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 ...
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”.
Even amongst them, she is one of the worst.
Been that way for a long time!
Yes. Yes you are.
; - )
After all, President Clouseau has granted thousands of waivers from this law. Not to mention that government employees and Congressholes are exempt.
Of course, they're also exempt from participating in Socialist Security so I guess there's the out right there.
“Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances?”
Of course not. So long as the checks cash, who cares about balances?
It's a shame that in a government designed to secure our natural rights, there are at least four Justices who are certain to vote for Constitutionalizing our enslavement.
Compared to Warren? The left wasn't complaining then!
A constitutional amendment, proposed to the states by 2/3 majority of congress would do the trick.
I leave all my worldly possessions to my little dog Toto.