Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

POTUS v. SCOTUS: In John Roberts, Obama finds the perfect enemy.
New Republic ^ | March 16, 2010 | Jeffrey Rosen

Posted on 03/17/2010 7:15:42 AM PDT by reaganaut1

Barack Obama is gunning for a confrontation with the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts has signaled that he welcomes the fight. Last week, the chief justice described the president’s State of the Union condemnation of the Citizens United decision as “very troubling” and complained that the speech had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Roberts was making an argument about etiquette--dissent was fine, he said, but Obama had somehow transgressed the boundaries of civilized discourse by delivering his attack to a captive audience. But he was implicitly making a political argument as well. That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it.

As a matter of history, this argument is wrong: In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court, it’s almost always the president who prevails. Using the Court as a punching bag puts Obama in the company of his greatest predecessors, Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts--all of whom bashed the Court for thwarting the will of the people. As long as he plays his cards carefully, Obama has much to gain from challenging John Roberts, and the Roberts Court much to lose.

The successful history of presidential Court-bashing shows how fragile the justices are in the face of presidential attacks supported by a mobilized majority of the country. Thomas Jefferson attacked his distant cousin and arch-rival, Chief Justice John Marshall, for his “twistifications” and suggested he couldn’t be trusted; he encouraged Jeffersonian Republicans to intimidate Federalist judges by impeaching Justice Samuel Chase. Marshall reciprocated Jefferson’s disdain, calling him “the great Lama of the Mountain.” But Marshall was so spooked by the Chase impeachment that he anxiously suggested in a letter to Chase that Congress should be allowed to reverse Supreme Court decisions it considered “unsound.”

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhoscotus; bhosotu; fifth100days; johnroberts; potusvscotus; roberts; scotus
I'm posting a piece from the liberal New Republic because I think conservatives should be prepared to counter an assault on the Supreme Court, especially if the Slaughter scheme is used to pass Obamacare without a vote and the Supreme Court hears a challenge to its constitionality.

I think Rosen is wrong about the politics. Obama is not popular, especially among non-black voters who judge him based on his performance rather than his race. I bet the Supreme Court is more respected than Congress.

1 posted on 03/17/2010 7:15:42 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I’m convince that the Slaughter Solution is the reason we are seeing the attacks on Justice Thomas’ wife. If that ruling ever gets to SCOTUS, the MSM and Dems will demand that Thomas recuse himself since his wife is a “known activist” against Obama.


2 posted on 03/17/2010 7:18:02 AM PDT by TexasNative2000 (This seems like fairly decisive evidence that the dream can, in fact, die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The Deemocrats are screwed...and this idiot knows it...pass or don’t pass, there’s a boatload of people out there ready to dump their sorry asses out on the street.


3 posted on 03/17/2010 7:18:28 AM PDT by jessduntno (A third party has risen; we have the Republicans, the Tea Party and the Deemocrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasNative2000

Well, since SCOTUS judges are in charge of their own recusal decisions and there is no way to appeal it, I’d say Thomas and Roberts should tell dems to go pound sand.


4 posted on 03/17/2010 7:19:59 AM PDT by wilco200 (11/4/08 - The Day America Jumped the Shark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasNative2000

“...Dems will demand that Thomas recuse himself since his wife is a “known activist” against Obama.”

The Deems can demand all they want...there is no legal or constitutional reason for his recusal...


5 posted on 03/17/2010 7:20:32 AM PDT by jessduntno (A third party has risen; we have the Republicans, the Tea Party and the Deemocrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Shoulda added a waring in the headline, maybe?

And “how fragile the justices are in the face of presidential attacks supported by a mobilized majority of the country.” Depends on if Obama/Stewart/Maher/Soros can mobilize the same mob that elected this Whiite House foo’, hayna?


6 posted on 03/17/2010 7:20:39 AM PDT by flowerplough ( Pennsylvania today - New New Jersey meets North West Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If Obama declares war on the USSC, he will lose. I can’t wait to see them strike down his commie Obamacare passed by trickery. Barry doesn’t have the votes to stack the court so he can FO. After the 2010 election, Barry is a lame duck. After the 2012 election, he is dead in the water.


7 posted on 03/17/2010 7:20:48 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasNative2000
...the MSM and Dems will demand that Thomas recuse himself since his wife is a “known activist” against Obama.

That makes sense. Very troubling. My gut instinct was that she should do whatever she wants, behind the scene. Way behind.

8 posted on 03/17/2010 7:22:02 AM PDT by fullchroma (Obama: GET OUT OF MY DOCTOR'S OFFICE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
In battles between a popular president


9 posted on 03/17/2010 7:22:05 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

.
“In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court,”

Too bad for them Obama is not at all popular with Americans and the court is standing for the American majority.


10 posted on 03/17/2010 7:22:46 AM PDT by Touch Not the Cat (You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory; it is better to perish than to live a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"...Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts..."

