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

Skip to comments.

Black robes can't hide the truth
Albany Times Union ^ | April 3, 2012 | By MAUREEN DOWD

Posted on 04/04/2012 6:24:43 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

WASHINGTON — How dare President Barack Obama brush back the Supreme Court like that?

Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances? Nah. And why should he?

This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming the one of the most divisive in modern U.S. history.

It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.

The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals who make arguments, but they are foils, in the background, trying to get in a few words before the commercials. Just as in the Senate's shameful Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives focus on results. John Roberts Jr.'s benign beige facade is deceiving; he's a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid and often venomous Scalia.

Now conservative justices may throw Obama's hard-won law out of those fine big windows. In 2005, Scalia was endorsing a broad interpretation of the clauses now under scrutiny from the majority. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Samuel Alito feel it is the province and duty of the judiciary to say "what the law is, not what it should be." But the majority's political motives are as naked as a strip-search.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dowd; failure; maureendowd; meninblack; obamacare; obamathreatensscotus; pantiesinabunch; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last


1 posted on 04/04/2012 6:24:58 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
OBAMA CONSTITUTION4DUMMIES.JPG, U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR DUMMIES
2 posted on 04/04/2012 6:27:29 AM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

accountable to no one once they give the last word

The SC doesn’t have the last word (or at least shouldn’t) The last word belongs to the people.

And thank you for the amazing pic. I think I recognize her but can’t think of the name. A true beauty!!


3 posted on 04/04/2012 6:29:17 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Just because someone thinks it's a good idea doesn't make it legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
MO is a bitter spinster who clings to her Liberal ideology for comfort and companionship. Single women often want to know there is someone/something taking care of them. In the case of Liberals, if there is no man then the Government is the caretaker. ‘Nuff said.
4 posted on 04/04/2012 6:30:10 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Dowd is so dowdy. Her bitterness is eating her up inside, making her the perfect foil for the global Marxist planners. What a piece of sour work she proves herself to be. She hates America so much, why doesn’t the beotch move to a socialist paradise? ... Because bitter fools like her must trash the good to feel they are alive. What a nasty piece of work she is now. I’m so glad Michael Douglas didn’t stay in her web.


5 posted on 04/04/2012 6:30:10 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This silly PMSing harpy doesn’t have a problem with those black robes when their ruling favors her precious liberals.


6 posted on 04/04/2012 6:30:34 AM PDT by NRA1995 (I'll cling to my religion and guns till they're pried from my cold dead fingers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This court is well on its way to becoming the one of the most divisive in modern U.S. history.

Ah, yes. Whenever I'm in need of the unvarnished truth regarding U.S. history I turn to Maureen Dowd.

7 posted on 04/04/2012 6:31:25 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Aw, come on.

Tell how you REALLY feel, Maureen.


8 posted on 04/04/2012 6:31:41 AM PDT by alloysteel (It is hard to get a man to understand, when his pay depends upon his not understanding something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Obama and the Dowd are channeling the ghost of Gov. George Wallace who defied the USCOTUS.

Seems Obama has more in common with a 60’s white separatist than the mainstream of American thought.


10 posted on 04/04/2012 6:32:19 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
But the majority's political motives are as naked as a strip-search.

Dowd, you stupid cow, those words apply directly to the partisan bare majority which passed this unconstitutional POS by the foulest means seen in Congress since Reconstruction. Never forget "We have to pass it to see what's in it" ,and don't forget "I won".
11 posted on 04/04/2012 6:32:25 AM PDT by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Dowd seems a bit peeved! Most be over that “Roe vs Wade”
application of the law.

Oh, wait...........


12 posted on 04/04/2012 6:32:44 AM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

You know, I’m really not a fan of Maureen Dawd.


13 posted on 04/04/2012 6:32:44 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

The Maureen Dowd Rule: All reposts of a Maureen Dowd article SHALL be accompanied by a photograph of Catherine Zeta-Jones.


14 posted on 04/04/2012 6:32:57 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Nine people in black robes.

Another one of your creations spot on!


15 posted on 04/04/2012 6:33:25 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives focus on results.

So, Maureen, what I hear you saying is that Conservatives on the court focus on process and the Liberals focus on results.

We have the decoder ring, you know. We know that the opposite of what you say is what you really mean.

16 posted on 04/04/2012 6:33:28 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

For liberals, history always begins this morning.


17 posted on 04/04/2012 6:33:47 AM PDT by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Could have used a hurl alert.


18 posted on 04/04/2012 6:34:18 AM PDT by greatvikingone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Gee Affirmative Action and ROVE V. WADE were really unifying decisions. < /sarc >


19 posted on 04/04/2012 6:34:54 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
A 'Barf Alert' would have been nice................
20 posted on 04/04/2012 6:35:14 AM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Is it just me, or does it seem like the administration and their sycophants are passing through the Seven Stages of Grief?

They’ve graduated from “shock and denial” (last week) to “anger” this week, it seems.

Can’t wait until they get to “depression”... hope it lasts all the way to November! :-)


21 posted on 04/04/2012 6:35:28 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word...

I'm no Constitutional scholar like MoDo or President Urkel but, technically speaking, I believe there is a way to override a decision made by this "group of unelected people."

I think a 2/3 majority of The House can negate an S.C. decision.

And, of course, there is always the impeachment process.

Or, am I missing the spirit of this thread?

22 posted on 04/04/2012 6:36:44 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Liberals used the Warren Court and enhanced criminal rights (Miranda etc,,) to launch a crime wave on the American people. The Warren Court was a monster. Even the libs never lionize it.

But it those days, it was the start of the shell game. They ruled through the Supreme Court, who struck down prayer in schools, created busing, released mass murderers...and we were told to change the SC if we didn't like it. So we started to do that and the libs in the senate started “Borking” our candidates for no reason.

Now they rule through Obama and his bureaucratic henchmen. You can see through this screaming drivel written here that libs don't like to lose ever, not even once. They don't believe in democracy and fair play. They want to win, rule, and force conformity on the rest of us.

23 posted on 04/04/2012 6:36:58 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; Oldeconomybuyer

>> A ‘Barf Alert’ would have been nice................

Hey, oldeconomybuyer put a barf alert in the post, just below the headline... he spelled it “Maureen Dowd”. :-)


24 posted on 04/04/2012 6:37:32 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Ok, this makes me think SCOTUS is going to throw this legislation out, Kagan told Obama and Obama has sicced his media attack dogs after SCOTUS.


25 posted on 04/04/2012 6:38:21 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
A 'Barf Alert' would have been nice................

It's a MoDo column. A barf alert would've been redundant.

Besides, nobody reads a Maureen Dowd threat for the article.

26 posted on 04/04/2012 6:38:59 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Maureen Dowd believes the Constitution is partisan and divisive. She’s just another useful idiot.


27 posted on 04/04/2012 6:39:49 AM PDT by Third Person
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Translation: the Supreme Court is only legitimate to the extent that it rules in favor of the Left.


28 posted on 04/04/2012 6:42:11 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

MFLR.


29 posted on 04/04/2012 6:42:19 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

She would be fawning all over the court if they were all nine activist socialists.

She likely loved the court when they ‘found’ cause for Roe v Wade in the emanation from the penumbra.


30 posted on 04/04/2012 6:43:44 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Dowd sounds like that Leftist Democrat wackjob in Mississippi that shot up the Mexican bar.

Five shot at Hattiesburg restaurant, suspect in custody

Skip down to comment # 40 to read some of his letters to the editor.

31 posted on 04/04/2012 6:45:28 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

In reading the constant din coming from the Left, I have but one thought, “Do I have enough ammunition?”

They aren’t far from attempting a full on coup.


32 posted on 04/04/2012 6:45:43 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

...Catherine Zeta-Jones...
And the only only reason to read anything written by Maureen Dowd. :-)


33 posted on 04/04/2012 6:46:56 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Lets see:

Obama: SCOTUS is unelected and should not have authority to decide

Newsweek: SCOTUS could be impeached for striking down commiecare

This article: They’re just a buch of hacks.

If I were conspiracy minded, I would say this is a coordinated effort.

Expect OWS to be outside Kennedy’s house, by the time this is over.


34 posted on 04/04/2012 6:48:09 AM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

We now are certain of how the Court will decide this case - it is unconstitutional. How do we know? Because the Communists are attacking the integrity of the court and demonizing the members. It is a full-fledged attack on the Constitution, with the goal of throwing it out and making 0bambi dictator for life.


35 posted on 04/04/2012 6:49:19 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

HA! I am a woman and I love the rules for posting Dowd. Just to thumb my nose at that twit.


36 posted on 04/04/2012 6:49:26 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Obama can never be called a constitutional professor, or a defender of the constitution.

People like Obama take on the role of constitutional professors, only to argue against it, and to destroy it. As such, he’s nothing more than a “destroyer of the constitution”, which is the opposite of someone who actually teaches about the merits and contents of the constitution.

And, why is Dowd even quoted on anything to do with the Supreme Court? Since when is a progressive/socialist someone that can be believed on anything regarding the constitution? She is no more a defender of the constitution than Obama, a Marxist who’s out to destroy the American way of life, and the country. She is as credible on the constitution and the Supreme Court as someone who is an enemy of the country, such as Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden. She doesn’t understand the country, and her liberalism/socialism is more in line with the type of country she would have preferred our country to be, and it’s something more like the old USSR and China and Venezuela and Cuba.

If the Supreme Court were to have been, currently, composed of more democrats than conservatives, she would, of course, be very receptive to their expected progressive rulings. But, since the court is now more on the conservative side, then the court is not “of the people, for the people, by the people”. She approaches the justice system with a radical socialist/Marxist view, and anything she has to say, can easily be ignored with no consequences whatsoever. So, why bring up her comments. She’s irrelevant and useless.


37 posted on 04/04/2012 6:50:15 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

I think I recognize her but can’t think of the name. ...Helen Thomas?...I think...


38 posted on 04/04/2012 6:50:38 AM PDT by Safetgiver (I'd rather die under a free American sky than live under a Socialist regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Dear Ms. Dowd,

Learn some history:

ACTS OF CONGRESS
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR
IN PART BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf

What would YOU do with Plessy v Ferguson?


39 posted on 04/04/2012 6:51:39 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming the one of the most divisive in modern U.S. history.” - article

The SCOTUS is divisive???? Ya might want to check out the occupant of the White House. You know the guy with the “We won, so shut up” attitude. Oh and what about all the BS that went into “deeming” this “law” passed in the first place.

The SCOTUS is divisive...crazy talk!


40 posted on 04/04/2012 6:52:28 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

Her name is Catherine Zeta Jones (many movies and T-Mobile commercials/spokeswoman) and she is married to Maureen Dowd’s (author of this article) ex-boyfriend Michael Douglas, the actor.

The rules are when you post Dowd, you have to post a pic of Jones. And if I were a guy, I’d be drooling. She is certainly a beauty.


41 posted on 04/04/2012 6:53:05 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

look at who the author is LOL.... nobody.


42 posted on 04/04/2012 6:54:02 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : "I will just make insurance companies give you health care for 'free, What Mandates??' ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

“This silly PMSing harpy doesn’t have a problem with those black robes when their ruling favors her precious liberals.”

If the decision goes 5 to 4 for Obamacare, it will be a great victory for the people, a tribute to the brilliance of the Supreme Court of the United States.

If it goes 5 to 4 against Obamacare, it will be a travesty committed by a group of unelected people who are brazenly partisan who payed no attention to the rule of law.

The Progressive press will trumpet it, shout it, blare it from the highest places and repeat it until it becomes the “truth”. (As in Pravda)

IMHO


43 posted on 04/04/2012 6:54:10 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
I think a 2/3 majority of The House can negate an S.C. decision.

This is not correct. There is no appeal and no override of a supreme court decision, except possibly via a reversal by a subsequent supreme court.

Once the supreme court declares a law unconstitutional, the only thing congress can do to achieve the goals of that law is to pass a similar law which is different enough so that it is not unconstitutional.

If the supreme court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional, I think coming up with a new 'constitutional' version of the law will be very difficult for congress to achieve; at least without adopting a government controlled health care system set up similarly to 'social security;' (Obama's beloved 'single payer system'). Of course, it's entirely possible that this has been the goal all along.

44 posted on 04/04/2012 6:55:15 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; P-Marlowe

Well, like a broken clock, even Dowd gets some things right. Not the part about activism by this court, because activism is having a justice create a law which is not their job. It is not having a justice exercise one of the powers that are part of a judge’s job.

However, she is right about judges being political positions, although she’s not insightful enough to see that her complaint about 5 republicans and 4 democrats cuts both ways. Bad republicans; good democrats. For all she knows, it is the republicans comparing the obamacare law to the constitution and finding it lacking while the democrats are off in partisanland refusing to look at the language of the constitution.

However, judges are political. I cannot be convinced otherwise, and that is why they should be limited to 12 years at which time they must be renominated and reconfirmed. And each 6 year period thereafter.


45 posted on 04/04/2012 6:56:25 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The answer to your question is: “No, you do not”.


46 posted on 04/04/2012 6:58:06 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
John Roberts Jr.'s benign beige facade is deceiving; he's a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid and often venomous Scalia.

Funny, not one mention in this screed of Kagan - and her blatant conflict of interest since she was so involved in passing Obamacare and her utterly unethical failure to recuse herself.

Dowd has tripled down on stupid here, even Obama is backing off his ill-advised attack on SCOTUS.

47 posted on 04/04/2012 6:58:20 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"Now conservative justices may throw Obama's hard-won law out of those fine big windows."

But if the president said the law was passed with strong support, how could it be "hard-won?" Oh, that's right, he had to:

1) violate his "transparency pledge" of the campaign,
2) had to make sure that no one read the bill before voting it,
3) make sure that dubious Democrats like Bart Stupak were lied to,
4) get the bill rammed through by "reverse reconciliation" and "deeming."

"Hard Won" definitely does not translate to "the people have spoken."

48 posted on 04/04/2012 6:58:59 AM PDT by cookcounty (Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
This is not correct. There is no appeal and no override of a supreme court decision, except possibly via a reversal by a subsequent supreme court.

Aha! So I AM a Constitutional scholar on par with Modo and The Great And Wonderful Ob.

49 posted on 04/04/2012 6:59:12 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

“They want to win, rule, and force conformity on the rest of us.”

The common, colloquial term of scu*bag should have as a definition “Progressive”.

IMHO


50 posted on 04/04/2012 6:59:59 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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