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

Skip to comments.

Senator Leahy attacks Supreme Court, threatens Chief Justice Roberts
Coach is Right ^ | 5/25/2012 | Doug Book

Posted on 05/25/2012 10:01:11 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax

Two months ago, Barack Obama decided he could intimidate the United States Supreme Court into finding his namesake healthcare plan Constitutional. Overturning the Affordable Care Act “…would amount to an unprecedented, extraordinary step of judicial activism” said the President at a rare White House news conference, adding “…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.” (1)

Though someone with the hyper-arrogant mentality of the Manchurian Candidate doesn’t really need a reason to direct this sort of psycho-babble at a presumptive enemy, Obama was probably responding to information provided by far left Justice Elena Kagan that the Court’s closed-door, preliminary vote on ObamaCare had not gone very well.

Each Friday the 9 justices gather for an initial vote on the cases heard during the week. And although...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 2012; corruption; elenakagan; govtabuse; johnroberts; obamacare; patrickleahy; scotus; supremecourt; vermont
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 05/25/2012 10:01:25 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
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.”

Against the will of a majority of Americans D-bagger.

2 posted on 05/25/2012 10:05:58 AM PDT by Huskrrrr ( the will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

As our Socialist-controlled Congress takes the extraordinary step of being Socialist activists. The term “Democrat” should no longer be used. I say they just call their party the Socialist Party and be done with it. Enough of the lie already!


3 posted on 05/25/2012 10:06:19 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

The little fascist prigs are indeed hard at work to usurp the administration of justice.

To do this they engage in crimes against the constitution.

It is a crime for Kagan to disclose anyything about preliminary votes. She should be clapped in irons and tried, if that is what she is doing.

Leaky Leahy has been a threat to the security of the American people ever since he was elected.

Leahy is one of Vermonts bvillage idiots, of the former triumverate of Vermont Village idiots, Leahy, Jeffords and Dean. Of these three only Leahy is left, and it is past time this liberal fascist was GONE.How dare they even TRY to use undue influence on the Court, and it is a reason why Kagan should have recused herself. Now she needs to be arrested if she is leaking facts to interested parties.It goes against the Canon of Judicial ethics, and she can be arrested for it.


4 posted on 05/25/2012 10:07:19 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascist info....http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Old “Leaky” must now need Depends down below to do the same job as the ones he needs on his mouth...


5 posted on 05/25/2012 10:08:08 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
"And he alternately praised and threatened the Chief Justice, literally claiming that if Roberts joined other conservatives in a 5-4 decision against ObamaCare it would “…undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.” (2)

Liberals truly live in a fantasy world where up is down, etc. Undoubtedly, if the SC were not to overturn the individual mandate, the reputation of the SC would be eroded completely. The American people will know that threats outweigh the Constitution and the nation no longer has any checks and balances.

6 posted on 05/25/2012 10:16:53 AM PDT by PuzzledInTX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

I believe “Social Democrats” is the proper moniker. That tag is the handle for the general run of European Socialists except for the English Labour Party. The Communists of Russia came out of the Social Democrats there. The Party is as left as it can get away with in elections in most countries where its banner is socialist red. The Democrat Party of the US of A aspires to European socialism with a little emphasis on the old Russian variety.


7 posted on 05/25/2012 10:25:32 AM PDT by arthurus ( Read Henry hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

What a waste of a click....

I went to the source and nowhere in the article is there a “threat” to Justice Roberts.

Yes, Leahy lectured Justice Roberts. Yes, Leahy said that overturning Obamacare would “erode” the credibility of the court.

But there was no “threat.”


8 posted on 05/25/2012 10:30:57 AM PDT by Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I have said 100 times here and elsewhere. They cut down ObamaCare and we will hear “They took your health care” from the chief divider all summer right up into election day. Thats the phrase and he will use it.


9 posted on 05/25/2012 10:31:53 AM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Either way the Supremes decide, this is a no-win situation for Obama.

If they decide to strike down the mandate, then it will be seen for what it is, an attempt by liberals in Congress to violate the Constitution. For Obama, this will be guilt by association.

