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

Skip to comments.

Video: Obama Pre-emptively Lashes Out at "Unelected" Supreme Court
Townhall.com ^ | April 2, 2012 | Guy Benson

Posted on 04/03/2012 1:53:51 AM PDT by Kaslin

Following last week's dramatic Obamacare oral arguments, the Left appears to be anticipating a legal defeat when the Court releases its ruling in June.  To lay the groundwork for a shameless campaign of anti-SCOTUS recriminations, liberals have begun a coordinated attack on the Court's legitimacy and reputation.  Democratic Senators have fired early shots, as have several prominent Democrat Party strategists.  And today, as expected, President Obama joined the pre-emptive pile-on:
 

President Obama attacks Supreme Court on health care

Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary event by overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress," Obama told reporters today while speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. "I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld." Obama concluded.


A few thoughts: 
 

(1) That last quote will go down in the annals of presidential tautological tautologies. The law "will be upheld because it should be upheld."  Such insight!

(2) Yes, the US Supreme Court is -- and always has been -- an "unelected" body.  And?  Are you hinting, Mr. President, that the American people ought not respect the final decisions of the High Court, or that the institution no longer serves as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality?  Such a departure would, indeed, be "unprecedented" -- the true definition of which appears to elude our Harvard Law graduate president.  Also, since when does this president object to panels of unelected, unaccountable federal appointees making decisions about people's lives, with no possibility for further appeal?  Suddenly, it's no longer a feature.

(3) In all seriousness, in what conceivable way would SCOTUS striking down a law it determined to be unconstitutional constitute an "unprecedented" act?  Supreme Court majorities have been doing exactly that since establishing the practice of judicial review in 1803's landmark Marbury v. Madison decision.  Heritage's Lachlan Markay reports that the Court has struck down 53 federal laws in the last 30 years alone.  Unprecedented!

(4) Actually, a "strong majority" did not pass Obamacare.  You'll recall that the 24 hours directly preceding Obamacare's passage was fraught with desperate vote whipping and deal-making.  It was eventually dragged across the finish line in the House by a razor-thin margin, with dozens of Democrats joining a united Republican front opposing the law.  Besides, the size of a congressional majority has no bearing on a law's root constitutionality -- a point one might assume a former law school lecturer would grasp.

(5) As for the president's "confident" (is he ever anything but?) prediction that the American people won't stand for such an exercise of "judicial activism," perhaps the president should re-examine, you know, virtually every single piece of polling data on the matter.  In fact, the American people are demanding that the court rein in the Reid/Pelosi Congress' worst piece of legislative excess.  Note the views of Democrats:
 


I'll leave you with this reminder of how liberals greet closely-divided, highly-charged Supreme Court decisions with which they concur:
 

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision."


Finally, the critical reminder that we genuinely do not know how the Court will rule on this case.  Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't shooting straight.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Kaslin

Ohh. Isn’t that cute? The kenyan is throwing a tantrum. Call the waaaaahmbulance.


21 posted on 04/03/2012 4:53:57 AM PDT by Student0165
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
1) We know kagan is above all else... a leftist operative.

2) We know she had some prearranged way to let obama know the preliminary decision of the SCOTUS with regards to obamacare. We know because it fits the dim template. ALL dims are corrupt... they have no soul that belongs to themselves... so they do satan's bidding.

3) If kagan had given obama “good news”, the left would not be sending Soprano styled love notes to the SCOTUS. We may not KNOW anything... but we have more than enough data to make a well balanced and grounded prediction.

LLS

22 posted on 04/03/2012 4:56:36 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When was the last time that a minority in congress passed any law?


23 posted on 04/03/2012 5:06:01 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorists savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

Exactly and besides it was shoved through by Pelosi and Reid. No Republican voted for it.


24 posted on 04/03/2012 5:11:35 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65

They don’t have these problems in Cuba.

Pray for America


25 posted on 04/03/2012 5:22:08 AM PDT by bray (Power to We the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Not much different than what I heard Leftist Talk Radio host Mike Malloy say last Friday. He used his show to say the Supreme Court is now “illegitimate” and should be done away with, because 9 “unelected” people should never be able to overturn law passed by congress.

This is the direction the Democrats are going, and der leader is setting the path. The Constitution and our form of Government means nothing to them.


26 posted on 04/03/2012 5:23:24 AM PDT by NavyCanDo (You can take an idiot out of Chicago, but you can’t take the Chicago out of an idiot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Obama: "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?"

Cheers!

27 posted on 04/03/2012 5:32:14 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No Video Necessary: Americans Pre-emptively Lash Out at “Unelected” AG Holder, Secty`s Sebelius, Chu, etc.


28 posted on 04/03/2012 5:34:08 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (Holder unelected?? Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

All this BS in the last few days from the Bozo camp leads me to think that his buddy Kagen has given him a preview of how the vote went last week and it is in favor of trashing Bozocare.


29 posted on 04/03/2012 8:07:41 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
The absence of a viable alternative to the current health care mess, makes Obamacare attractive to many of our fellow voters.

There is no "healthcare mess" except for Obamacare and the BS the dems have slung about how "broken" our prior healthcare was. We had the greatest system in the world, people came here from all over the country to get the care they couldn't receive elsewhere. We treated anyone(and still do for now)anyone who showed up at an ER. No other country does that. Countries with national healthcare, such and Britain and Canada, kill off their old people by not treating them, and they do the same for some who are not so old due to the fact waiting periods for some procedures are so long.

We don't need to fix what is broken, what we do need is to educate idiots such as your self who believe all the BS the left slings about healthcare, capitalism and other things that made this FREE country great in the past.

30 posted on 04/03/2012 8:22:22 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So, if it is 5-4 against Obama, unprecedented but if 5-4 with Obama very good and right. Is that how he and the press see it?


31 posted on 04/03/2012 8:26:12 AM PDT by thirst4truth (www.Believer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greenhornet68

Combine SCOTUS and ACORN and you get SCORNUS.


32 posted on 04/03/2012 9:10:30 AM PDT by MortMan (Americans are a people increasingly separated by our connectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Having tried to get private insurance coverage as a cancer survivor when transferring from one state to another I can tell you the current system is far from optimal. Having paid into the system for over 30 consecutive years I found myself unable to buy a policy when moving to another state.

I’m not asking anyone to pay for my health care particularly the government or taxpayers. However, under the current system there are situations where people like myself are unable to buy insurance despite paying premiums and playing by the rules of the existing system. Do you consider it okay to be denied coverage when you’ve paid premiums for 30 years because you’ve had a claim for a life threatening disease and your work causes you to move to another state?


33 posted on 04/03/2012 10:30:42 AM PDT by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

I wouldn’t doubt that a bit. What I want to know is why is SCOTUS waiting until August to announce their decision?


34 posted on 04/03/2012 1:12:01 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Thank you. Someone else asked if they could "steal" it so I guess I done good. It just struck me that "selected not elected" was the lib meme against Pres. Bush after SCOTUS ruled against the FL SC in 2000 and now here is 0bozo using it against SCOTUS ... with two of his "selected" Justices on the bench.

That whole "democratically elected" thing is also the theme 0bozo and Hillary used to support the traitor Zelaya in Honduras too. Apparently their point is that if you have been democratically elected you are free to commit any crimes you want to after that.

35 posted on 04/03/2012 1:20:36 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Since he seems to have a problem that the judges are appointed by the president, I wonder if Romney or whatever Republican wins the election can nullify the appointments of Kagan and Sotomayor by that arrogant lazy lying pos and can tell them to hit the trail since that idiot thinks the judges should be elected?


36 posted on 04/03/2012 1:37:29 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
That would be nice. I just read another poster's description of how Justices actually are elected...

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Unelected?

Members of the Supreme are nominated by the president and then confirmed by Congress. That’s an election by elected representatives of the voters. There may only be one candidate at a time, but the Congress is free to approve or turn down any nominee.

Calling them unelected sounds like they are being set up to be removed from office by the usurper and his henchmen.

11 posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:11:35 PM by BuffaloJack (End Obama's War On Freedom.)


37 posted on 04/03/2012 2:45:58 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
The problem you mention comes under the heading of free enterprise and the reason you couldn't buy insurance lies within the rules and regs forced onto insurance companies. Changing the laws to allow insurance companies to trade across state lines(in other words more competition)would solve the problem you outline plus some lower the cost of insurance, period.

And no I don't think it OK for insurance companies to deny coverage if you have been paying into the company for 30 years. However, under Bozocare you would be left to die, depending on your age and the degree of cancer you have. As I said, competition across state lines would solve your problem, an easy fix if the politicians would just do it.

One or two problems such as that is no reason to trash the whole system and certainly no reason to turn out health care over to politicians, that is never a desirable solution and will only make matters worse. As I said originally, leave our health care alone, lobby for getting rid of restrictions, such as the fact insurance can't compete across state lines, but keep the frickin' politicians laws off of our health care.

38 posted on 04/03/2012 11:25:24 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Actually insurance companies do trade across state lines. They just offer different products and pricing in different states based on what the regulators in a specific state allow. Health insurance offerings and pricing is regulated at the state level under the current system, not by the federal government.

Allowing companies to compete on price across state lines would require the federal government to take away health insurance regulation from the states and assume responsibility for it at the national level. If one truly believes in the strict interpretation of the word of the Constitution, intervention with state regulation of health insurance is not permitted by the federal government.

The current system does not work for everyone and I agree Obamacare is an abomination. My point is the Republicans need to articulate a plan other than “no Obamacare” to have credibility. If the Republican plan is “no change” then Obamacare is a better deal for those of us with pre-existing conditions in that some insurance is better than no insurance. From the perspective of personal finances for many with extremely high medical expenses it is a choice between bankruptcy, death, or supporting federal control of health care. I suspect most people faced with those choices will choose federal health care.


39 posted on 04/04/2012 4:58:05 PM PDT by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

No, insurance companies do NOT trade across state lines, except in very rare cases. It should be legal for them to compete in all states. Period. There is nothing wrong with our health care system except that the government is already too involved in it. It doesn’t need fixing, it needs to be left alone.


40 posted on 04/05/2012 1:07:21 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 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