Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $20,803
24%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 24% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: scotus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Court's Obama order a 'hissy fit'

    04/05/2012 6:07:31 AM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 57 replies
    CNN ^ | April 5, 2012 | by Jeffrey Tobin. CNN Senior Legal Analyst
    (CNN) The Fifth Circuit's homework assignment to the Department of Justice is a disgrace -- an embarrassment to the federal judiciary. Still, it's a useful window on the contemporary merger of law and politics. This is not judging. This is a judicial hissy fit. The Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of the health care law, and the president will, as he must, abide by that judgment whether he agrees with it or not. In the meantime, however, the president, like all Americans, enjoys the right to express himself on what the court should do in that or any other...
  • Judge Napolitano: I Think the President Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism (Video)

    04/05/2012 3:53:04 AM PDT · by servo1969 · 27 replies
    thegatewaypundit.com ^ | 4/4/2012 | Jim Hoft
    Don’t hold back, Judge. FOX News contributor Judge Napolitano told Neil Cavuto today, “I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism. A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation. Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”
  • White House in damage control over Obama Supreme Court remarks (No Comments Allowed!)

    04/04/2012 11:55:15 PM PDT · by Islander7 · 51 replies
    Reuters ^ | April 4, 2012 | By Alister Bull (<-- No joke!)
    The White House was forced on the defensive on Wednesday as it sought to explain controversial remarks President Barack Obama made earlier in the week about the Supreme Court's review of his signature healthcare reform law. "What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney told reporters during a White House briefing dominated by the topic.
  • Former Law Professor Says Obama Misspoke on Supreme Court

    04/04/2012 5:51:26 PM PDT · by tobyhill · 72 replies
    fox news pheonix ^ | 4/4/2012 | NewsCore
    Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president "obviously misspoke" earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health care law. Tribe, who calls the president one of his best students, said in an interview, "He didn't say what he meant ... and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it." Tribe said he saw no reason for the president to express his views on the matter, because everyone already knows he wants the case upheld....
  • Law professor: Impeach Supremes if they overturn Obamacare

    04/04/2012 5:03:20 PM PDT · by RobinMasters · 44 replies
    Hot Air ^ | APRIL 4, 2012 | TINA KORBE
    Like conservatives, law professor David R. Dow thinks it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court vote on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate will likely fall along partisan lines — but his disappointment stems from his utter conviction that the individual mandate is constitutional. He’s so convinced of it that he thinks any Supreme Court justice who votes to overturn Obamacare should be impeached. He cites Thomas Jefferson’s call to impeach Justice Samuel Chase as an historical reminder that impeachment is and should be an option for justices who undermine constitutional values. I agree with him that impeachment of justices...
  • What Obama Will Say if Obamacare Loses

    04/04/2012 2:53:32 PM PDT · by Evil Slayer · 22 replies
    RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 4/4/12 | Rush Limbaugh
    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Frank in Salt Lake City. You're up first. Great to have you on the program. Hi. CALLER: Hello, Rush. How are you? RUSH: Very well, sir. Thank you. CALLER: Good. I've been listening to you since the mid-eighties when I used to take my kids fishing on the Sacramento River. RUSH: Wow. Yeah, you are a lifer. CALLER: Well, listen, here's my comment. I believe that what Obama has done here is light the fuse to question the Constitution. He's done it through the mechanism of going after the Supreme Court and questioning the Supreme Court's authority...
  • The brightest guys in the room

    04/04/2012 2:47:44 PM PDT · by agee · 17 replies
    Founding Ideals ^ | 04/04/2012 | Aaron Gee & Steve Graff
    My father, a high school teacher, used to joke “Those that can – do, those that can’t – teach, those that can’t teach – teach teachers”. I never expected that axiom to be true of the President of the United States, until yesterday. Obama’s answer to a reporter’s question clearly demonstrated that you didn’t want professor Obama for constitutional law. Not if you want to pass that bar that is. Methinks President Obama’s previous life as a community organizer fits the teaching teachers part of the axiom pretty well. If you missed it, President Obama was asked to clarify...
  • The Brightest Guys in the Room?

