Skip to comments.Obama Accused of Trying to 'Intimidate' Supreme Court by Texas Congressman
Posted on 04/03/2012 9:49:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON -- Texas Republican congressman Lamar Smith on Monday suggested that President Barack Obama's remarks about health care at a Rose Garden press conference came close to intimidation of the Supreme Court.
"I am very disappointed by our President," Smith told FOX News Radio. "That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I'm not sure that's appropriate," he added.
Earlier in the day at a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama was asked about the consequences of the court ruling that his health care law was unconstitutional.
"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress," Obama said.
The president added, "I'd like to just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Last week, the Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments over the constitutionality of the law. The court is expected to deliver its ruling in late June. Smith said the nine justices should be able to reach a conclusion without the "interference" of the president.
"It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, they do that on a regular basis so it's not unprecedented at all," Smith told FOX Radio. "What is unprecedented is for the President of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxboston.com ...
He's a Chicago thug politician, that's the only thing he knows.
Not sure its appropriate??? For God's sake what planet are you from? Grow a pair for once and call him what he is..a petite dictator.
He is not sure intimidating the SCOTUS is appropriate? Gee, would a baseball bat to their heads make you sure Lamar? Or would you still not be sure?
Now my next question is where were Boehner and McConnell? golf course, cocktail party, junket, couldn't be bothered?
FUBO GTFO! 291 Days until Noon Jan 20, 2013 Just remember, if Obama had a son, he'd be a thug, too.
it’s not just the president, but the whole democrat party. their lack of respect for the Supreme Court should be shouted from the treetops, adn made a campaign issue.
Republicans are still playing Chess while the Democrats have moved on to video games like Worlds of Warcraft or some such.
Of course he wants to silence the court, he’s a thug. I wonder if they have gotten horseheads in bed yet? Maybe a finer of a relative in a UPS parcel?
Come on Congressman, if this is to be his "straw man" argument, then true conservatives need to expose, as the writer on some threads have, the fallacies of his premise.
For him to take conservative opposition to what they describe as "judicial activism" and attempt to turn it against the Court's appropriate role of interpreting the Constitution's limits on government power is the maneuver one might expect from him. Meanwhile, his own appointee knows exactly what conservatives have meant when they speak of "judicial activisim."
When conservatives complain about "judicial activism," they are describing the same kind of "activism" as his appointee to the Court, Sotomayor, described in her meeting at Duke University when she stated that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," and then added, "I know I shouldn't have said that, but . . . ."-- with a smile.
His open attempt at intimidating what he referred to as the "unelected" branch of government is a reminder of the wisdom of America's Founders in their making it just that: an "unelected" and, hopefully, an independent and objective group of individuals who would look to the approbation of future generations, and their liberty and freedom, rather than the railings or approval of a temporary and Partisan political tyrant of the moment.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us of such "artful" persons who, once elected to positions of temporary power, might attempt to subvert the Constitution's limits on their power.
Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, concluded with these words:
"The national constitution is our last, and our only security. United we stand; divided we fall.
§ 1907. If these Commentaries shall but inspire in the rising generation a more ardent love of their country, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the Union, then they will have accomplished all, that their author ought to desire. Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of fife, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."
Why in the world would anyone here be angry with Urkel? Do you really think that he could say or do anything that would push SCOTUS towards his point of view? If anything he cemented the SCOTUS conservatives and possibly some of the liberals to go in the opposite direction.
The SCOTUS is filled with superegos and the last thing you want to do is use the bully pulpit and dictate to them.
Again, Urkel proves he is twice as smart as Biden and Biden is a half wit.
Amen. Good for him for speaking, but how apologetic do they have to be to this tyrant? “Not sure it’s appropriate” for the so-called President to attempt to intimidate the SC? Um, no it’s just plain flat-out not appropriate!
~sigh~ I just wish the GOP congressional and senate members in general, and Boehner and McConnell in particular would grow a collective pair, stand up and call out these RAT-Commies. ~sigh~
“The SCOTUS is filled with superegos and the last thing you want to do is use the bully pulpit and dictate to them.”
This wouldn’t be the first time the POTUS grossly overestimated his powers of persuasion. He seems to forget that the more he talked about health reform in 2010, the more the public opposed it. To this day he continues to believe that the only reason the public continues to oppose the plan is because he hasn’t explained it well enough!
Obama’s arrogance knows no bounds. His “scolding” of SCOTUS at the SOTU said it all: he believes he knows best and that the country would be a better place if everyone listened to him (or at least obeyed his commands).
Give him a break - he was afraid of being called a racist if he used stronger language.
Bingo! And that is why the race baiters will always have the upper hand and control dissent....fear of being called a racist. Hell, that is why Obama got elected in the first place, fear of being called a racist for exposing his commie, anti american, anti semite past.
Fortunately, Baby Doc Obama knows no limit to creative self-destruction.
He’s campaigning every second of every day. Every event is scrutinzed and analyzed to see how it can be used in the presidential race.
What our side needs to understand is that when it stops “working”, they’ll stop using it.
Technically true. No argument.
But under fraudulent pretenses, and resulting in the biggest Congressional elections defeat in 75 years for the "progressives.".
Was there a profound message there?
As for "unprecedented..." our Constitutional Scholar, Baby Doc, is lecturing the Supreme Court and claiming that laws passed by a Congress, and signed by a president have never been ruled unconstitutional.