"Obama is not popular, especially among non-black voters who judge him based on his performance rather than his race. I bet the Supreme Court is more respected than Congress."

Right on target. Obama ain't "Jefferson, Lincoln, and (either) Roosevelt"...though he obviously thinks he is. They ran successful administrations. Obama's is already a historical failure.

11 posted on 03/17/2010 7:23:17 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
all of whom bashed the Court for thwarting the will of the people

Incredible statement to compare to the current situation. The will of the people is being thwarted by the president and his congress. If anything the court will be the final arbiter of whether the people win or whether government wins.

Incredible stupidity from the author not being able to see this.

12 posted on 03/17/2010 7:23:42 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The best message the Court can send on this issue is to cease attending any speech before Congress assembled by this President. Let Justice Sotomayor go by herself, the rest of the Court should abstain from any further participation.


13 posted on 03/17/2010 7:23:55 AM PDT by Bean Counter (I keeps mah feathers numbered, for just such an emergency...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I think he wants this conflict for one reason only - that whole balance of power thing is impeding his plans for his dictatorship.


14 posted on 03/17/2010 7:24:09 AM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Another leftist living in a world entirely of his own creation. “A popular president?” Oh please!!! And an “anti-majoritarian court?” A court with which the majority of the American public fundamentally disagrees? Again, utter nonsense. It’s so much easier to write an article and “prove” your conclusions when each and every one of your notions is utter tripe!


15 posted on 03/17/2010 7:26:30 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

Why on earth would an empty suit affirmative action hire find someone who is supremelyqualified to be a “perfect enemy”?


16 posted on 03/17/2010 7:26:43 AM PDT by gthog61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: KansasGirl

I knew Thomas Jefferson, he was a friend of mine. Obama, you are no Thomas Jefferson.


18 posted on 03/17/2010 7:33:26 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

This Obama crowd has been reading from the FDR playbook. They are as drunk on leftist dogma as his admin was. I fully expect them to make a Court-packing try.


19 posted on 03/17/2010 7:35:03 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Its very instructive to see who bammy sees as his enemies. Go ahead and deem your laws and self relevant, I too can play this game. We may all collectively deem ourselves separate from his reality. Do you think the armed forces will willingly attack their fellow citizens on the word of a deemer?


20 posted on 03/17/2010 7:35:50 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

Something to consider ....Obama can attempt to “Pack the Court” al la FDR.. what stopped FDR was he didn’t have a majority in the congress.
The O if he wanted could change the number of justices and stuff it with lefties like him self ..
See the Wicki snip below ...
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but Article III authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: the court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863.

At the request of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) which provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court should have eventually reached seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the Judiciary Act of 1869,[74] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937, seeking to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement; under Roosevelt’s proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but the President’s actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support New Deal policies and legislation.[75] This plan, usually called the “Court-packing Plan”, failed in Congress and proved a political disaster for Roosevelt.[76] The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of Willis Van Devanter and the confirmation of Hugo Black in August 1937. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[77]


21 posted on 03/17/2010 7:43:33 AM PDT by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Robe

Obama needs 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to stack the courts. He doesn’t have them and never will.


22 posted on 03/17/2010 7:46:15 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl
I certainly hope your right .....
23 posted on 03/17/2010 7:48:57 AM PDT by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
intimidate Federalist judges

Chicago politics.


24 posted on 03/17/2010 7:49:06 AM PDT by Reeses (All is vanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Straw man alert!

“That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it. As a matter of history, this argument is wrong...”


25 posted on 03/17/2010 7:49:43 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (STOP the Tyrananny State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If Obama keeps dumping on the Court,he may loose the wise Latina. She has a life appointment and her own personal importance to look out for. I doubt that she will give up her leftist leanings. I do however think, she may not want to give up her Constitutional powers to support Obama’s rise to power.


26 posted on 03/17/2010 7:50:08 AM PDT by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw

Obama will not be another Hitler.
Germans loved Hitler.
I know of noone personally that likes Obams azz.
Military will tell him to fugg off if he tries to use them
against us if he declares martial law.
We just gotta’ get the usurper out of our whitehouse.


27 posted on 03/17/2010 7:50:39 AM PDT by manonCANAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Whoa. Lunacy upon lunacy.

That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it.

More mindreading from the Left.

In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court, it’s almost always the president who prevails.

With regards to the current administration, what's wrong with the above sentence?

As long as he plays his cards carefully, Obama has much to gain from challenging John Roberts, and the Roberts Court much to lose.

Nurturing the banana republic in the heart of every leftist.

28 posted on 03/17/2010 7:51:07 AM PDT by denydenydeny ("I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist"-Dr House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
Please! Every bad idea yet conceived, they are going ahead with ... the last thing we need to do is to come up with yet another power seizing idea for them.

If and when they get all three branches (executive, legislative,, and judicial) of the federal government in their total control. We will have become a nation beyond recovery. We are in fact threatened seriously with that circumstance anyway. The Constitution is being ignored as if it did not exist.

God help us in our day, in Jesus name, amen.

29 posted on 03/17/2010 8:02:58 AM PDT by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

this is dangerous talk

it is dangerous to be publilcy identified as an enemy of THE WON

Let’s hope we don’t find Justice Roberts hanging in his closet, in his underwear. We have some serious dangerous despots now running the USA.

God speed Justice Roberts


30 posted on 03/17/2010 8:03:08 AM PDT by silverleaf ("Congress is America's only native criminal class."- Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe

The WH actually floated this idea (expanding the SC) a few weeks ago.

I suspect they’d be able to do it, too.


31 posted on 03/17/2010 8:04:14 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

“...Dems will demand that Thomas recuse himself since his wife is a “known activist” against Obama.”

The Deems can demand all they want...there is no legal or constitutional reason for his recusal...

Plus I am sure he has not forgotten his treatment at the hands of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee all those years ago, and would relish the opportunity to cram one up their MMMM....MMMM....MMMMMM’s


32 posted on 03/17/2010 8:05:14 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Touch Not the Cat
Too bad for them Obama is not at all popular with Americans and the court is standing for the American majority.

Personally, I think this may be the one protection for the SC. Many Americans have very little idea what the Court does (rule on constitutional issues), but still they see it as an institution that is in a sense above or apart from politics. Bambi was trying to whip up populist-style hatred of the Court, but I don't think it's going to be that easy for him.

33 posted on 03/17/2010 8:08:09 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

We are not dealing with “presidential attacks supported by a mobilized majority of the country,” as the article suggests.

Rather, the “mobilized masses” detest this President.

I recall reading a quote from very liberal Justice Stevens earlier this week in which he said he would be attending no more SOTU speeches because they had become political events.

Sounds like the White House might not be in favor with any of the justices, if even Stevens is peeved.


34 posted on 03/17/2010 8:09:54 AM PDT by Jedidah (Character, courage, common sense are more important than issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Bookmarking.

This guy is delusional.

35 posted on 03/17/2010 8:17:36 AM PDT by Envisioning (Proud "Right Wing Extremist" per the DHS.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The character of a man shows in his enemies, and John Roberts’ character shines through Obama’s cheap-shot shenanigans.


36 posted on 03/17/2010 8:30:50 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Thank God for John Roberts! I knew he wouldn’t turn out to be another wimpy traitor like Souter.


37 posted on 03/17/2010 8:31:00 AM PDT by FenwickBabbitt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robe
Obama can attempt to “Pack the Court” al la FDR . . . what stopped FDR was he didn’t have a majority in the congress.
When FDR tried it, the Democrats had just won a big majority in Congress - and even then packing the court was too controversial to pass.

FDR lost a lot of popularity at the time over his attempt. It wasn't the only time he overplayed his hand; after the attack on Pearl Harbor he demanded the defeat of the isolationist congressmen who had opposed his foreign policy. But since 80% of the public had opposed entry into the war prior to Pearl Harbor, and since the congressmen in question had gone hawkish after Pearl Harbor in sync with their constituents, FDR's appeal backfired.

I doubt a president who is already underwater in the polls can gain by trying something that blew up in FDR's face when he tried to do it.

It is however perfectly true that the number of justices was left by the Framers to a simple majority in Congress. I would favor a constitutional amendment to fix the number of justices at 11 and term limit them to 22 years, so that each president would get two nominees per 4-year term. And possibly make those two nominees be "running mates" of the presidential candidates, so that the people would know the candidate's judicial philosophy.


38 posted on 03/17/2010 9:07:56 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ( DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
...Last week, the chief justice described the president’s State of the Union condemnation of the Citizens United decision as “very troubling” and complained that the speech had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Roberts was making an argument about etiquette--dissent was fine, he said, but Obama had somehow transgressed the boundaries of civilized discourse by delivering his attack to a captive audience. But he was implicitly making a political argument as well

Idiot - no he wasn't.

Roberts simply stated that there was a place for dissent - and that the STOTU speach was not the place.

39 posted on 03/17/2010 10:59:19 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

This pic is of one of the ACORN’s best thugs? Are you kidding me? Let me at this mope. His head would be on the pavement before he could blink!! Give me a freakin’ break!!


40 posted on 03/17/2010 1:09:09 PM PDT by SlightOfTongue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court...

Stopped right there.
41 posted on 03/17/2010 1:44:27 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; TexasNative2000
I'm posting a piece from the liberal New Republic because I think conservatives should be prepared to counter an assault on the Supreme Court, especially if the Slaughter scheme is used to pass Obamacare without a vote and the Supreme Court hears a challenge to its constitionality.

Excellent reasoning, guys. There's always a reason, when the 'Rats start squeaking in unison about something or someone.

Scholars 200 years from now will have a fine old time dissecting the Great Rat Conspiracy in politics and media. Assuming they're free to study and aren't locked down in a police state.

42 posted on 03/17/2010 5:14:45 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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