    04/04/2012 2:30:17 PM PDT · by stevegraff · 3 replies
    My father, a high school teacher, used to joke “Those that can – do, those that can’t – teach, those that can’t teach – teach teachers”. I never expected that axiom to be true of the President of the United States, until yesterday. Obama’s answer to a reporter’s question clearly demonstrated that you didn’t want professor Obama for constitutional law. Not if you want to pass that bar that is. Methinks President Obama’s previous life as a community organizer fits the teaching teachers part of the axiom pretty well... (Read More at http://www.foundingideals.com/2012/04/04/the-brightest-guys-in-the-room/)
  • Judge Napolitano: Rush is Right

    04/04/2012 1:28:45 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 13 replies
    Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | April 4, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh
    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Judge Napolitano was on Fox this morning, America's newsroom. That's the show with Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer. And Martha MacCallum did this segment. She had Napolitano on, and she played a clip of me defining judicial activism, as I did on this program yesterday. I said, "Judicial activism does not happen when you follow the law. Judicial activism is when you don't follow the law. Obama is trying to redefine that, too," and after playing a couple of sound bites of me, Martha turned to the judge and said, "Judge, I know you have a lot...
  • Again! WH warns of 'unprecedented' SCOTUS ruling

    04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT · by tellw · 115 replies
    Washington Examiner ^ | 4/4/2012 | Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
    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...
  • Americans Are Worrying About the Constitution Again

    04/04/2012 11:36:19 AM PDT · by Mikey_1962 · 9 replies
    Rasmussen ^ | 4-4-12 | Michael Barone
    "I don't worry about the Constitution," said Rep. Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, at a town hall meeting where voters questioned his support of the legislation that became Obamacare. You can find the clip on youtube.com, where it has 462,084 hits. That was before the 2010 election, in which Hare, running for a third term in a district designed by Democrats to elect a Democrat, was defeated 53 to 43 percent by Bobby Schilling, proprietor of a pizza parlor in East Moline. A lot of politicians are worrying about the Constitution these days. Liberal commentators were shocked this past week...
  • Obama Understands Judicial Review, But Counts on the Ignorance of His Audience

    04/04/2012 11:54:25 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 6 replies
    Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | April 4, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh
    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Barack Obama a couple of days ago gets a question at a joint preference with Stephen Harper and Felipe Calderon about the Supreme Court decision coming up on Obamacare. And what he says makes it sound like he doesn't understand the concept of judicial review, which was established in a long ago Supreme Court case called Marbury v. Madison in which the Court appointed to itself the job, the right of determining what and what isn't constitutional in terms of what comes out of Congress. And it's been that way for hundreds of years. Obama implicitly --...
  • Rush predicts Obama's response to Supremes

    04/04/2012 12:44:15 PM PDT · by Kevin in California · 14 replies
    WND.com ^ | 04-04-12 | Joe Kovacs
    If the U.S. Supreme Court tosses out Obamacare, radio giant Rush Limbaugh predicts President Obama will blame Republican justices, whose homes might become the target of political protest.
  • Pelosi predicts 6-3 victory for health law

    04/04/2012 12:25:23 PM PDT · by Beave Meister · 23 replies
    The Washington Times ^ | 4/4/2012 | Stephen Dinan
    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday predicted the Supreme Court will uphold the health care law on a 6-3 vote, saying she and her colleagues "wrote the bill in an ironclad way." "I'm predicting 6-3 in favor," Mrs. Pelosi told the Paley Center for Media. "We shall see. It's a lesson in civics, and I respect it." She didn't say which six justices she thought would uphold the law. Unlike the White House, which said it is not thinking ahead to what happens if the court strikes down part or all of the law, Mrs. Pelosi did grapple with...
  • Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law

    04/04/2012 10:51:02 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 90 replies
    Daily Beast ^ | 04/04/2012 | David R. Dow
    You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you. Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting. The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down...
  • Mathematically Speaking, Obamacare Cannot Survive

    04/04/2012 7:34:08 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 17 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | April 4, 2012 | Mike Shedlock
    Open issues abound on healthcare. Will the Supreme Court strike it down? If so, who is to blame? Who are the winners and losers? Will healthcare help or hurt the Republican chances? First please consider Obama delivers warning over healthcare law Barack Obama has delivered a surprisingly strong warning to the US Supreme Court, saying that it would be guilty of an “unprecedented” case of “judicial activism” if it overturned his signature healthcare law. On Monday the president said he was “confident” the law would be upheld, questioning how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by...
  • Obama Is Making the Case For His Own Impeachment

