Wednesday, April 4, 2012


President BO (the child president) challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court on Monday not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

The fact that it is neither "extraordinary" nor "unprecedented" seems on the surface to be lost on the president.

But don't be fooled.

President BO (the child president) hates the Constitutional provision for the separation of powers, and if re-elected will, either by force or by "executive order (read: decree), demote the Supreme Court to non-entity status.

What did YOU think he meant when he promised to fundamentally change the way the U.S. functions?

Speaking of "ObamaCare," President BO (the child president) said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, but he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation.

He also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

He really believes that the federal government SHOULD be able to require people do buy certain things, whether they want to or not.

"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," President BO (the child president) said.

He noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an "activist" approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black (no race meaning intended).

Up until now, President BO (the child president) has been one of the most supportive people ever of an "activist" SCOTUS.

"I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

Tell me, liberal reader, has not the Constitution ALWAYS provided that Supreme Court members are appointed with the advise and consent of lawmakers?

Why, then, this sudden revelation that they are unelected? Haven't they always been?

Does their being unelected somehow diminish their role as the Third Estate?

Are there any Americans, educated in government schools, who did NOT know that the SCOTUS is unelected?

If so, why did they not know that?

What have you liberals been teaching our kids?

(Oh, yeah: sex education, self-esteem and political correctness)

Do you think this so-called "Constitutional Lecturer" (not professor, by the way), and former "editor" of the Harvard Review (after having only one article published in it) did not KNOW that the Supreme Court is not an elected body?

Let me warn you of something (and you may think of me as you wish for this): If President BO (the child president) is re-elected in November, it will be the last election you enjoy, because "for the good of the nation and its people" free elections will disappear, as will the remnants of this Constitutional Republic.

Don't say I didn't warn you.


Lone Ranger said...

Liberals always choke on their own medicine. Since the FDR administration, they have used judicial activism to pass their programs. From busing to abortion, they have circumvented the legislature to foist their programs on the people. If liberals programs are so wonderful, whey do they always have to be forced on people?

And, we've seen time after time, that when liberals lose at the polls, they camp out on some liberal judge's doorstep and overturn the will of the people the next day.

Apparently, judicial activism is just fine when it works in their favor.

But this is NOT judicial activism. The is the Supreme Court doing their job.

The Debonair Dudes World said...

The inept, arrogant one chose to purposely misinterpret the Constitution of the United States because he thinks the American people are gullible, misinformed, and stupid. He thinks that because he don't or won't understand the concept of checks and balances and the role of the three branches of our government, that the average Joe on the street doesn't either.
How disgraceful it is for this Little Man to threaten the SCOTUS in such an obvious manner. You would think his outburst and threats against the Justices would sicken even the Democrats, but no, nothing will stop these Fruit Cakes from following this dictator.

It's Only My Opinion But said...

A Barack Obama was a long time coming. If it wasn't this one, it would have been another one like him. Let's hope and pray that he is the last.
He is the apotheosis of the progressive age.
Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail, fail and fail again. . He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it’s about our debt and his arrogance. . Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world. As for his arrogance, we saw it in his complete ignorance of the concept of constitutionality and of the role of the Supreme Court.
Those of us who live in the real world saw this day coming.
Everyone knows that the mother of all unfunded mandates known as Obamacare was going to ruin both our economy and thus the job situation or lack of it. To say Obama is ignorant, is being too kind. Or is he really sly as a fox rather than ignorant???
Something tells me that to him, the Constitution is viewed as an obstruction to achieving his ultimate goal to bring American into a Socialist nation.
Only a Ignoramus would threaten the SCOTUS like he did. Lets face it the “One” is a political animal who was "groomed" to become president of our beloved country by Alinski and SOROS and the like.
No other system in the world would have allowed, or even could have allowed, an affirmative action foreign student to progress so far, with virtually no defensible credentials to become the leader of the free world. He has declared war on the Supreme Court justices and really anyone who disagrees with him. He looks to be truly trying to divide America, like wanna-be dictator.. The Obama administration's energy policies have been a disaster for America.
Lets hope that after November Barack Obama will never again see the inside of the White house. And also bring will be the end of the Progressive Era,and ObamaCare.

Joe said...

LR: Yeah. It's the "Do as I say do, not as I do do" attitude.

Goose and gander and all of that.

TDD: He really thinks he was elected emperor and the powers that be are just impeding his emperorship.

IOMOB: "Something tells me that to him, the Constitution is viewed as an obstruction to achieving his ultimate goal..."

Out of his own mouth he iterated that the Constitution is flawed because it only tells what the government can't do and not what it can do.

Absolute evidence that he does not like its principles.

Ducky's here said...

You actually believe that Obama doesn't know that SCOTUS is appointed?

Are you really that dumb, Joe or are you just being uselessly pedantic?

If I were you I'd be concerned about the likes of Debonair Dud wh thinks he's a constitutional scholar. That sort of ignorance is a much larger threat.

Ducky's here said...

What I've never heard argued here about the mandate is the power of the government to compel someone to purchase something when the individual has no control over the price.

In his rush to fellate the insurance companies Obummer has exposed the big problem of having our costs managed by a for profit industry with an antitrust mandate.

Much better to overturn it and go to nonprofit insurers forced to compete or single payer.

But the right wing is really too stupid to understand what's at stake.

Joe said...

Ducky: "You actually believe that Obama doesn't know that SCOTUS is appointed?"

Are so stupid that you actually thought that's what I think?

You really can't think, can you?

To help you out: In writing, sometimes antithetical construction is used to make a point about someone else.

OF COURSE HE KNOWS! THAT'S THE POINT! IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE KNOWS, HE RE-STATES IT AS THOUGH IT IS SOME KIND OF REVELATION. And to some people, especially those educated in government schools, it is.

Come on, Ducky. I know it's hard, but THINK!!!!!

Joe said...

Ducky: Debonair Dude is smarter when he is unconscious than you are when you are as awake as you can get.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

When I read this news yesterday I almost choked. Let's see, if the Courts "find" rights in the Constitution (either federal or state) in the various penumbras which permit abortion and mandate acceptance of same-sex fake marriage - THAT isn't activism.

BUT, if the courts decide to adhere to the intent of a Constitution - That IS activism.

Oh the illogic of the Leftists!

Always On Watch said...

Do you think this so-called "Constitutional Lecturer" (not professor, by the way), and former "editor" of the Harvard Review (after having only one article published in it) did not KNOW that the Supreme Court is not an elected body?

He knew, of course.

Just as he should know that trying to intimidate sitting judges is a felony.

He's counting on the likelihood that nobody will hold him accountable for what he says. After all, holding him accountable is decried as racism. Therefore, he can tell lies and never be challenged to any extent.

If SCOTUS rules against ObamaCare (likelier, now that Obama has shot off his mouth), then Obama will play the race card -- big time.

My instincts tell me that Obama actually WANTS ObamaCare to be struck down by the Supreme Court. That way, he can campaign against both SCOTUS and the Constitution.

"Change," Obama style.

Always On Watch said...

What I've never heard argued here about the mandate is the power of the government to compel someone to purchase something when the individual has no control over the price.

I've seen you make that comment before.

You know what? You do have a point.

Of course, something similar could be said about the single payer system, which is usually administrated via taxation, right?

xegar said...

What It's Only My Opinion But said...are my sentiments exactly....How much humiliation does the Supreme Justices have to endure before they lose their cool.
Breitbart had more brains in his pinky than Obama has in his head.

Anonymous said...

"....The fact that it is neither "extraordinary" nor "unprecedented" seems on the surface to be lost on the president....."

Of course it is extraordinary - it is out of the ordinary, is it not?
It is also unprecedented - it is without precedent is it not?
Best not to imbue superlatives with either a positive or negative connotation - communication will suffer.

Anonymous said...

Apologies for being tardy of late.
My dial-up and no-audio driver computer decided to prevent me from adding comments to blogspot accounts.

I's on a new Vaio laptop!
I can now view videos!
Bring it on Joe!

Joe said...

ALTC: Comin' right up. Congratulations!

Anonymous said...

Ducky, the asylum called, your mother has escaped again..

I'm flat broke and deep in debt. said...

To that misguided liberal moron Ducky, It's idiot like you that make me sick. I guess that Its OK to attack Palins children and suggest that they should be post birth aborted, and, called white trash, ok to attack Bushs children and suggest they be raped. It ok to attack Rush Linbaugh and Glenn Beck and petition their sponsors until they get fired.
It’s the Dem Double Standards at work. They said Anything/Did Anything they could to desparage the Bush’s children, and Palins to a filthy degree, but that’s ok, because the LapDog Media ONLY protects Progressive Democrats- Republicans are “fair game-even their children”. You phoney liberals make me sick!
But Obamas children are off limits. just more of the dirty double standard form the left.

Anonymous said...

YouTube streaming video - no jerking and buffering - and AUDIO!

This is almost as good as kicking Librul butt.

Anonymous said...

".....Are there any Americans, educated in government schools, who did NOT know that the SCOTUS is unelected?....."

As part of a question and answer portion of the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant, Miss South Carolina Teen, Caitlin Upton, was asked,

"Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"

Upton responded:

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh. . . people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over HERE in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children."

Your question is rhetorical, yes?

Joe said...

ALTC: "Your question is rhetorical, yes?"


Leticia said...

I can't believe he had the gall to threaten the SCOTUS! He has no control on what is decided and it's killing him.

What a shame.

Joe said...

Leticia: Do you suppose the SCOTUS trembled?

Ducky's here said...

Joe, where did you find "I'm flat broke and in debt". He's clearly having a manic incident.

Z said...

Joe, you really put up with a lot. :-)
Questioning if you really thought Obama thought the SCOTUS was elected's a great smokescreen when people don't want to address your points...happens to me all the time...some people just have absolutely zero heart and zero sense of humor.

Yes, imagine Obama saying that? And imagine that people hear that clipped, hesitant way of speaking (by the way, he can barely get words out lately, have you noticed?)...he's trying to insult without insulting. Doesn't work with Presidents...

He virtually threatened Supreme Court justices...nobody should get away with that. It's Chicago ways, not OUR ways.

Joe said...

Z: Ducky does not worry me. He hasn't the ability to address points. He can only head out in mindless, random "thoughts."

And yes, I have noticed the Prez's stammering speech patterns.

He's in way over his head. He is trying to balance his narcicism with his fear of rejection, and doesn't know how.

I've always considered him to be a low level Chicago thug...nothing more.

sue hanes said...

'a low level Chicago thug...'

Really Joe. Now you have stooped to a new low - level - yerself.

How can ya say such a mean thing about our Really Cool Guy Prez.

I'm truly disappointed in ya - Joe.

I still like you though - and how is your new hip doing?

Are you in pain?

Is Bonnie taking good care of you
even though you are probably crabby?

Sorry I missed the Sunday video - but I was detained - against all odds.

Thanks Joe.

: ]

Joe said...

sue hanes: Which level of Chicago thug would you consider him?

Ducky's here said...

It is interesting that Obama referred to Lochner vs. New York which saw an activist conservative court overturn state economic reforms.

Interesting that conservatives are quite happy when the court becomes activist in their favor. Not much consistency here.

Joe said...

Ducky: "...conservatives are quite happy when the court becomes activist in their favor."

Distinguish between SCOTUS activism and their doing their job.

In your opinion, what is their job?

Ducky's here said...

I thought a comment by Scalia was interesting. He stated that the mandate forces the young to subsidize the elderly.

Said it with a straight face. If it is ever pointed out to him that he is ruling on a matter critical to the country and he doesn't have a grasp of the concept of insurance do you think he'll care?

No, thanks to the "genius" of the founding mediocrities we have a court staffed and any particular time with nothing but nine shmucks with an opinion. No grasp of anything in particular.

The Constitution is what they say it is and we suffer for this nonsense.

Ducky's here said...

... or an "activist" judge is one with a minimal respect for precedent, like Clarence Thomas and unlike Justice Ginsberg.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hey Ducky,
Judicial decisions shouldn't be based on "precedent" but on the law. If you want to base on precedent (which, by the way, never happened until near the turn of he 20th century when Darwinism was applied to law) then I guess the Dred Scot decision should be followed?

Activist judges are those who disregard the law and legislate from the bench. Obama calls these guys activists because they are looking at the law and what it requires. The Constitution does NOT allow the government to mandate people purchase anything!