Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Obama Again Talks Down to Supreme Court-Must Give Response to 5th Circuit Court


.....and I, in my woeful ignorance, thought that Leftists actually like judicial activism.
While Obama excercised just a tiny bit of discretion on his Supreme Court nominees, he apparently is not happy with other people's "unelected" Justices.

"Specifically, Obama argues that the Supreme Court deciding in such a way would be an “unprecedented” example of “judicial activism” undertaken by “unelected” judges."
“Ultimately, I am 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.”[...]

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have 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,” Obama said.

“Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.

To paraphrase Reagan "There he goes again".  

I have become convinced that the man simply is not capable of keeping his mouth shut, even when everything points to the necessity of doing so. Not only that, but he just cannot stop lying. What strong majority is the man talking about? The House voted for it 219  - 212, for crying out loud..

What leader of a civilized and developed nation is so unconcerned with protocol and basic professionalism in his position that he can't make a simple statement to the press that does not betray, not only his abject incompetence but also his utter disregard for our system of checks and balances? Let's not forget his routine expressions of  frustration with that annoying little issue of the Supreme Law of our land, the Constitution.

How difficult would it be, even for a dolt like he, to simply note that he believes in the efficacy and  Constitutionality of Obamacare and add that, since the arguments have already been made, it is up to our Supreme Court Justices to hold the Law up to the light of our Constitution and render their decision? 
I can't imagine that anyone would even have a problem if he noted that, if it does indeed get struck down, he would get right back to work crafting a law that would pass any future examinations by the Court.

We have a full-fledged clown in the White House. The problem is that he is not the least bit entertaining. He is like the cut-rate guy that you hired for your kid's birthday party without checking any references (On my honor that was not meant a a pun). I tried many times to count the occasions in which he mentioned Republicans in a disparaging manner. I lost count each time. It seems like every couple of weeks he tells us that the Republicans are not allowing him to fix the economy, want the disabled out on the street, are dysfunctional (Oh boy is that projection or what?), that they keep trying what has been proven to fail (projecting again), or that they are "the enemy". If he can't some up with anything specific, he just makes some other disparaging and false comment, the style of which talk belongs in one's kitchen or in the back of a bar.

I really thought that we had, after FDR, gotten past the days of the Chief Executive talking down to the Court and bullying them to get them to rule the way he would want. Then, a couple of years ago, he decided to utilize his State of the Union address to put down, in an imperious and admonishing tone, the Court's decisions on campaign contributions from Corporations. Not only was this a terribly cheap and insulting shot that took advantage of a captive audience; one that is bound by protocol to remain silent while the President speaks, he even lied there too when he added that the decision was going to allow foreign corporations to influence the outcome of our elections. Here were the Justices, sitting dutifully, attentively, and respectfully right in front, and the man proceeds to tell them that they messed up. Not content with that, he then adds a fictional consequence of the ruling.  It was unbelievable. He actually brought it to a point that Justice Alito felt compelled to shake his head and mouth the words "Not true" - twice.

We have man who meets all the criteria of a Demagogue. On a regular basis, he pits one or more groups of people against others. He has taken every step possible to overwhelm our body politic/electorate with future voters who entered the nation illegally and will owe everything to him and his party. How many projects of his were just too important to be filtered through our Constitutionally mandated Legislative process? I grew weary a long time ago hearing that "We can't wait" for whatever little pet agenda he had at the moment, only to find out that he would simple write his plans into an Executive Order and give it the effect of Law by turning it over to regulatory agencies. What one of us cannot recall the kid who, not liking being called "out" in kickball, took his ball and went home? His is a personalty ruled by spiteful and hard feelings.

 Even here he is unable to contain himself from telling the Justices that the burden of proof is on them. 

Well, I do not have a degree in law, but a rustic provincial can still be aware that the burden of proof is on the litigants, not the Judges.

All italics and bolding are mine:

“The point I was making was that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly-elected legislature, our congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

“Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court to actually recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents out there.”

While struggling to connect his thoughts, he went on to say he is not getting contingency plans ready because he expects the law to be upheld:"

Noting the last line, I recalled my comment above in which I stated that no one would have protested if he, being committed to helping people with Health care, assured us that he would do all that he can to craft a new law that would be sure to be upheld.

When starting this post, I had honestly not read the second quoted article. Reading the last line again, I cannot imagine a more positive proof of the man's incompetence and spite.

Then, a ray of sun shines through a hole in the clouds. Later this evening, I picked up this:


"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.

A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News. The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate challenge to the health care law. It was apparent, however, that the justice who questioned the government attorney present was referring to Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's review of that law.

The source said the justice, Judge Jerry Smith, was pointed in his questioning of the government attorney, asking whether Attorney General Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.

Smith then ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday."

It appears that the Chief Clown has earned, if not the enmity, at least the ire of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Justice Department has 48 hours to present their answer to the Court in a manner that looks suspiciously like a Middle-School punishment paper. Maybe they can write it a hundred times on the blackboard.

Again, I am only a rustic provincial, but I vaguely recall a case that touched on this subject. The name of it was Marbury v. Madison. Barry, it is one year shy of two hundred years ago that this precedent was set.
I would be happy to lend the Justice Department some of the notes that I have on the circumstances of the case and the ruling if they need any help. I mean, it's no secret that your Attorney General has struggled with comprehending the Second Amendment.

Again, too bad that our Founders did not include Athenian-style Ostracism in our Constitution:


No comments:

Post a Comment