Skip to comments.Black robes can't hide the truth
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 ...
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!!
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.
This silly PMSing harpy doesn’t have a problem with those black robes when their ruling favors her precious liberals.
Ah, yes. Whenever I'm in need of the unvarnished truth regarding U.S. history I turn to Maureen Dowd.
Aw, come on.
Tell how you REALLY feel, Maureen.
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.
Dowd seems a bit peeved! Most be over that “Roe vs Wade”
application of the law.
You know, I’m really not a fan of Maureen Dawd.
The Maureen Dowd Rule: All reposts of a Maureen Dowd article SHALL be accompanied by a photograph of Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Nine people in black robes.
Another one of your creations spot on!
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.
For liberals, history always begins this morning.
Could have used a hurl alert.
Gee Affirmative Action and ROVE V. WADE were really unifying decisions. < /sarc >
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! :-)
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?
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.
>> 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”. :-)
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.
It's a MoDo column. A barf alert would've been redundant.
Besides, nobody reads a Maureen Dowd threat for the article.
Maureen Dowd believes the Constitution is partisan and divisive. She’s just another useful idiot.
Translation: the Supreme Court is only legitimate to the extent that it rules in favor of the Left.
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.
Skip down to comment # 40 to read some of his letters to the editor.
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.
And the only only reason to read anything written by Maureen Dowd. :-)
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.
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.
HA! I am a woman and I love the rules for posting Dowd. Just to thumb my nose at that twit.
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.
I think I recognize her but cant think of the name. ...Helen Thomas?...I think...
Dear Ms. Dowd,
Learn some history:
ACTS OF CONGRESS
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN WHOLE OR
IN PART BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
What would YOU do with Plessy v Ferguson?
“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!
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.
look at who the author is LOL.... nobody.
“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)
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.
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.
The answer to your question is: “No, you do not”.
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.
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."
Aha! So I AM a Constitutional scholar on par with Modo and The Great And Wonderful Ob.
“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”.