Posted on 06/30/2014 12:22:51 PM PDT by PoloSec
(VIDEO)FULL TITLE: White House Press Secretary: The constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with Supreme Court on Hobby Lobby (VIDEO)////
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on Monday that the “constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office” disagrees with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby.
“There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views that are held not by them, necessarily, but by their bosses.
“We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court, primarily because he’s concerned about the impact that it could have on the health of those women,” Earnest said.
Cry me a river.
Sounds like Sarcasm, but I doubt it is
tuffsht
I guess that means that the Constitutional scholar in the White House isn’t as smart as he thought he was. Because he got his case wrong.
Can we see his grades to prove he is a Constitutional Lawyer?
Pray America wakes up
“...The constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with Supreme”
He’s talking about the guy reading Saul Alynski that pulls his middle finger out of his nose to turn the pages.
(YEAH a cheap shot, so what!)
He never misses a chance to try to elevate himself at the expense of someone else.
A leader
“There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage”
As said above, cry me a river. Nothing is stopping them from buying their own.
“....a group of women of an indeterminate size....”
English, the forgotten language.
OMGoodness. it just never stops from him does it?
Well geez. If a leftwing extremist, idiot lawyer in the “White Hut” disagrees with the Supremes all I can say is, “Baby, baby. Where did our love go...”
A Constitutional Lawyer? Is that like how he was a Constitutional Law Professor?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
A: His formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor.
FULL QUESTION
When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as “professors,” regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a “constitutional law professor” at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?
FULL ANSWER
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was “senior lecturer” and not “professor.”
Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.
more....
Phew! That’s the first thing that hit me!
Ooooo, I’ll bet The Great One will blow a gasket over that line.
so just what is a group of women of a intermittent size? would that size be 19 josh? Did you hear someone laugh in the background when they said constitutional lawyer? or was that a cough?
The constitutional lawyer (has anyone said they were in his class?) who circumvents the constitution whenever it suits him.
If you have surrendered your law license you can hardly be a constitutional lawyer.
“constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office” disagrees with the Supreme Court”
What kind of snooty ass comment is that supposed to be?
Maybe the scrawny little c*cksucking super lawyer (has this moron even argued in front of the high court?) should have went there and made the argument himself?
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.