Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law

Yahoo News ^ | 4/2/2012 | Stephen Collinson

[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.

[MplsSteve]

What is this insufferable ass gonna do if the Court overturns “his” law?!

Not invite them to the annual Christmas/Kwanzaa party?!

[Steely Tom]

I can’t believe this.

[PapaBear3625]

Sounds like he’s worried.

[max americana]

Well, he has the wise-ass Latina in his pocket plus Kagan, so all he has to do is threaten the other 7.

[pterional]

I can’t remember a time that the President of the United States of America has threaten the US Supreme Court. We need to impeach this street thug!

[Blood of Tyrants]

He is going to get the Queen of Hearts to chop off their heads.

[dandiegirl]

Maybe it's time for the Supremes to rethink taking up his eligibility issue.

[kevslisababy]

I can’t help but wonder what the Justices think about this.

And it’s only “judicial activism” if they don’t agree with him, isn’t it?

[Cookies4ever]

I’d love to borrow Rush’s line about the Bamster, glittering gem of spectacular ignorance (hope I have that right). But in this case he’s too dangrous to be taken lightly. What will he do if Obamacare is deemed struck down? Will nothing stop him?

[A CA Guy]

FDR did, a switch in time saved 9.

FDR threatened to add 3 liberal Justices to the court to make it 12.

[backwoods-engineer]

Not since the detestable Andrew Jackson have we seen such hubris from a President toward the Supreme Court. Well, FDR had his schemes, too, but Obama might as well have echoed Jackson’s “let him enforce it” after Worcester v. Georgia.

[research99]

FDR packed the court in the 30’s after failing in his try to expand the number of justices.

[Rome2000]

The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.

“Five years ago, President Chávez’s supporters helped to enshrine the principle of judicial independence in a new democratic constitution,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Now, by packing the country’s highest court, they are betraying that principle and degrading Venezuelan democracy.”

The law passed in May expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. In addition to the justices named to the 12 new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and 32 more were named as reserve justices for the court. Members and allies of President Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement (Movimiento V República, or MVR) form a majority in Congress.

In 1999 a constituent assembly convoked by President Chávez drafted a constitution that guarantees the independence of the judicial branch and the autonomy of the Supreme Court. The Constitution specifically seeks to guarantee the independence of Supreme Court justices by establishing an impeachment process according to which justices may only be removed for “serious offenses” by a two-thirds majority vote by Congress.

But in May, President Chávez signed a court-packing law that allowed his governing coalition in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of seats on the country’s highest court. The 17 new justices (and 32 reserves) were selected yesterday by a simply majority vote of the governing coalition, which did not reveal the names of the nominees to the opposition members of Congress until the time of the vote.

The court-packing law signed in May also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the Court without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution. In June, two justices retired after facing possible suspension from the Supreme Court as a result of these new provisions.

The political takeover of the Supreme Court will compound the damage already done to judicial independence by policies pursued by the court itself. The Supreme Court, which has administrative control over the judiciary, has failed to provide security of tenure to 80 percent of the country’s judges. In March, the court summarily fired three judges after they had decided politically controversial cases.

Chávez supporters have justified the court-packing effort largely as a response to pro-opposition rulings in a deeply divided court, such as a highly questionable decision that absolved military officers who participated in the 2002 coup.

“President Chávez and his supporters should be taking steps to strengthen the judiciary,” Vivanco said. “Instead, they are rigging the system to favor their own interests.”

[dandiegirl]

The Justices are laughing at his stupidity and severe lack of knowledge in the way the US government has worked for 300 years. They know more than ever that he needs to go. I would imagine that even the libs on the court are a little nervous to see their hero acting this way. I think the supremes know the difference between activism and constitutionality of laws. BO is ignorant and stupid and it shows every single time he's off the teleprompter.

[Steely Tom]

If any Republican president, the outcry would be deafening. We would have a non-stop parade of Democrat committee chairmen, left-wing professors of law, prominent writers and scholars, being given air time on every news broadcast, every cable show, every Sunday morning show.