    04/04/2012 9:49:17 AM PDT · by servo1969 · 23 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | 4/4/2012 | Tony Katz
    The President’s latest tactic, taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable ruling on ObamaCare, following on the heels of last week’s "open mic gaffe" in which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election, lead to one question: Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment? Obama is no longer fit for the job. I don’t say this lightly. I don’t say it with glee or joy. And I don’t say it with malice. But rather...
  • FACT CHECK: Obama's incomplete history lesson

    04/04/2012 9:40:06 AM PDT · by Free ThinkerNY · 4 replies
    Associated Press ^ | April 4, 2012 | CALVIN WOODWARD
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Few would quarrel with President Barack Obama's point that the Republican Party has drifted to the right in recent years, disavowing ideas it once embraced - even created. But making that case in a major campaign speech, Obama ignored realities in his own Democratic ranks. For one, it was opposition from coal-state Democrats that sank cap-and-trade legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions, not just from those arch-conservative Republicans.
  • It's On: 5th Circuit Dares Obama to Deny Power of Judicial Review

    04/04/2012 5:11:33 AM PDT · by expat1000 · 53 replies
    Breitbart News ^ | April 4, 2012 | Breitbart News
    Jan Crawford of CBS reports that a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to "answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law." The response is to be three pages long, single-spaced, according to an unnamed lawyer who was in the courtroom. The court's response appears to be a direct challenge to President Barack Obama's attack yesterday on the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review, which federal courts have exercised for over 200 years.
  • [Liberal] Ruth Marcus: Obama should know better

    04/04/2012 7:34:02 AM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 26 replies
    Lincoln Journal Star (NE) ^ | April 4, 2012 | by Ruth Marcus
    To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. And yet, Obama's assault on "an unelected group of people" stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the Constitution. Even if, as...
  • Obama's Supreme Court comments off the mark

    04/04/2012 6:55:54 AM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 17 replies
    Los Angeles Times ^ | April 4, 2012 | Editorial
    Borrowing a line from conservative critics of the judiciary, President Obama declared that the Supreme Court would be engaging in "judicial activism" if it threw out the 2010 healthcare reform law. There are several things wrong with the president's remark. For one thing, it's simply not true that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn such a law. Since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, the court has seen "judicial review" of laws as part of its responsibility, and over the years it has ruled many unconstitutional. That's entirely appropriate. Furthermore, the implication of the remark was that the...
  • Black robes can't hide the truth

    04/04/2012 6:24:43 AM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 106 replies
    Albany Times Union ^ | April 3, 2012 | By MAUREEN DOWD
    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....
  • To Save ObamaCare, Obama Does Full Court Press

    04/03/2012 5:03:31 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 15 replies
    IBD Editorials ^ | April 3, 2012
    Checks And Balances: A president with no respect for the Constitution warns of judicial activism by a Supreme Court reviewing his landmark legislation's constitutionality. It would be unconstitutional to let it stand. Someone will have to remind President Obama the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, part of a system of checks and balances designed to rein in precisely the kind of runaway government exhibited by his administration. Our community-organizer-in-chief has a different opinion. "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was...
  • His Royal Imperial Highness, Barack Obama II

    04/04/2012 3:22:03 AM PDT · by servo1969 · 15 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | 4/4/2012 | Ben Shapiro
    America's constitutional structure is built on checks and balances. The idea behind these checks and balances is simple: We want interest counteracting interest, ego counteracting ego. We don't want any one person to gain too much power -- or any one faction or any one way of thought. Gridlock, for lack of a better word, is good. President Barack Obama, however, has a different idea. He believes that America must be fundamentally transformed. That fundamental transformation cannot be effectuated without a fundamental transformation of the system of American government. The most important part of that transformation is the elevation of...
  • WILL IT TAKE A REVOLUTION?

    03/31/2012 7:35:00 PM PDT · by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny · 88 replies
    Canada Free Press ^ | March 31, 2012 | Douglas V. Gibbs
    We are told that it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, but that is hardly in line with the limiting principles offered by the U.S. Constitution. That power the courts claim to have is called Judicial Review, and it is addressed nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, the federal courts seized that power for themselves through an opinion written by Justice John Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803. Yes, that’s right, the courts gave that power to themselves. By deciding if laws are constitutional, and since the Supreme Court is a...
  • The Man Who Knew Too Little -Obama's stunning ignorance of constitutional law

    04/03/2012 3:22:03 PM PDT · by Para-Ord.45 · 21 replies
    http://online.wsj.com/ ^ | April 3, 2012 | JAMES TARANTO
    We were half-joking yesterday when we asked if Barack Obama slept through his Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. It turns out it's no joke: The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law. Obama, " A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? " But in citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.
  • Newsweek Calls For Impeaching Supreme Court Justices If Obamacare Overturned

    04/03/2012 8:35:32 PM PDT · by Nachum · 100 replies
    Pat Dollard ^ | 4/3/12 | NewsWeek/DailyBeast
    NewsWeek/DailyBeast – The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them. You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you. Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but...
  • Obama’s Lies And Hypocrisy In Demanding Supreme Court Uphold Obamacare

    04/03/2012 10:37:01 PM PDT · by U-238 · 12 replies
    The Conservative Review ^ | 3/02/2012 | MarcusPorcius
    The Anti-President is really so full of hot air it is amazing he doesn’t float away. Obama has in essence preemptively declared the Supreme Court to be an “unelected group of people” who will be guilty of “judicial activism” if they overturn either the individual mandate in Obamacare or the law in totality. He said to do so would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress The man is either totally ignorant of history or deliberately lying to the American public as usual. Judicial Activism? What About...
  • Analysis: Obama's Worst Speech Yet

    04/03/2012 7:41:05 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 16 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | April 3, 2012 | Guy Benson
    Today we witnessed something truly remarkable. Barack Obama managed to out-do himself by uncorking what very well may have been the most dishonest, demagogic, and bitterly partisan speech of his presidency. I render that assessment as someone who has sat through and analyzed countless Obama lectures, some of which earned very high marks for deceit and ideological invective. Indeed, today's Occupy-inspired rant takes the cake. It was a depressing and enraging preview of the next seven months, over which this president will unleash a barrage of sophistic and pernicious arguments deliberately designed to sow discord and divide Americans. He will...
  • President Obama, Fair Weather Friend of the Court [Urged Strike Down of Partial-Birth Ban Act]

    04/03/2012 9:19:07 PM PDT · by Steelfish · 1 replies
    The Weekly Standard ^ | April 03,2012 | ADAM J. WHITE
    President Obama, Fair Weather Friend of the Court APR 3, 2012 • BY ADAM J. WHITE Not even a full year into President Obama's first term, Politico observed that he had reached the point of caricature in using the term "unprecedented" to describe basically anything that occurs during his presidency. By now, Americans have learned to shrug off his use of this rhetorical tick. And yesterday it happened again when the president challenged the Supreme Court not to strike down Obamacare's individual mandate, a judicial act that would "be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed...
  • Obama says he will ‘respect’ Supreme Court's ruling on his healthcare law

    04/03/2012 12:43:05 PM PDT · by Nachum · 131 replies
    The Hill ^ | 4/3/12 | Sam Baker
    President Obama softened his rhetoric Tuesday about the possibility of a Supreme Court decision striking down his healthcare reform law, after Republicans accused him of “threatening” the high court. (Snip) Obama said Tuesday that he would respect the court’s opinion, but still believes the justices should not overturn the healthcare law. “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected
  • The Imperial President: Obama Wages War on SCOTUS, Congress

    04/03/2012 7:37:04 PM PDT · by Nachum · 20 replies
    Big Government ^ | 4/3/12 | Ben Shapiro
    President Obama’s favorite word, as we’ve learned repeatedly, is “I.” He uses it on a constant basis. He uses it to claim credit and to assign blame. He uses it to cajole and to threaten. He uses it to plead and to prod. But he doesn’t use the word “I” purely out of ego. He does it because for President Obama, “I” represents the executive branch. And the executive branch, in Obama’s view, is the ruling branch of American government. President Obama’s latest attack on the Supreme Court is just the latest evidence of his deep-rooted
  • To Save ObamaCare, Obama Does Full Court Press

    04/03/2012 7:20:22 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 4 replies
    Investors Business Daily ^ | April 3, 2012 | Editorial
    Checks And Balances: A president with no respect for the Constitution warns of judicial activism by a Supreme Court reviewing his landmark legislation's constitutionality. It would be unconstitutional to let it stand. Someone will have to remind President Obama the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, part of a system of checks and balances designed to rein in precisely the kind of runaway government exhibited by his administration. Our community-organizer-in-chief has a different opinion. "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was...
  • Obama botches legal precedent in citing Supreme Court

    04/03/2012 6:14:41 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 29 replies
    Los Angeles Times ^ | April 3, 2012 | by David Savage
    President Obama said again Tuesday that it has been a long time since the Supreme Court struck down an economic law passed by Congress, but he mixed up the decisions and their timing. “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like healthcare, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce,” the president said. “A law like this has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal.” Actually, that’s wrong. The case of Lochner vs. New York was decided in...
  • Justice Kennedy's Million Dollar Question: Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?

    04/03/2012 4:55:35 PM PDT · by BCrago66 · 10 replies
    Hoover Institution ^ | 4/3/12 | Richard Epstein
    The entire landscape of Congress’s constitutional powers changed on March 27, 2012, when, very early in the argument over the individual mandate, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked a somewhat shaken Solicitor General Donald Verrilli this simple question: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” I was as surprised by that opening gambit as everyone else. But surely not as dismayed. As three full days of oral arguments confirmed, that one question turned the constitutional showdown over Obamacare into a real horse race, with a five to four vote to strike the mandate down perhaps now the most likely outcome....
  • Judges order Justice Department to clarify following Obama remarks on health law case

    04/03/2012 3:26:28 PM PDT · by tobyhill · 88 replies
    Fox News ^ | 4/3/2012 | fox news
    A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented." A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
  • What Happened to the Independent Judiciary?

    04/03/2012 1:44:29 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 9 replies
    Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | April 4, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh
    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Look at the way we're talking today. I have just one question: Whatever happened to the independent judiciary, which is what we are supposed to have. We are supposed to have an independent judiciary, separation of powers and all that. Look at the way we're discussing it, and we're only discussing it by virtue of reacting to the attempt by the president of the United States to influence the outcome, blatantly so. It's a violation of decorum, ethics, any number of things. Tradition. But here's the thing. This is what we know. If the Supreme Court strikes...
  • Political Word Games (Sowell: Obama is simply lying)

    04/03/2012 3:47:21 PM PDT · by jazusamo · 47 replies
    Creators Syndicate ^ | April 3, 2012 | Thomas Sowell
    One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring. That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional. He replied: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." But how unprecedented would it actually be if...
  • Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

    04/03/2012 3:31:24 PM PDT · by Brandybux · 21 replies
    CBS News ^ | April 3, 2012 | Jan Crawford
    In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
  • Obama Asks ‘Unelected’ Supreme Court Not To Take Extraordinary Step Of Overturning Health Care Law

    04/03/2012 10:48:26 AM PDT · by Ernest_at_the_Beach · 35 replies
    mediaite.com ^ | | 6:05 pm, April 2nd, 2012 | Noah Rothman
    In a Rose Garden press conference on Monday alongside the Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President Barack Obama reminded the Supreme Court justices that they have a responsibility to show “judicial restraint” while considering the constitutionality of the president’s signature health care reform law. RELATED: Senate Democrats Warn Overturning Health Care ‘Grave For Nation,’ Good For Democratic Electoral Hopes“I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health...
  • Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

    04/03/2012 2:10:13 PM PDT · by mwilli20 · 146 replies
    CBSNews ^ | April 3, 2012 3:42 PM | Jan Crawford
    ... a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law ...
  • Obama Fact, Fiction & Human Nature

    04/03/2012 2:10:02 PM PDT · by agee · 3 replies
    Founding Ideals ^ | 04/03/2012 | Aaron Gee & Steve Graff
    President Obama often takes full advantage of the bully pulpit to excoriate political opponents or to register his displeasure with decisions that didn't go his way. The naked attempt to pressure the Supreme Court in his remarks during the recent joint press conference continues the pattern. The President's remarks were at times dishonest. More surprising is that the Presidents speech shows just how shallow his knowledge of the Constitution and human nature really is.  Dishonest Statement:"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of...
  • Obama Fact, Fiction & Human Nature

    04/03/2012 2:10:02 PM PDT · by agee
    Founding Ideals ^ | 04/03/2012 | Aaron Gee & Steve Graff
    President Obama often takes full advantage of the bully pulpit to excoriate political opponents or to register his displeasure with decisions that didn't go his way. The naked attempt to pressure the Supreme Court in his remarks during the recent joint press conference continues the pattern. The President's remarks were at times dishonest. More surprising is that the Presidents speech shows just how shallow his knowledge of the Constitution and human nature really is.  Dishonest Statement:"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of...
  • I'm getting a bad feeling about all of this.

    04/03/2012 1:44:05 PM PDT · by servo1969 · 107 replies
    If there's one thing that Obama is a master at it's lying. With that in mind I'm starting to feel really apprehensive about the SCOTUS vote on Obamacare. I hate to say it but what if he's won? What if he's managed to flip one of the judges (or didn't even have to)? What if he's been informed by Kagan or Sotomayor that it's in the bag? What if all these little statements to the press are just him loading the bases for a grand slam in June? So he can look Large and In Charge to all his minions?...
  • Obama’s ‘gotcha’ moment reveals his ignorance of the law

    04/03/2012 1:10:37 PM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 27 replies
    Hot Air ^ | April 3, 2012 | Howard Portnoy
    In his comments in the Rose Garden on Monday about the fate of his signature health care legislation, the president attempted at one point to hoist Republicans by their own petard. He said: "I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example…." He is right that conservatives have repeatedly lambasted liberal judges for their judicial activism. He is dead wrong, however, when...
  • Judge Napolitano Slams Obama’s SCOTUS Criticism: ‘No Pres. Has Questioned This Since Andrew Jackson!

    04/03/2012 10:16:32 AM PDT · by Nachum · 40 replies
    Pat Dollard ^ | 4/3/12 | Mediaite
    Video at link
  • Barack Obama already knows Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare

    04/03/2012 10:13:44 AM PDT · by Oldpuppymax · 30 replies
    Coach is Right ^ | 4/3/2012 | Doug Book
    If the Supreme Court has followed long standing tradition, the preliminary decision as to the Constitutionality of the ObamaCare individual mandate and perhaps the fate of the law itself was known to the Justices on Friday of last week. After oral arguments it is common practice for the Justices to meet Friday morning in a conference room where each Justice votes on the case, beginning with the Chief Justice and proceeding according to seniority. Shortly thereafter Justices will be assigned the writing of majority and minority opinions and comment on various case issues. Decisions can change over the months until...
  • Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’

    04/03/2012 8:38:09 AM PDT · by JustSayNoToNannies · 21 replies
    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | April 2, 2012 | Kyle Wingfield
    “I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That was President Obama earlier today, talking about the legal challenge to Obamacare the court heard last week — and demonstrating once again he doesn’t have a very firm grasp on the meaning of “unprecedented.” After all, the Supreme Court has been overturning laws — which necessarily have been passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress — since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison decision. By this count...
  • Obama Accused of Trying to 'Intimidate' Supreme Court by Texas Congressman

    04/03/2012 9:49:09 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 20 replies
    MyFox Boston ^ | 04/03/2012
    WASHINGTON -- Texas Republican congressman Lamar Smith on Monday suggested that President Barack Obama's remarks about health care at a Rose Garden press conference came close to intimidation of the Supreme Court. "I am very disappointed by our President," Smith told FOX News Radio. "That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I'm not sure that's appropriate," he added. Earlier in the day at a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama was asked about the consequences of the court ruling that his health care...
  • Obama’s unsettling attack on the Supreme Court

    04/03/2012 9:45:38 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 25 replies
    Washington Post ^ | 04/03/2012 | Ruth Marcus
    There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference. “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.” To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within...