Skip to comments.Who needs a Supreme Court?
Posted on 04/08/2012 6:13:14 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
It is becoming more and more apparent that the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C., is like a petulant child if he doesn't get his way.
To say that he is audacious is an understatement. He is more of a recalcitrant individual who, by the way, takes many liberties with the facts. His latest tirade against the Supreme Court of the United States is yet another example of a ruler, not a leader.
For a constitutional law professor, he must have been asleep when the class was studying the Constitution. He certainly must have never heard of Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the Supreme Court to review laws, as passed by Congress, as to their constitutionality.
They have stricken over 150 laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional; it would seem that the facts are on the court's side. His misstatement that the health care legislation was passed by a strong majority is yet another example of playing loose with the truth and facts.
His very argument against the "unelected" group of people is how to demonize your opponent from the president's bible, "Rules For Radicals." His years as a community organizer educated him well in the art of demagoguery, lying and personal attacks.
How could the American people have voted such an unqualified, inexperienced and left-leaning ideological individual into the highest office in the land?
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.hernandotoday.com ...
I don’t recall Democrats asking this during the Warren Court.
You said it
Obama never learned HOW to think, only WHAT to think
He has one solution for every problem- more government
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.