“How many fingers, Winston?”
In Obamaville we wave a magic wand and all things become constitutional
No; he knows Critical Race Theory, and what Critical Race Theory says is that you should throw out pesky sh*t like the Constitution, and work around pesky institutions like the US Supreme Court, when those things get in the way of social justice. Why? Because things like the Constitution and institutions like the Supreme Court are the products of the White Man, and they merely perpetuate the White Man's hegemony over the power and the $$$$ floating around this awful land called the United States of America.
This is exactly the reason why Breitbart's vetting viz. CRT is so damn important.
Only those who are willingly blind cannot see it for what it is. Obama's entire life has been leading up to this point. Literally - his entire life.
The real problem is that in January 2009 we inaugurated what we thought we had elected, a president, one who swore to uphold the U. S. Constitution. But what we really inaugurated was an executive community organizer or, to put it more accurately, a revolutionary.
This man who was elected to an office that he is committed not to faithfully execute, but to faithlessly neglect in order to transform what he views as a flawed Constitution. Manifestly, he believes the Constitution must be transformed from an enumeration of the “negative rights” of a federal government of equal and divided powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, whose chief intent is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the government into an enumeration of the “positive rights” of the collective citizenry, whose chief intent is to empower a federal government of unequal and hierarchical powers, EXECUTIVE, legislative, and judicial, to both oversee and administer those rights to the collective citizenry in whatever way it sees fit.
‘law professor’? Wow?
I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last week. I watched People’s Court on the tv. Am I now a ‘law professor’?
Rush is correct. Zer0 is playing to the ignorant voter base who believes freedom is the free stuff you get from the government.
Obama should appoint a Czar to investigate those “unelected judges”!
It might be wise to send O a copy of U. S. vs Nixon (1974?). Even the Won is not above the law. Of course, the USSC doesn’t have as large an Army as does the Pope (obscure reference). ;-)
If the law is an unprecedented power grab then it certainly is unprecedented to knock it out.
he was a law professor,
No he was an assistant to the assistant to the lecturer.
Any normal human being wouldn't be able to tolerate the total incompetence when with the snap of his fingers he could turn the Earth into heaven if he didn't have so many bumbling fools with power stifling every move he makes to create Utopia.
It must be frustrating for him to say the least.
“and he was a law professor”
He was a lecturer. He was never tenored in fact, even in Chicago they would have laughed at that suggestion.
Now, in the old time usage of the word Professor, he would probably qualify. That usage was a professor was the guy who played the piano in a whore house.
The obvious SCOTUS retort:
We haven’t seen a law THIS BAD in 85 years!!
Please get on your local newspaper website comment sections and post about this farce. It’s not pretty posting on them, that’s where the progressives dwell - but that’s what the common ‘idiots’ are reading.
Fifth Circuit Court, audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/JudgeSmithDOJOrder.mp3
Fifth Circuit Court, relevant transcript in full context:
Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Justice Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –
Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.
Somebody needs to have Hussein pee into a cup.
Seriously...the guy needs to be drug tested!