They would be given platform after platform to explain to the President -- schoolmarm style -- how, if he had listened better back in Civics class, he would know that the Supreme Court of the United States was established as one of three co-equal branches of the US Government, and that, as head of the Executive Branch of that government, he had no right to threaten, cajole, jawbone, or intimidate another of the co-equal branches.

Of course, that would be happening if a Republican president said anything like this.

Because Obama is a left-wing Democrat, the MSM has not a word to say in protest.

[Wicket]

I’m seein’ black helicopters and martial law in our future. Tin foil hat off (for the present moment).

[Bedford Forrest]

The little pencil-necked pansy has lost it - he will say whatever his handlers [names and addresses, please] tell him to say. Threatening the Court, eh???? The girly man will start gibbering anytime soon. We all can hope we catch it on live video.

[Rome2000]

This COMMUNIST SON OF A WHORE has a cousin named FIDEL CASTRO ODINGA and went to Kenya in 2006 to campaign for his commie cousin Rail Odinga (FIDELS DADDY)who lost the election but set his supporters to murder the winners to the point that they agreed to share power.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HIS PARTY ARE COMMUNIST MONSTERS.

Prepare accordingly.

A supporter of the presidential challenger Raila Odinga (OBAMAS FIRST COUSIN WHO HE CAMPAIGNED FOR) in Kibera, a sprawling slum near the capital, Nairobi.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

I wouldn’t call him combative, more like Uppity or Militant.

[dandiegirl]

He will have a total meltdown if they strike it down. He will incite riots and all kind of civil unrest. He is a spoiled brat that likes to have his way. He will be one nasty piece of work which is great because this is what people need to see. Plus his loving wife, that thinks he’s so cute and funny, will beat the crap out of him for embarrassing her.

[Williams]

I’m not sure what the Justices’ vote was on Friday, but I’m sure the unethical liberal scum on the court immediately leaked it to Obama.

let’s be honest, those stupid cows don’t even belong in the spectators’ seats.

[madison10]

I would imagine that even the libs on the court are a little nervous to see their hero acting this way. I think the supremes know the difference between activism and constitutionality of laws.

The Libs aren't nervous, most likely they're helping him. Kagan and Wise-Latina are ignorant place markers on the Court, they were not qualified for the positions. Most likely they neither know anything about the Constitution or care.

[Signalman]

a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Strong majority? Wan't the only GOP member of Congress who voted for this POS law that Vietnamese putz from LA?

[Ditter]

Come and look at post #19.

[Captain7seas]

“...a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance”

Just say NO!

[dandiegirl]

I’m just hoping that those 2 women realize that they will still be there long after BO is gone. Surely they have a tiny bit of integrity especially after being around the other Justices. They are libs however. There is no such thing as integrity in a lib-not even a wise Latina.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Der fuhrer speaks!

I hate ****ing dictators.

[benldguy]

I'm really puzzled about something. Weren't Alito and Roberts grilled on the concept of stare decisis with regard to Roe v Wade during their confirmation hearings? If that applies to Roe v Wade, should it not also apply to health care?

How about applying Gibbons v Ogden, 1824 which held that "..., health laws, ... are not within the power granted to Congress. Or New York v Miln, 1837, which confirmed the State's retained authority over the subject of health laws. Or Linder v United States, 1925, which acknowledged that Congress is without power to regulate medical practices in the States.

What's sauce for the goose . . .

[madison10]

My Disenchanted Meter has lobbed all the way over to Exorbitantly Cynical.

I don’t think there is ANY integrity in ANY Liberal, ANY where ANY longer. The few times one of them comes out with an ounce of integrity it is my opinion that those incidents are purely accidental.

[Miss Behave]

"He will be one nasty piece of work which is great because this is what people need to see."

Bump that, dandiegirl.

And the narcissist will crack because he just won't be able to help himself. The bulk of his commie work will have been undone, and he'll squeel like a stuck pig.

And it won't be a pretty sight.

[ntnychik]

I don’t even think he was talking to the Court. He’s setting up his propaganda campaign that only he can save you from a meanspirited conservative court that aims to take away your health insurance (and kill babies).

Meanwhile, his Education Secretary is grasping control of the curriculum from pre-school to graduate school to make sure our intended system of government and our history is soon forgotten. Homeschooling as a legal option will vanish in a second term.

The worst thing our candidates can think to say about him is that he’s out
of touch.

[struggle]

5-4 against or more.

Obama was told by Kagan and is doing what he knows best, acting without thinking.

[grumpygresh]

If 0-care totally goes down. Nervous breakdown?

[The Sons of Liberty]

der 0berFuhrer Hussein 0bama thinks he is dictator! Well the so-called Constituitional Professor has another think coming!

[gov_bean_ counter]

No, he ignores the ruling.

[LibsRJerks]

Yes, riots! Because we’s gotsta haz our HELF care!

[oldtimer]

Obama is not a left wing democrat. He is a full blown marxist, and I pray that the Constitutional Judges are being covered so that there will not be any “accidents” to Justices who do not believe in the all powerful state.

[GlockThe Vote]

We have a tyrant on our hands. 25th amendment needs to be reviewed.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Vile disgusting scumbag continuing to use Chicago thug politics in Washington. It wouldn’t be beneath him to arrange a drive-by by Holder’s people.

[seowulf]

Constitution for the New Deal

by H. L. Mencken

THIS SATIRICAL PIECE FIRST APPEARED IN The American Mercury,, 41 (June 1937), 129-36, and was reprinted in condensed form by The Reader’s Digest, 31 (July 1937), 27-29. In order to indicate what reached the widest audience, the condensed version appears here.

The principal cause of the uproar in Washington is a conflict between the swift- moving idealism of the New Deal and the unyielding hunkerousness of the Constitution of 1788. What is needed, obviously, is a wholly new Constitution, drawn up with enough boldness and imagination to cover the whole program of the More Abundant Life, now and hereafter.

That is what I presume to offer here. The Constitution that follows is not my invention, and in more than. one detail I have unhappy doubts of its wisdom. But I believe that it sets forth with reasonable accuracy the plan of government that the More Abundant Life wizards have sought to substitute for the plan of the Fathers. They have themselves argued at one time or another, by word or deed, for everything contained herein:
PREAMBLE

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish social justice, draw the fangs of privilege, effect the redistribution of property, remove the burden of liberty from ourselves and our posterity, and insure the continuance of the New Deal, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
ARTICLE I

The Executive

All governmental power of whatever sort shall be vested in a President of the United States. He shall hold office during a series of terms of four years each, and shall take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will (in so far as I deem it feasible and convenient) faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will (to the best of my recollection and in the light of experiment and second thought) carry out the pledges made by me during my campaign for election (or such of them as I may select).”

The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia, Boy Scouts, C.I.O., People’s Front, and other armed forces of the nation.

The President shall have the power: To lay and collect taxes, and to expend the income of the United States in such manner as he may deem to be to their or his advantage;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to provide for its repayment on such terms as he may fix;

To regulate all commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and within them; to license all persons engaged or proposing to engage in business; to regulate their affairs; to limit their profits by proclamation from time to time; and to fix wages, prices and hours of work;

To coin money, regulate the content and value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to amend or repudiate any contract requiring the payment by the United States, or by any private person, of coin of a given weight or fineness;

To repeal or amend, in his discretion, any so-called natural law, including Gresham’s law, the law of diminishing returns, and the law of gravitation.

The President shall be assisted by a Cabinet of eight or more persons, whose duties shall be to make speeches whenever so instructed and to expend the public funds in such manner as to guarantee the President’s continuance in office.

The President may establish such executive agencies as he deems necessary, and clothe them with such powers as he sees fit. No person shall be a member to any such bureau who has had any practical experience of the matters he is appointed to deal with.

One of the members of the Cabinet shall be an Attorney General. It shall be his duty to provide legal opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the President, and to gather evidence of the senility of judges.
ARTICLE II

The Legislature

The legislature of the United States shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Every bill shall be prepared under the direction of the President, and transmitted to the two Houses at his order by their presiding officers. No member shall propose any amendment to a bill without permission in writing from the President or one of his authorized agents. In case any member shall doubt the wisdom of a bill he may apply to the President for light upon it, and thereafter he shall be counted as voting aye. In all cases a majority of members shall be counted as voting aye.

Both Houses may appoint special committees to investigate the business practices, political views, and private lives of any persons known to be inimical to the President; and such committees shall publish at public cost any evidence discovered that appears to be damaging to the persons investigated.

Members of both Houses shall be agents of the President in the distribution of public offices, federal appropriations, and other gratuities in their several states, and shall be rewarded in ratio to their fidelity to his ideals and commands.
ARTICLE III

The Judiciary

The judges of the Supreme Court and of all inferior courts shall be appointed by the President, and shall hold their offices until he determines by proclamation that they have become senile. The number of judges appointed to the Supreme Court shall be prescribed by the President, and may be changed at his discretion. All decisions of the Supreme Court shall be unanimous.

The jurisdiction and powers of all courts shall he determined by the President. No act that he has approved shall be declared unconstitutional by any court.
ARTICLE IV

Bill of Rights

There shall be complete freedom of speech and of the press – subject to such regulations as the President or his agents may from time to time promulgate.

The freedom of communication by radio shall not be abridged; but the President and such persons as he may designate shall have the first call on the time of all stations.

In disputes between capital and labor, all the arbitrators shall be representatives of labor.

Every person whose annual income fans below a minimum to be fixed by the President shall receive from the public funds an amount sufficient to bring it up to that minimum.

No labor union shall be incorporated and no officer or member thereof shall be accountable for loss of life or damage to person or property during a strike.

All powers not delegated herein to the President are reserved to him, to be used at his discretion.

[stboz]

If there is a Just and Equitable God, may He strike down this insufferable little twit through the Graces of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.

Please your Honors, let him have it.

[muawiyah]

Roosevelt's court packing scheme didn't work because Congress didn't go along with him. Some of his worst Fascist Solutions were ruled unconstitutional and forgotten.

One of the better pieces on this on the net (See: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-01-15.asp) starts out

Among the things that pro-New Deal advocates hardly ever bring up is one of the most shameful acts by a president in U.S. history. That’s the infamous “court-packing” scheme that President Franklin Roosevelt proposed when the Supreme Court was declaring much of his New Deal unconstitutional.

It would appear that the Democrats, like Obama, have not only failed to bring it up, they don't even know it happened! (IGNANT dude said "unprecedented" proving he had no clue).

[tbw2]

Michael Savage had the brilliant suggestion of challenging it as unequal treatment of religions under the law. The Amish, Christian Scientists and Muslims don’t have to buy health insurance because it is against their religion - and this is unequal treatment for everyone else.

[citizen]

Is Obama stupid or what?? He humiliates the Supremes at the SOTU address and now he challenges them to trash his Obamacare?

I’m dreaming, I know, but I’m hoping Souter goes thumbs down for a 6-3 vote against the whole thing.

[muawiyah]

The scheme to expand the court to 12 from 9 was, in fact, the "court packing scheme".

He lost that battle in Congress.

Eventually the Justices he found troublesome retired or died leaving him free to appoint people more amenable to instruction ~ servile lackeys to a man.

If the Supreme Court were reduced to just one member, the Chief Justice, we'd have a top administrative/legal structure highly representative of the ancient Roman system of TWO TRIBUNES, except their's was a bit more complex and less responsive to changing conditions ~ almost let Hannibal conquer Rome in fact.

So much for the wisdom of the founders ~ we still don't have the Executive/Judicial interface just right. Permanancy in office didn't really make the judges independent ~ just allowed them to be more partisan.

[tbw2]

Isn’t this the second time Obama’s threatened the Court, with the first being a State of the Union address?

[Shethink13]

I’m dreaming, I know, but I’m hoping Souter goes thumbs down for a 6-3 vote against the whole thing.

I'm pretty sure Souter no longer sits on the SC - he's retired. But you're not the first to mention him - am I missing something?

[hapnHal]

Don’t Worry!
The handwriting is on the wall...

Obama will soon be a thing of the past
AMEN

[rawhide]

“Following Souter’s retirement announcement in 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor as his successor.”