARWISE ( The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I see you found the nugget Star. :-)


3 posted on 07/13/2010 1:52:21 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This would be an EXCELLENT time for Republicans to stall further Obama appointments to ALL Federal judgeship.


4 posted on 07/13/2010 1:52:45 AM PDT by Enterprise (As a disaster unfolds, a putz putts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

How does adherence to the constitution become a ‘smack down’.

This is a ridiculous premise.


5 posted on 07/13/2010 1:55:43 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

That wouldn’t be a nugget ... it would be
the Blessed Boulder ........ ;)


6 posted on 07/13/2010 1:59:44 AM PDT by STARWISE ( The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carley

I’m hip. Anytime an article starts with “Sources Say”...

Should have known better.


7 posted on 07/13/2010 2:03:20 AM PDT by onona (dbada)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Holy cow!


8 posted on 07/13/2010 2:04:44 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
This would be an EXCELLENT time for Republicans to stall further Obama appointments to ALL Federal judgeship.

Keep dreaming. When was the last time the GOP did anything but roll over and play dead every time 0bama wanted to do anything? They helped vote to confirm the "wise" Latina. They seem quite eager to confirm the she-man. Apparently the GOP thinks that the word "bork" is only something the Swedish Chef says.

9 posted on 07/13/2010 2:18:00 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm. ...


10 posted on 07/13/2010 2:19:17 AM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onona
I’m hip. Anytime an article starts with “Sources Say”...

Agreed. Sources also said Rahm Emanuel was going to resign as well. He's still there.

11 posted on 07/13/2010 2:20:19 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

I am amazed to hear that the Kagan vote has been delayed one week at the request of the republicans.

Don’t have any details.


12 posted on 07/13/2010 2:22:44 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

“Be still my heart ..”

Big difference between knowing something is wrong and doing anything about it.


13 posted on 07/13/2010 2:29:42 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

rahm was to resign in a few months, not immediately. I think it was to be around Christmas.


14 posted on 07/13/2010 2:35:20 AM PDT by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Isn’t the author of this little piece of sensationalism the same guy who got Zotted for threatening you? Us? Somebody?


15 posted on 07/13/2010 2:36:19 AM PDT by shibumi ( "Tsuru no Sugomori")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Obamacare is squarely in the Court’s pervue. The author sets out the law’s basic flaw well.

However the president’s qualifications to hold office are affirmed by the electoral college and not some court. The Constitution sets forth the only ways a president may be removed: Expiration of his term of office, Impeachment in the Senate, and Death or Resignation allowing the VP to take office. Whatever his personal opinions, anyone expecting Roberts to issue a cease and desist order telling Obama to vacate the White House is kidding himself.

As for Holder, he is an Executive Branch officer. Separation of Powers most likely will shield him.


16 posted on 07/13/2010 2:36:54 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; STARWISE
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Ouch. The above is going to leave a mark and bears repeating.

17 posted on 07/13/2010 2:37:55 AM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

First, I am not a lawyer.

It seems that BHO was not the POTUS until Roberts swore him in. Remember, they did it twice to make sure.

If Roberts swore BHO in on false pretenses, could Roberts rescind or invalidate the swearing in?

I know one cannot transfer title of stolen goods.


18 posted on 07/13/2010 2:49:36 AM PDT by Andy from Chapel Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tlb
the president’s qualifications to hold office are affirmed by the electoral college

WTH?!?! Never heard that one before. Since when are the qualifying documents to serve as potus the responsibility of the electoral college?

19 posted on 07/13/2010 2:57:43 AM PDT by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.

I'd like to believe that, but I don't. Still, I do think Bambi's on a collision course with the SC, although I don't know what is going to provoke the final confrontation.

20 posted on 07/13/2010 2:57:57 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Completely accurate. Seems like the only Pubbies with balls are women. We have an unpopular president and it seems like most Pubbies are concerned with “collegiality” “bi-partisantiship” and “ reaching across the aisle” to actually fighting for the Republic.


