Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Again! WH warns of 'unprecedented' SCOTUS ruling
Washington Examiner ^ | 4/4/2012 | Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

Posted on 04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by tellw

President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.

"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.

But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."

The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.

Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.

Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obama; obamugabe; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: tellw
It was designed to be rejected.
The preemptive strike was when during the State Of The Union address Chairman Obamakov verbally assaulted the SCOTUS. That was deliberate and calculated.
It sets up the Community Organizer-Alinsky tactic of divisive atmosphere.
The propaganda machine will swing into action proclaiming the rejection of Obamacare was not ruled on legal grounds, but ruled via vindictiveness.
They are getting nervous and desperate. Just like the boxer who is about to get KO’d, they start to smile and bluster.
They are not fighting for their political lives here, they are fighting to stay alive.
They are all guilty of treason,they know it, and they can't afford to lose or else they could be blind folded and shot.
The OWS armies will protest for “justice”, riot, and we have martial law declared.
If more and more people start to wake up to this communist coup d’etat, then anything could happen. This could get ugly to the point of historic and hysteric proportions.
61 posted on 04/04/2012 2:09:19 PM PDT by RavenLooneyToon (Tail gunner Joe was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

he was a law professor,

No he was an assistant to the assistant to the lecturer.

62 posted on 04/04/2012 2:11:24 PM PDT by omega4179
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw
I just don't understand how 0bama, a man of his stature, can survive with the bumbling fools of the Senate, the House, and now the Judicial.

Any normal human being wouldn't be able to tolerate the total incompetence when with the snap of his fingers he could turn the Earth into heaven if he didn't have so many bumbling fools with power stifling every move he makes to create Utopia.

It must be frustrating for him to say the least.

63 posted on 04/04/2012 2:21:38 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: noiseman; stephenjohnbanker

‘“...and he was a law professor” just like Sen. Kerry was a Vietnam War Hero!’

And just like Captain Kangaroo was a captain.

64 posted on 04/04/2012 2:22:30 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

Actually, one “student” has feen found (go to today) This fellow, an attorney, also clerked later for the Federal Judge in the other Obamacare case this week where he ordered the Justice Dept attorney to “provide 3 single-spaced pages (no less)” attesting to if the Justice Dept currently agrees that the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Legislation.

65 posted on 04/04/2012 2:28:35 PM PDT by bunster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2


66 posted on 04/04/2012 2:28:54 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RavenLooneyToon

Remember all those people interviewed on TV after Obama’s election who were expecting free gas, free houses and Obama money?

I say a few in the Trayvon “hoodie” marches and I think we will see more of them this summer.

67 posted on 04/04/2012 2:29:20 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
Surprised to see Obama cheerleader Norah contradict Carney like that.

Yeah. Perhaps the worm has turned.

68 posted on 04/04/2012 2:35:50 PM PDT by HKMk23 (Those who are perishing refused to receive the love of the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Carney was a terribly biased dumb reporter. I am just as happy for him to be the official flack as for him to pretend he is objective. But yes he is irritating.

69 posted on 04/04/2012 2:39:37 PM PDT by JLS (How to turn a recession into a depression: elect a Dem president with a big majorities in Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tellw

“and he was a law professor”

He was a lecturer. He was never tenored in fact, even in Chicago they would have laughed at that suggestion.

Now, in the old time usage of the word Professor, he would probably qualify. That usage was a professor was the guy who played the piano in a whore house.

70 posted on 04/04/2012 2:39:36 PM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

1000’s of lies.....

71 posted on 04/04/2012 2:48:06 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

There is enough corruption and treason to fill many courts for many days. Leavenworth needs to get ready. Those who survive this unraveling will spend much time there. Everyone remember who these criminals are. They need to be brought to justice (through the legal processes, of course).

72 posted on 04/04/2012 2:52:20 PM PDT by hal ogen (1st Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Any first year law student knows that the Supreme Court can and has overturned acts of Congress as unconstitutional before. I never even went to law school, and I know that. Mr. O has to have been a non-law professor just to know such a basic fact?

73 posted on 04/04/2012 2:53:08 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

It’s a problem that he lies.

It’s an even bigger problem that 85% of Americans who hear those lies don’t have a single clue about how to find out if they are true or false.

74 posted on 04/04/2012 3:22:15 PM PDT by djf (Obama - the "OJ verdict" of presidents!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tellw

The obvious SCOTUS retort:

We haven’t seen a law THIS BAD in 85 years!!

75 posted on 04/04/2012 3:29:46 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

So, let’s say the SCOTUS declares the entire Obamugabe Care Law unconstitutional and throws it out.

Obamugabe says, “Fine, we will institute it anyway, SCOTUS be damned.”

THEN what do you do?.......................

If that happened I think it would be time for the states involved to tell Obama to go pound sand and make him come enforce the “law.”

If the government is going to ignore admendments #1,9,&10. At the very least it might be time to reach for admendment #2 and stop it.

76 posted on 04/04/2012 3:31:09 PM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (In case of doubt: Attack! George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

Please get on your local newspaper website comment sections and post about this farce. It’s not pretty posting on them, that’s where the progressives dwell - but that’s what the common ‘idiots’ are reading.

77 posted on 04/04/2012 3:31:23 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Check my profile page for the FReeper Online Cookbook 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Fifth Circuit Court, audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):

78 posted on 04/04/2012 3:46:00 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Fifth Circuit Court, relevant transcript in full context:

Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Justice Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.

79 posted on 04/04/2012 3:47:43 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Somebody needs to have Hussein pee into a cup.

Seriously...the guy needs to be drug tested!

80 posted on 04/04/2012 4:14:23 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson