Skip to comments.High court is right’s backstop
Posted on 07/05/2014 2:52:25 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Conservatives increasingly see the Supreme Court as a last line of defense against the Obama administrations agenda.
Despite the courts 5-4 vote to uphold the presidents healthcare law, the justices have more frequently pushed back at what conservatives see as overreach by the White House.
A view that the High Court is having more success than the GOP House as a check on President Obama has been developing for some time, but became all the more prevalent after its decisions in the recent Hobby Lobby and Noel Canning cases.
What we are experiencing is a high court reining in an arrogant president who continues to exercise his unconstitutional overreach in a number of areas, said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law And Justice.
Sekulow added that the Hobby Lobbys victory for religious liberty is the latest in a series of stinging rebukes by the high court against the Obama administration. By some counts, President Obama has been on the losing end of some 20 Supreme Court cases during his time in office, outpacing former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Claims that the Supreme Court has ruled against Obama a disproportionate number of times are, in fact, hotly disputed.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently asserted that the Noel Canning decision was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority.
Defenders of the administration, and some non-aligned legal experts, insist that argument is exaggerated. Eight of those cases, they noted, revolved around policies that had begun during the tenure of Obamas predecessor, President George W. Bush.
Others argue that the frequency with which the Obama administration has suffered defeats is not especially unusual, and that the court in fact has sought to defer to Obama.
Even in the Noel Canning case, it was pretty deferential to the president, said Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolinas law school. Institutionally, the presidency probably benefited in that case. And, otherwise, I dont think it is fair to say that the president has been rebuked all that much.
It may be conservatives pessimism about Congresss capacity to roll back President Obamas agenda that makes them take heart from high-profile legal victories.
Lawmakers have been impotent as Obama has made changes to the healthcare law on the fly, delaying the employer mandate and creating exceptions to the ObamaCare contraception mandate.
The court, in contrast, has stepped in on hot-button issues such as reproductive rights, freedom of religion and Church-State boundaries.
Dan Holler of Heritage Action noted that the Hobby Lobby decision came after a period when, among grassroots conservatives, there has been this sense of despair, that no matter what happens, things in DC are stacked against them and its very difficult to win. There was a sense that everything was trending the wrong way.
But the Hobby Lobby decision changed that for a lot of folks, Holler added. They feel there is a way that we can win some of these battles in the courts.
Liberal groups, of course, see things differently, though they share the impression that the court has sometimes impeded Obama.
I think that there is a 5-justice bloc on the court that sees itself as an aggressive counterweight to almost everything the Obama administration wants to do, said Jamie Raskin, a senior fellow at People for the American Way, a liberal group. Raskin was referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and his right-leaning colleagues Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy.
Raskin added, I am certain that none of the justices in the 5-justice bloc would say they are operating from a partisan motivation. That would be anathema to them. But the lines of political philosophy in the court now double as partisan lines. All of the five justices who are slashing into the Obama program are Republican appointees.
Not all conservatives think the court has been solidly on their side in holding up Obama.
Chief Justice John Roberts, after all, wrote the decision affirming the healthcare laws legality, leaving a bitter taste for some.
When Chief Justice Roberts goes out of his way to uphold a statute [as in the ACA case], he is actually expanding the government beyond its constitutional boundaries, said John Eastman, a founding director of the conservative Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
He said that even when the court rules for conservatives, the decisions are fairly weak.
But other conservatives see the court as an ally that is frustrating Obama.
It is clear that the Obama administration continues to push the constitutional limits on a wide range of topics, said Sekulow. It is refreshing to see the Supreme Court remind the president that it takes more than a phone and a pen to govern.
With Harry Reid blocking House bills, Obama making unconstitutional executive dictates and the media sitting silent, we'll take these small victories - though it isn't sitting well with those who would tear up the U.S. Constitution and level the playing field in order to bring America to heel - under the boot of global socialist/green governance (dictates).
Sure looks that way to me.
He does not respect the Supreme Court. I predict eventually he will defy them.
There is no doubt that odumbo and his ilk are indeed planning for a revolution. Why would he have created his own brown shirt army, have created numerous internment camps, purchased thousands of coffins, bought millions of rounds of ammunition for departments that don't carry weapons, etc, etc, (need I go on?)
Not too far down the road of history, Odumbo will do something so baser and against the American people that citizens will indeed rise against him, he will install marshal law and that will be the end of any free election in this country. He will claim himself as dictator, which he already believes he is. Nothing the ba$tard has done or will do in the future would surprise me.
“...he will install marshal law and that will be the end of any free election in this country.”
Why do you and apparently odumbo think martial law would work out so well for him?
Frankly, a few contentious random acts of contrition by the saner part of the court (i.e., Roberts) cannot possibly atone for one of the most treasonous acts in American history by two-facing the fact that this law is constitutional because it is a tax and there can impose mandates, and not unconstitutional because it is not an unlegislated tax but a series of regulations having to do with commerce. IOW, free doesn't mean crap if Obama is involved. The utter duplicity of this twisted political logic to me has pretty much convinced me that the SC and the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch is all one big horribly insane Kabuki.
As if that was an insignificant and inconsequential act.
That error by the court was a devastating blow to the Republic.
FIVE to four for religious liberty?
The decent response would be to impeach the four.
This is BS. The court does not even follow the law a majority of the time. If they were back stopping the right and following the constitution then there would be no Obama Care. Because they broke the rule of law is why they now must deal with so many new issues that would not exist without Obama care. And they will use a myriad of lawless tactics to come up with the decisions they want.
Once in a while they get a liberal Democrat result instead of an outright Communist result and they immediately go into a panic about the “Right-wing Court”.