GOP lawmakers: Obama is “threatening” and “intimidating” the Supreme Court

posted at 12:25 pm on April 3, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The president’s comments yesterday to the effect that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional have aroused ire on both sides of the aisle — but some GOPers are going so far as to suggest the comments essentially amount to an attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court.

Mitt Romney didn’t outright say that — but he insinuated it.

Republican Mitt Romney wondered if Obama was trying to intimidate the court, but added that “I don’t think that would work.”

“I also think it’s quite a curious turn of events to start complaining about an activist court,” Romney also told Fox News.

Texas Republican Lamar Smith had harsh words for the president in an interview with Fox News Radio.

“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.

Smith said the nine justices should be able to reach a conclusion without the “interference” of the president.

“It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, they do that on a regular basis so it’s not unprecedented at all,” Smith told FOX Radio. “What is unprecedented is for the President of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.

“He should not be in any shape, form threatening the Supreme Court and making statements that are inappropriate or deemed trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.”

Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns spoke in a similar vein in an interview with local Nebraska radio station KLIN.

Speaking a day after Obama said the high court would uphold the law, including the so-called “individual mandate,” Johanns accused Obama of “threatening” and “intimidating” the court.

“What President Obama is doing here isn’t right,” Johanns said Tuesday in an interview with local Nebraska radio station KLIN.  “It is threatening, it is intimidating.”

In the same interview, Johanns said through the healthcare reform legislation, Obama was wielding an unprecedented level of power.

“What is the president saying is that he’s saying look, I get to decide what’s right and wrong for every individual in this country through the individual mandate and there is no judicial review. The courts can’t interfere with my power. Well what a second here, that turns upside-down over two hundred years of precedent.”

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch echoed Romney, Smith and Johanns in an irritated statement against the president’s remarks:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said “it must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist.’” He also said it appears that Obama’s comments are part of a political strategy.

“The memo appears to have gone out from the president’s campaign that criticizing the Supreme Court is going to help his re-election,” Hatch said. “This is disappointing, and is likely to be as successful as his administration’s defense of the unconstitutional health care law last week.”

Obama’s comments seemed less “threatening” or “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant. He truly thinks it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional? But the courts have been doing that since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison!

It’s not troubling to think the SCOTUS could declare Obamacare unconstitutional, but it is troubling the vote will likely fall along partisan lines. Questions of constitutionality just shouldn’t. It is possible, after all, to simultaneously think the individual mandate is good policy and unconstitutional or, conversely, bad policy and constitutional. The Supremes gave the question of constitutionality serious consideration in last week’s hearings, but a 5-4 vote will give the impression that one half of the Supreme Court is activist. It’s of vital importance that this unelected group of nine justices see it as their responsibility to decide the question before them and not the general question of whether Obamacare is right for America.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

It’d be interesting to see the White House visitor logs between now and when the Supreme Court hands down their decision.

CurtZHP on April 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Abject ignorance
-el rushbo

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Why are their scare quotes around “threatening” and “intimidating?”

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I’m not exactly sure what Obama thinks he can threaten the Supreme Court with.

What’s he going to do, use harsh language in the State of the Union… oh wait… he’s done that.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Lapdog libs on the court

A shame

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

It’s of vital importance that this unelected group of nine justices see it as their responsibility to decide the question before them and not the general question of whether Obamacare is right for America.

Imagine that.
The fact that this has to even be stated is scary.

bridgetown on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

It’s not troubling to think the SCOTUS could declare Obamacare unconstitutional, but it is troubling the vote will likely fall along partisan lines.

This is nonsense. The Supreme Court is 100% non-partisan.

Emperor Norton on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Self-professed Constitutional scholar doesn’t know Supreme Court has struck down laws like Obamacare only 1,315 times before
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/04/constitutional-scholar-slash-golfer-in.html

Winghunter on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Mitt Romney didn’t outright say that

This, right here, is why I didn’t vote for Romney.

dirtseller on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Somehow, I don’t think SCOTUS is feeling all that threatened by POTUS. He already tried this track before when he criticized the Justices over Citizens United at the SOTU. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

whats wrong with that?

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Make no mistake about this. It is a coordinated effort to try to position himself as the one in the right and the SC as being partisian. It’s a cynical election year strategy. His two stooges on the court Kagan and Sotomayor have told him that his Obamacare is going to be overturned and he’s got to frame it in such a way that his stupid base believes it’s judicial activism. This man is diabolical.

neyney on April 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Mitt Romney didn’t outright say that

This, right here, is why I didn’t vote for Romney.

dirtseller on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

+1.

He will be marginally better than Obama but he won’t be bold.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM

This is nonsense. The Supreme Court is 100% non-partisan.

Hey Norton! What planet were you on to miss what’s going on here!?

Elena Kagan Breaks Federal Law By Hearing ObamaCare Case, Republicans Silent http://t.co/gwN0eAw4

Graham’s Sellout on Sotomayor http://tinyurl.com/ya9lfvt

Winghunter on April 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM

The justices have lifetime tenure. What can he do if they ignore him?

And his dissing of them at the SOTU on Citizens United didn’t have much effect. They gonged him 9-0 in Hosanna-Tabor and Sackett.

Wethal on April 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM

What do you expect from a community organizer.

Oil Can on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Sounds like in the case of President Downgrade, Constitutional scholar is a contradiction in terms.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground -Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I love the irony of declaring judicial activism immediately after his Solicitor General’s arguments tanked at the Supreme Court but before the decision is rendered. It shows that he has no confidence in even his Administration’s theory of constitutionality.

blammm on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

In communist countries there is no Supreme Court.

albill on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

whats wrong with that?

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

So I guess you would agree that we had a Democrat court when Roe v Wade was decided.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Obama was a thug when he was a “community organizer,” and he is still a thug.

It is all he knows. “Get in people’s faces.” “Punch back twice as hard.”

It’s the Chicago Way.

HeatSeeker2011 on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Obama’s comments seemed less “threatening” or “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant. He truly thinks it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional? But the courts have been doing that since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison!

Obama is a constitutional professor or something so he is probably right /sarc

joey24007 on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

It’s not troubling to think the SCOTUS could declare Obamacare unconstitutional, but it is troubling the vote will likely fall along partisan lines.

And whose fault is that? The left politicized the Supreme Court early on, to get their activists in. Now they’re complaining?

squint on April 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

whats wrong with that?

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

First, Thank God for that.

Second, really can’t wait to read the (hopefully) minority opinion on why this destructor of liberty is constitutional. Should be required reading.

dirtseller on April 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

“Obama’s comments seem less “threatening” and “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant.”

Sorry, Tina – have to disagree.

His intent is exactly to be threatening and intimidating – so he can let loose the occupiers when the 5-4 decision comes down.

It’s going to get very dangerous this summer.

Turn MD Red on April 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Federalist #78: Alexander Hamilton in New York’s McLEAN’S Edition, 1788

The Judiciary must not become united with either branch of government:

And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Just think, this affirmative action poster boy was teaching in a law school. I’m convinced that he doesn’t even know the meaning of “unprecedented.” Why should he? – he doesn’t even know how to pronounce “corpsman.”

He’s the definition of “unmerited.”

OhEssYouCowboys on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

More massive block quotations and mundane article summaries from TK.

steebo77 on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Obama is a spoiled brat that lacks the intellect and courage to intellectually challenge the judiciary so he threatens and intimidates. This is sick.

rplat on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Indoctrination…of children…only red cravattes are missing.

p.s. “your grandparents are all racists” — Michelle O.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

How is it the conservative side of the bench is always labeled as some sort of rigid ideologs but the liberal side is considered moderate and middle of the road. I always view it as opposite.

nikophil on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

This is nonsense. The Supreme Court is 100% non-partisan.

Emperor Norton on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Just like the Dane county court judges in Wisconsin.

JimboHoffa on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Nice one, Tina. Instead of giving Obama the credit for being audaciously political and bald-faced lying, you call him out for being even worse — Ignorant! Well done.

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

You don’t have health insurance? Talk to the GOP court also known as the supreme court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Hey Norton! What planet were you on to miss what’s going on here?

What I mean is that the justices are not identified like, John Roberts (R-IN) and so forth.

(And no one addresses me as “Norton” except Ralphie Boy.)

Emperor Norton on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Unless someone produces his grades, diplomas and all the lectures and papers he wrote, I don’t believe that Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

What do you expect from a community organizer.

Oil Can on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Yep.

He is just a slightly less shrill version of Al Sharpton. But just as smug.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Please define “Judicial Activism” for us.

Del Dolemonte on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

It’s going to get very dangerous this summer.

It’ll be the last thing they ever do.