If the Supreme Court validates the individual mandate, then the 73% of the populace who are against Obamacare will become even angrier about the whole government, and the only remedy will be to vote the critters out, especially Obama, because the president nominates Supreme Court justices.


10 posted on 05/25/2012 10:35:57 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

What happens if this president and his whole administration decide to simply defy the Court? Where is it in the Constitution that the Court has the final say? I am not supporting this sort of action and certainly believe that the whole of that law is, in fact, unconstitutional. If the kenyan were to defy the Court would he have passed that information to the Justices on the assumption that Roberts, say, would choose to let the law stand rather than allow a true Constitutional Crisis to erupt with the strong possibility that the Court, and the Constitution and, indeed the Nation would be wrenched out of the shadow of the Constitution altogether?


11 posted on 05/25/2012 10:38:49 AM PDT by arthurus ( Read Henry hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Huskrrrr
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.”

You mean like they've done a couple of hundred times since Marbury v. Madison?
12 posted on 05/25/2012 10:42:49 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; All
My post on another thread concerning this topic follows. If you have read, then just ignore here.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...all men are...
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments
are instituted
among men."

"What are those unalienable rights with which we are endowed? They may be described in many ways, but English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1766, ".these may be reduced to three principal articles:

  1. the right of personal security (life);
  2. the right of personal liberty; and,
  3. the right of private property...."

So-called "intellectual" "progressives," such as Obama, those who taught and influenced him, those who advise him, as well as Leahy, show little grounding in the principles of the Constitution's foundations in the wisdom of the ages, as enunciated by Blackstone and America's Founders.

That Constitution was not to be used by men to expand government. It was "the People's" "chain" (Jefferson) to bind down political (legislative and executive) will of those who would exceed its limits on their power.

The works of Sir William Blackstone, along with the 85 essays of THE FEDERALIST, according to Jefferson, were to be used for the study of law at the University of Virginia.

Does it appear that those who attempt to "change" America from its foundations in liberty are using those those works as the basis of their understanding of America's basic law?

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. . . . This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God, Himself, is of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe to all countries, and at all times, no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this." - Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England"

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823


13 posted on 05/25/2012 10:43:56 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

AMEN! My feelings exactly....


14 posted on 05/25/2012 10:44:44 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
I'm betting the democRATs know a 5-4 loss is heading their way, and this and the other assaults on Justice Roberts are an attempt to set up the narrative before the fact.
15 posted on 05/25/2012 10:57:18 AM PDT by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
The liberal fatwa on the Supreme Court by the Senate jester is amusing entertainment. To see them rail against overturning an act of "democratically elected" representatives is a stretch when at least 7 of affirming Senate votes were from appointed senators - by definition, unelected. If anything, maybe the Court will give us a re-do in front of actual elected representatives.
16 posted on 05/25/2012 11:00:51 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wiggen
I have said 100 times here and elsewhere. They cut down ObamaCare and we will hear “They took your health care” from the chief divider all summer right up into election day. Thats the phrase and he will use it.

They probably will, but it will be a losing strategy because 73% of the people don't want Obamacare, won't perceive that anything has been "lost", and I'm not sure the remaining 27% see any benefit either.

Speaking of the 27% who, when polled say they want Obamacare, many of them know that all they have to go is go to the emergency room and it's free anyway.

17 posted on 05/25/2012 11:02:10 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Leaky Leahy should change the Depends more often and retire.


18 posted on 05/25/2012 11:02:49 AM PDT by kenmcg (How)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

The right of judicial review was established via its use in Marbury vs Madison.

It has been accepted legal doctrine ever since, and it has been exercised hundreds of times.

Obama knows this.

If he were stupid enough to ignore a decision to overturn Obamacare, he would provoke a severe backlash, not merely a constitutional crisis.

Another thing that would happen is, people and states would be empowered to ignore Obama and Sebelius.

And many, many would do just that.


19 posted on 05/25/2012 11:05:04 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wiggen
They probably will try some such demogoguery. It won't fly though, because before this abortion of a bill as even passed about 80% of Americans polled were "happy" with their healthcare just the way it is.
20 posted on 05/25/2012 11:33:40 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 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