See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Obama’s Alinsky Style Supreme Court Attack
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/2012/04/0 ... ky-style-supreme-court-attack/
Published: Apr 4, 2012
Author: Steven Birn
Post Date: 2012-04-04 11:23:37 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 255
Comments: 22
Steven Birn Speaks President Obama declared war on the Supreme Court yesterday. One wonders if he hasn’t been leaked information about how the Friday’s vote went down because Obama was particularly outraged at the prospect of Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional. He declared that ruling Obamacare unconstitutional would be an unprecedented move by the Supreme Court, undoing a law the democratically elected Congress passed. It is clear what the Democrat strategy is going to be if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. They’re going to accuse the Court of being partisan and if that doesn’t fail the left will go to its old standby and call conservatives morons. Obama once again displayed his narcissism for the world to see yesterday. As though nothing negative has ever happened to any other President before. As though other President’s haven’t seen legislation they supported ruled unconstitutional. Obama displayed a glaring lack of historical knowledge when it comes to the Supreme Court. FDR saw eight of his New Deal programs ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court went so far as to shut down FDR’s beloved NRA and it’s infamously nasty blue eagle program. The court also ruled various wage and price controls unconstitutional, undoing an important part of FDR’s socialist New Deal. Obama’s lack of historical knowledge is glaring considering he’s a former Constitutional law professor. You would think he would know about these cases. Obama attacked conservatives who oppose judicial activism, a thinly veiled warning to those on the court who support original construction. In making this argument Obama shows he doesn’t even understand what the conservative argument is regarding the Constitution. Judicial activism has given us such gems as Roe v Wade wherein rights are created out of thin air and deemed constitutional. Original construction opposes the creation of additional rights, it also opposes the Federal government acting outside of the limited enumerated powers in the Constitutional. Obamacare is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t grant the government the power to order Americans to buy products. Obama seems to think conservatives believe the Congress can do whatever it wants without any comment from the judiciary. It’s a patently ignorant position coming from a Constitutional law professor. The truth is Obama doesn’t care what original construction is and he isn’t interested in what conservative jurisprudence believes. All he cares about is demonizing his enemies ala Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. He’s doing two things in his comments on the Supreme Court. First he’s threatening them, likely trying to scare Kennedy into switching sides. Second, he’s setting up the narrative for late June if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. He’s going to demonize a Supreme Court that disagrees with him. He’ll call them partisan, though one wonders what we are to consider the four Democrat appointees who likely will vote Obamacare Constitutional. They won’t be partisans of course, only Republicans are. Obama believes a whole lot of Constitution law professors agree with him. No doubt he’s correct. But just because a bunch of professors think something doesn’t make it so. Apparently Obama either didn’t pay attention or doesn’t care to pay attention to the 27 states who challenged Obamacare’s Constitutionality or to the lower courts who ruled it unconstitutional. Perhaps he didn’t read any of the briefs filed by any of the lawyers who believe it’s unconstitutional. As an attorney, Obama ought to know there are two sides to every issue. He displays incredible ignorance in pretending otherwise. But of course he’s not interested in acknowledging the “enemy’s” point of view. He’s only interested in demonizing it. This is what happens when we elect a community rabble rouser, I mean a community organizer. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
Glaring lack??? More like TOTAL LACK of any knowledge. This country is in sad need of relief from this SOB.
Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain 'Obamacare' Statements In a remarkable, partisan exchange in a Texas courtroom Tuesday, a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law. Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. "I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President - stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review," Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court. "The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific," he added. Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be "an unprecedented and extraordinary step" if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by "a democratically elected Congress." "I would 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 - and passed law," Obama said. "Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step." Obama's argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure. "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?" he said. "Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes," Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question. Smith didn't back down explaining that Obama's statements had "troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that's not a small matter." He also referred to the law in question as "Obamacare," an informal reference that has been politically charged. . . . [More & audio at the link] news.yahoo.com/federal-ju...ain-obamacare-statements- 000508798--abc-news-politics.html
#3. To: randge (#2)
Difficult to believe that the nine olde poops actually have shown signs of life. They have been "expired" for years but still drawing a paycheck. Of the three "branches" of this corrupt government, the Supreme Court is the most useless. It is a major decision for most of them to decide on a bowel movement. Off to the Gulag with the worthless lot of them.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestObama displayed a glaring lack of historical knowledge
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
By Devin Dwyer | ABC OTUS News – 15 hrs ago
Replies to Comment # 2.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.