21 posted on 07/13/2010 3:09:07 AM PDT by tal hajus ( too disgusted to care...much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1_Rain_Drop
rahm was to resign in a few months, not immediately. I think it was to be around Christmas.

Again, I'll believe it when I see it. Sources can say any number of things. The fact that some of those things might peter out to be true is more of an indicator of luck as opposed to the source being accurate.

Not that long ago, "sources said" that Sen. Roland Burris would resign because of his connections to Blago. That didn't happen.

22 posted on 07/13/2010 3:13:03 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
" Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg... "

Ahhh come on now, these are non important issues that the looney kook birthers keep bring up and we should get back to more important issues facing this county..... so were told by the Obots... MEGA SARCASM !!
23 posted on 07/13/2010 3:29:53 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Fair points. However somebody who isn't legally President could be removed from the White House by a traffic cop.
24 posted on 07/13/2010 3:47:31 AM PDT by agere_contra (Obama did more damage to the Gulf economy in one day than Pemex/Ixtoc did in nine months)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
“sources” say “may”??? Sounds like the people Obama cites to assert the country's economy is in the right direction.
25 posted on 07/13/2010 3:52:34 AM PDT by Puddleglum ("due to the record harvest, rationing will continue as usual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Exactly. If the Dupe-reme Court rules on anything, it will be 5-4 along party lines, just like the stupidly-acting congress.


26 posted on 07/13/2010 3:54:59 AM PDT by KingLudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I think most of this piece is wishful thinking.

One comment in particular is flawed:

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

As much as I understand the abuse of the Commerce Clause argument with respect to buttressing Obamacare, it is not that clause that will save it. It is the 16th Amendment that will allow it.

Obamacare is not a Commerce argument, it is a tax argument. As I have bleated since March 21 of this year, and have confirmed, Obama will have his lawyers defend Obamacare, just as FDR's lawyers defended Social Security, as a tax. The 16th Amendment allows Obama to impose a tax in just about any manner he chooses.

Remember, there are the PUBLIC arguments, and then there are the LEGAL arguments, and they are not necessarily the same.

Obama's lawyers will present their LEGAL arguments by claiming that Obamacare forces no one to purchase health insurance, that instead it recommends 'minimum standards' of health insurance, and those that have proof of 'minimum standard health coverage' will receive a tax credit, others will pay the tax,

The SCOTUS will not be able to strike Obamacare down on a tax argument even if they rule that the Commerce Clause does not support Obamacare,

So the answer to preventing the forward progress of socialism is to REPEAL the 16th Amendment.

Here is a tax code replacement movement:

http://www.fairtax.org

For decades, the Left has wanted socialized medicine, and they always had the law behind them (tax law). But they never could get the votes in Congress until March 21, 2010.

Wake up! It is the 16th that allows the Left to advance socialism in America!

27 posted on 07/13/2010 3:59:37 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Yeah, well...all sound wonderful, but dream on.


28 posted on 07/13/2010 4:00:48 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Oh, if only!


29 posted on 07/13/2010 4:02:42 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I do believe there is a legal action that can be imposed upon Obama thats not quite as severe as an impeachment but would still probably lead to one, I think its called censorship.

I am waiting for someone to add some detail but I also think what it leads to is that basically the POTUS is placed in a disciplinary position, on restriction and has to go up for review, now whether its done publicly is another matter but I believe its been done many times, but behind closed Whitehouse doors.


30 posted on 07/13/2010 4:02:53 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

” Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg... “

Am I missing something? Since when does the Supreme Court “gather evidence” in the absence of a specific issue they are ruling on? Doesn’t a case have to be brought before them for their consideration, and that would only be after the case made its way through the lower court system?


31 posted on 07/13/2010 4:03:34 AM PDT by looney tune
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

When the Supreme Court rules against one of Obama’s policies I expect that it will be because it’s unconstitutional and not because of any political agenda on the part of the justices.


32 posted on 07/13/2010 4:04:05 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

BUMP for later reading.


33 posted on 07/13/2010 4:08:12 AM PDT by BunnySlippers (I love BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Well, I’d like to ask them:

WHAT DA HECK HAVE YOU BEEN WAITING FOR?!?!?!


34 posted on 07/13/2010 4:27:32 AM PDT by J40000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

The electorial college does no such thing.


35 posted on 07/13/2010 4:38:49 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
Since when are the qualifying documents to serve as potus the responsibility of the electoral college?

There is no requirement for document production in the Constitution.

Presumably, electors or Members of Congress at the Special Joint Session for examining the votes can request such documents - none did.

36 posted on 07/13/2010 4:42:27 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If the answer is "Republican", it must be a stupid question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tlb

I would literally dance in the street if Obamacare were reversed. Of course I live in a cul-de-sac, but still . . .There is NOTHING good about Obamacare. I predict it will be an unmitigated disaster. Maybe I should have every unnecessary organ removed NOW because I would be at the bottom of the surgical rationing list since I’m approaching 60 and probably considered “elderly” by all the know-nothings who would run this fiasco.


37 posted on 07/13/2010 4:49:39 AM PDT by 1951Boomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

Sure is.

Posted under “news” no less.


38 posted on 07/13/2010 5:02:12 AM PDT by humblegunner (Pablo is very wily)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This could very well be why Obama and Michelle (at the NAACP convention) are ginning up the racial flogging and division in the country.

I witnessed all the racial initiatives starting in the 50’s and forward across the decades. I have never seen such racial division promoted and fostered by any administration in the USA.

He has an agenda to use race and it is going to be very ugly if he continues to use the divide and conquer strategy by race-baiting.


39 posted on 07/13/2010 5:04:46 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I pray that Obama is impeached and tried for treason.


40 posted on 07/13/2010 5:11:33 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
"Big difference between knowing something is wrong and doing anything about it"

the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Sounds like someone might be getting a clue. Will the swing get suddenly stuck maybe?

41 posted on 07/13/2010 5:18:06 AM PDT by Mygirlsmom (Just say NOPE to the DOPE with the HOPE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
When was the last time the GOP did anything but roll over and play dead every time 0bama wanted to do anything?

They're compromised, at least enough of them are.

How do you think Hillary ended up with Sec State?

Nine hundred + FBI files on leading Republicans, that's how. With that sort of dirt mine, you can get people to play along, or replace them with people who will.

42 posted on 07/13/2010 5:24:43 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

If the Supreme Court really felt this way, they would have acted already.

Everyone is rolling over and letting the constitution get trampled in the mud. Everyone.


43 posted on 07/13/2010 5:28:30 AM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Celerity

The author of this article, Anthony Martin, is a whack job with no credibility. He’s the guy who sues everyone in sight. And occasionally runs for an office and loses. His track record goes way back. Take anything he would say with a grain of salt.


44 posted on 07/13/2010 5:33:41 AM PDT by flaglady47 (To bastardize Samuel Johnson, tyranny is the last refuge of scoundrels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Imagine the entire Obama administration and all laws passed under the alleged President's regime ruled "Invalid" and swept away overnight, like waking up from a bad dream...

45 posted on 07/13/2010 5:49:18 AM PDT by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; nutmeg; ForGod'sSake; Jeff Head

Ping


46 posted on 07/13/2010 6:06:23 AM PDT by EdReform (Stop Obamacare - Join the Obamacare Class Action Suit: www.obamacareclassaction.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I hope this happens asap! The Democrats, led by the thugs who enable obamma, are the epitome of evil!
47 posted on 07/13/2010 6:09:54 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I think Obama said what he said about the Supreme Court because in his arrogance he figured they would be intimidated and let his stuff pass.


48 posted on 07/13/2010 6:13:44 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tal hajus

“reaching across the aisle”

For a reach around.


49 posted on 07/13/2010 6:19:37 AM PDT by rickb308 (Muslims need to check with Native Americans & ask how that whole cowboys & indians thing worked out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Whoo Hoo!!


50 posted on 07/13/2010 6:22:05 AM PDT by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson