Is the Judicial Branch Dead?

LIBERTY ^ | Jan 27, 2012 | swampsniper

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorney’s show up in court and follow procedure. Nixon’s fight in the courts followed existing law. Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process, Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.

[Shadow44]

The “Imperial Presidency” has only come to existence because Congress has been too cowardly to stand up to usurpation of their powers since FDR.

The checks and balances fail when the other two branches fail to do their job.

[FreedBird]

How can he expect people to follow the law, when he does not? Walk the walk, if you are going to talk the talk. Holder doesn’t follow the law and he is hired to enforce it.

[zipper]

He has the same contempt for the judiciary as he does for the congress.

This is far from over. Yesterday our side managed to get the evidence on record for the first time. Obama didn’t cite legal cause for not showing up, even if the judge would have agreed with him — they made a tactical error. And there are many other states.

Now the judge will make a recommendation to the GA SoS. Hopefully this one hasn’t been corrupted by the Soros project yet.

[Truth is a Weapon]

Defiance of a subpoena is either a crime or a misdemeanor. Either of which is an impeachable offense. The House should just add it to the list. Someday they should publish all of his impeachable offenses.

Politically, it would be silly to start impeachment before the election. That would consolidate 0bama’s support and possibly win him some sympathy votes.

The old saying is don’t try to remove a king unless you can completely remove him. Failure to remove him just makes him stronger and meaner.

[Truth is a Weapon]

Defiance of a subpoena is either a crime or a misdemeanor. Either of which is an impeachable offense. The House should just add it to the list. Someday they should publish all of his impeachable offenses.

Politically, it would be silly to start impeachment before the election. That would consolidate 0bama’s support and possibly win him some sympathy votes.

The old saying is don’t try to remove a king unless you can completely remove him. Failure to remove him just makes him stronger and meaner.

[MrEdd]

O’bonghit realizes there is zero chance of him carrying Georgia anyway. Why miss a golf day?

[littleharbour]

If they won’t obey a state subpoena then the House should subpoena the same individuals. Force them to publicly take the 5th and craft an election ad showing Obama’s defiance of the law. Is anyone awake at the RNC? Those clowns don’t have an original thought or an ounce of initiative.

[formosa]

That’s because Obama thinks he is a God for whom all else exists. He does not recognize legal authority.

[ArmyTeach]

Maybe the reason they don't follow the law because they think they are the law?

[PGalt]

All 3 branches are dead. It’s close to time to prune the tree of liberty. The totalitarians have taken turns triangulating “we the people”.

[itsahoot]

This will likely make Issa very, very mad.

I have said all along, this man could not be president without the cooperation of the RINO establishment.

No Controlling Legal Authority, it is the democratic party way.

[Mr. Lucky]

The Georgia hearing was not in a court proceeding and did not involve the judicial branch of either the US or Georgia governments. It was an administrative hearing.

[StonyBurk]

Excellent point—T’anks. As I wrote to Liberty —I am no coronor nor attorney but it seems if they are not dead—they surly seem in contempt. A professor of mine once summed up Hobbs by saying the highest form of contempt is to treat another with neutrality. to neither advance nor hinder them is to suggest they may as well not even exist. IF the Judiciary is not dead —must be catatonic. Mr.Lincoln noted A House divided against itself cannot stand but he spoke biblical truth.And if the court is not divided against itself is surly appears divided against the people.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Back when my stomach was strong enough to actually troll democrat underground, and even post there, it was pretty clear that most of the dummies don't recognize any limits at all to government as long as they get their free milk and cookies. Beyond that beer should be cheap and sex should be free and highly variable.

They don't seem to be able to think beyond that level.

True freedom carries sometimes awesome consequences and that thought terrifies them.

I read an essay many years ago addressing the question of whether a free people had the right to vote themselves into slavery, and, sadly, they do, if they choose to ignore the Constitution and the lessons of history.

"Progressives" hate the Constitution beyond all reason, unless they are able to manipulate it's intent and purpose.

[RDAardvark]

Darn those pesky facts!

[353FMG]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/

[Elle Bee]

It was offered here: is this factual???:

The real issue in this is a President is not elected to these 49 United States, but Constitutionally must be elected by all 50 states, unless they have seceded from the Union as the Confederates did. Unless an event as that has taken place, the Constitution is not about Electoral Colleges or being ratified by Congress, but it is about the Union electing a President of all 50 states. Understand that any President can loose the popular vote as President Bush had, and win the electoral votes, along with numerous states, but no President can be President of these United States if he is not on the ballot or certified in all 50 states.

Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the "silence of the Constitution". No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President. That is the Constitution at it's core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.

...The experts will try to state that …….. can not override a majority vote by 49 other states, ……………..A President must be accepted by all 50 states according to legal Constitutional requirements. Any subject failing to provide natural born status can legally be rejected by any one state, and that one state in its minority rights will negate the other 49 states in the check and balance the Founders left silently in the Constitution to protect America from threats domestic and foreign.

.

[television is just wrong]

obama doesn’t care about congress or the judicial system. he only cares about himself. he overrides their authority and they are too stupid to realize they are losing their power.

[lostboy61]

In a pre-trial conference the judge offered to enter a default judgement agains’t Obama yesterday. However the plaintiff’s attorneys wanted to go ahead and present their evidence and witnesses in case Barry appeal the decision.

Likely the judge will issue and initial decision on FEb 1-2 and send it along with supporting docs to the GA SOS Brian Kemp who will review everything and issue a final decision by the 3rd or 4th. Smart money says they are going to keep Barry off the GA ballot.