Winghunter on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

This is red meat for the base to start donating and work on GOTV. Base enthusiasm and donations are down. He needs to repeat 2008, but the mojo is gone.

Wethal on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM


liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Do you have any kind of comment on President Barack Hussein Downgrade’s War on Liberty?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground -Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

You don’t have health insurance? Talk to the GOP court also known as the supreme court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Stupid is as stupid says.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

whats wrong with that?

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Obama? Is that you?

JimboHoffa on April 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Bammy’s jealous.

The SC appointments are for life.

Bammy hasn’t worked out how to do that yet for himself yet, but he has a plan that involves burning the constitution.

CorporatePiggy on April 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I’m glad the GOP fought tooth and nail to deny Kagan’s nomination.

/

SouthernGent on April 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I think what I love the most about the blowback from this bone-headed stunt by Barack is that everyone in the media who was clearly chomping at the bit to say “Well, you know, he wasn’t really a ‘Constitutional law professor’” now gets to say it — gleefully. That particular narrative has always been a steaming pile of crapola, and now a whole lotta folks are finally saying so. Barack is losing the “smartest man in the world” narrative — and it’s being replaced with “Is he really that dumb?!”

Good times. Good times.

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Please explain Anthony Kennedy’s votes over the years, then. Casey v. Planned Parenthood comes to mind first.

Wethal on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

What I mean is that the justices are not identified like, John Roberts (R-IN) and so forth.

BANG, ZOOM!

Winghunter on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

You work in the field, and you know that everyone gets treated. Yesterday you said that so many millions don’t have ins. and could not get paid by Medicaid. There are 45 programs, other than Medical, in CA, and 150 programs in GA, to pay for every single combination of ‘poor’.

You are fuller of sh*t than a creche.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

One half of the Supreme Court is activist….assuming a 5-4 decision to overturn an unconstitutional law, the 4 on the losing side are the activists! Everyone keeps calling BHO a constitutional lawyer, when he was a guest lecturer at Chicago University and never even an associate professor. So, who are the real activists? The progessive president and his appointees to the Supreme Court!

tomshup on April 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

You don’t have health insurance? Talk to the GOP court also known as the supreme court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

My State of New Hampshire has already received an O’bamacare Waiver. Supreme Court had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Please define “Judicial Activism” for us.

Del Dolemonte on April 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

You don’t have health insurance? Talk to the GOP court also known as the supreme court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Take your ball(or lack thereof) and go home. You back the lame horse.

JimboHoffa on April 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

romney better be tougher than this against dear leader

no mccain 2.0 for the love of pete

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Obama’s comments seemed less “threatening” or “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant.

Nothing that ignoramus does shocks me anymore.

BTW, cool nick for the left: the Ignorati.

squint on April 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court moronic leftie ugly gnat as HA commener, pretending to be educated.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Rutgers doesn’t produce intelligent graduates.

p.s. your employer is looking for you. I’ll have your butt fired.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

whats wrong with that?

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Obama? Is that you?

JimboHoffa on April 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

libsquirrel4life got the talking points delivered this morning.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Obama’s comments seemed less “threatening” or “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant. He truly thinks it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional? But the courts have been doing that since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison!

He was a senior lecturer in Constitutional Law. He knows Marbury v. Madison. He’s taught it. Dear Liar is not ignorant, he’s a Chicago thug trying to intimidate and delegitimize the Supreme Court. A vile scumbag, intend on destroying all our institutions.

rbj on April 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

+10

The sad thing is that half of the country probably thinks that SCOTUS reports directly to the President and don’t have a clue it’s a co-equal branch of government.

BacaDog on April 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

“Obama’s comments seem less “threatening” and “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant.”

Sorry, Tina – have to disagree.

His intent is exactly to be threatening and intimidating – so he can let loose the occupiers when the 5-4 decision comes down.

It’s going to get very dangerous this summer.

Turn MD Red on April 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I agree. He didn’t pull this out of his azz. This was scripted, planned, and is part of the re-election campaign. Don’t be so naive, Tina. Really. Wise up.

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Constitutional Law Professor and Editor of the Harvard Law Review declares possibility of Supreme Court striking down for the very first time a law as unconstitutional is unprecedented….

Oh, wait….

Tenwheeler on April 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

commener = commenter

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

You don’t have health insurance? Talk to the GOP court also known as the supreme court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

If you don’t have health insurance, GO AND GET IT.

9 out of 10 Americans have figured out how to do it long before Obama came into office.

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

This, right here, is why I didn’t vote for Romney.

dirtseller on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Bazinga…a beer for you, sir.

MooCowBang on April 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

You don’t have health insurance? Talk to the GOP court also known as the supreme court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

The American people don’t want this law and you know it. Obamacare has never been about health coverage. It is simply about controlling people’s lives and public opinion has been against if from the outset. If you don’t believe me, revisit the 2010 election results where your side was annihilated. Now the supreme court appears on the verge of correctly calling it the unconstitutional power grab it is and overturning it. Enjoy.

Kataklysmic on April 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I say go all in Obama – and make it an all out checks and balances war. Lets put all 3 Branches out there.

Main reason – perhaps the issue would actually be discussed and learned by most Americans.

Secondary (though could elevate to primary) – future SCOTUS hearings will go back to some form of normalcy – you know where liberal hacks dont get a free pass and cons get drilled – lied about – then drilled again.

And the Dope is making another huge error here: 9 SCOTUS Justices are lifers – and love one thing more than anything: The validity and seperate nature of who they are.

So go on Obama – take on the SCOTUS – fail – just like your stellar 414-0 perfromance or 97-0.

Take note “historians” – when the Executive Branch/Legislative and Judicial all disagree with your guy – make sure you reflect this in his “ranking”

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

You can tell this clown was raised by his mama, while his sperm donor of a daddy was careening drunk around Africa.

No father would put up with the incessant whining displayed by this teary-eyed kleenex by the case consumer.

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

whats wrong with that?

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

It’s so cute when you bang your sippy cup on the high chair.

Baby want a baba?

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

liberal4life has a job? I would have guessed, given the quality (or lack thereof), the postings came from the dorm on the campus wifi.

Wethal on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Big Sis To Grant Illegal Aliens ‘Unlawful Presence Waivers’…

‘Implement Stealth Amnesty’…

OT: via drudge….hmmmm, waivers r us? first obamacare now this?

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

How an educated, pretender to have been a constitutional law professor, president of the free world, can claim that the SC is not “representative”, when each judge is appointed by an elected sitting president, voted in by the majority of an elected senate, is beyond stupidity.

Obama is a Liar and Deceiver in Chief, a charlatan of the first degree.

Media, suffocate in his azz, you derelict fools.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Sadly, when President Charlie Foxtrot “studied” the Constitution, it was in search of loopholes.

kurtzz3 on April 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Wethal on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

She cheats her employer all day long, but her employer is fully aware and is watching her.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

whats wrong with that?

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

To repeat myself from the headlines.

This is by the far the stupidest thing you have said on this board and you’ve said a lot of stupid things.

gophergirl on April 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Wethal on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Her job is not commensurate with her degree, she’s an utter failure and wastes her life here, while cheating employer, having cheated you, the taxpayers, on her studies.

She is a full-fledged moocher, aiming to become a looter.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

You don’t have health insurance? Talk to the GOP court also known as the supreme court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Or maybe…get a job? I hear those “job” thingies provide pretty good insurance. Maybe you g*ddamn liberals should try it out sometime.

MooCowBang on April 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

but a 5-4 vote will give the impression that one half of the Supreme Court is activist.

The half that contains Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagen, & Sotomayor is activist.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

OT: via drudge….hmmmm, waivers r us? first obamacare now this?

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Why does that link go to nowhere?

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I have said it before – this idiot in the wh is not a “constitutional” lawyer nor an “intellectual”. I want to see the college transcripts, writings, position papers, etc. to see what he did consentrate his studies in. But one thing is for sure, this moron is either lying about the court decision or he is one ignorant intellectual.

rjulio on April 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Sadly, when President Charlie Foxtrot “studied” the Constitution, it was in search of loopholes.

kurtzz3 on April 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

He probably got a free pass on that too. Otherwise they’d let us see his records.

squint on April 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

BTW – the Dope is talking about “trickle down economics” not being the solution to Healthcare…

WOW – the desperation is amazing from Axelrod and his minions.

So as SCOTUS is in the process of arguments, decision making – the POTUS is going full stupid against everything and anything – including Reagan words and phrases – in order to “turn the situation around” concerning Obamacare.

Factor in the increasingly biased statistics behind fraud polls (as in Dem are now a 2x multiplier, not a 1.5 compared to Reps) – the internals must be horrid for Bambi.

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

It is fantastic to see the entire leftie cohort, from president to commenters, moochers/looters all, on full display.

I ‘love’ the state of the land. It is very enlightening. Just get prepared.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Bazinga…a beer for you, sir.

MooCowBang on April 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Could use one right about now. “Bartender, a round for the house!”

dirtseller on April 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Obama’s comments seemed less “threatening” or “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant.

It’s really both threatening and ignorant. Obama is a street thug who might as well be running around in a hoodie.

Plus he is an outright liar when he makes the claim that this was overwhelmingly passed by a strong majority of Congress when the reality was that it only passed by Democrat bribery and strong-armed loyalty tests.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

.
If that’s true then the Warren court was A Donkey Court.

ExpressoBold on April 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Looks like there’s no doubt here ………..
The ” Wise Latina ” spilled the frijoles !

Lucano on April 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I don’t know schadenfreude :(

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I am going to laugh my ass off when they strike this down. Im gonna go out and print up some t-shirts right now, just so I can make some more liberals cry. I love it when they froth at the mouth and scream racial epitaths at me, cause…you know…Im the racists, lol. I want to see them bleed from their eyeballs, and then not get treated for it. I want to watch them grind their teeth until their gums bleed in abject fury. I want to see them riot in the streets and then get turned away from the hospitals for not having insurance.

This is going to be a good week…

MooCowBang on April 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Obama is acting like the court is 6-3 or 7-2 against him.

meci on April 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Tina, you should never identify Supreme Court decisions as partisan. No good can ever come of this. The landmark case, so to speak, in this regard was Bush v. Gore (2000), which has been called a partisan decision by Democrats even to this day. Once you start calling the Supreme Court’s members partisans, then every deision becomes politicized, and you don’t want that.

The Supreme Court is not a miniature legislature, with various parties in it. It’s a court, with justices on it. However, the most radical of the liberals in America believe that the Supreme Court should be a partisan mini-legislature, ignoring the law but handing down decisions based on polling data.

Emperor Norton on April 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Just now: Obama – ‘It doesn’t make us weaker to steal from the rich and give to the poor (my voter base)’

Treasonous SOB!

Winghunter on April 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Nice one, Tina. Instead of giving Obama the credit for being audaciously political and bald-faced lying, you call him out for being even worse — Ignorant! Well done.

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Don’t be so naive, Tina. Really. Wise up.

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Gotta admit. Ignorance could be in play here. Why else does he keep saying such outrageously false things with such a straight face?

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

He’s trying to demonize the USSC.

My bet is, if he gets a second term, his power grabs will drive a movement for impeachment. He has no regard for the Constitution, and he has no shame.

petefrt on April 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The only way you could deem the pending ruling as “activist” is if it’s anything other than 9-0 against.

BKeyser on April 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The ” Wise Latina ” spilled the frijoles !

Lucano on April 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

More likely Elena Kagan. The whole reason she was nominated is to feed info on Obamacare back to the White House. It is, of course unethical but ethics are not all that important when working for a black street thug and unapologetic racist commie.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Obama’s comments seemed less “threatening” or “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant.

No, they certainly were threatening and intended to be intimidating. I’m sorry, but this president is a lot more malevolent than you are willing to see or admit, Tina. He really is.

Right Mover on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Out: Threatening White Hispanics
In: Threatening SCOTUS

faraway on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Obama’s comments seemed less “threatening” or “intimidating” to me than shockingly ignorant. He truly thinks it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional?

Who else is even more interested now in those college transcripts?

Is he “shockingly ignorant”, or is this just another ham-handed, head-on run at the constitution.

He lies about ObummerCare’s popularity and costs with astounding ease and aplomb, yet the MSM never calls him on obviously disprovable “Facts” (and he knows that they won’t).

This is an attempted power-grab by a Marxist Thugocracy led by a community organiser….nothing more, nothing less.

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Hey Norton!!

Which decision has SCOTUS made that hasn’t been ‘politicized’!?

Which of them were chosen specifically for their treasonous views!?

WAKE UP AND SMELL WHAT YOU’RE SHOVELING!

Winghunter on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

We dont have a supreme court anymore.

What we have is a GOP court

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM
.
If that’s true then the Warren court was A Donkey Court.

The irony being that Earl Warren was a Republican.
I wish we really did have a conservative court, but sadly, such is not the case.

eyedoc on April 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4