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

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 from Chicago. It’s an artform there.

squint on April 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Why else does he keep saying such outrageously false things with such a straight face?

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Please read Alinsky. Really.

faraway on April 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I hope you saw the single quotes. Just get ready.

————

Why else does he keep saying such outrageously false things with such a straight face?

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Because he is a deceiver, needs to win with lots of fools, knows the media won’t counter his lies, knows the uninformed/uneducated fools will pull the trigger for him.

If the land doesn’t have more wise ones she deserves him, and them, fully.

He is a destructive impertinent charlatan. Never was any more or less.

Media, spontaneously combust for dereliction of duty, most all of you.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

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.

But there’s a core philosophical difference here about the scope of Congress’s regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The Clause is broadly worded–it gives Congress the power to regulate “Commerce…among the several States…” Conservatives tend to give a narrow construction to this Clause, usually on originalist grounds, and want to limit Congress’s power to only actual economic activity occurring across state lines. Liberals prefer an expansive reading, and argue that in a global economy, virtually everything is “interstate commerce” on some level and is subject to Congress’s reach.

I tend to side with the conservative approach. I also acknowledge Justice Breyer’s rather embarrassing attempt at describing the key Commerce Clause cases during oral argument suggests that at least some of the liberal justices aren’t seriously engaging the issue. That said, it’s important to realize that there IS a substantial difference of opinion and that a 5-4 vote isn’t just the result of hyperpartisan hack judges “legislating from the bench.”

Outlander on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

There’s a lot of scary things about these comments. First, here’s a President of the United States who was educated at Columbia and Harvard and was president of the Harvard Law Review, yet he has no understanding of the Constitution or the function of the Supreme Court. Secondly, are there no adults in this White House to explain the the President how this should be handled?

From listening to Justices Kagan and Sotomayor last week, this is a liberal thing. I feel confident the Democrats removed the severability clause, from this bill, daring the Supreme Court to rule the whole law unconstitutional. It was all part of a political strategy and it had some of the justices thinking last week about what could be saved. Now comes the President with more intimidation, telling them if they declare it unconstitutional, women and children are going to die. So, it’s pretty clear the liberal justices are willing to throw out the constitution to see this bill stand. I hope the conservatives stand firm because the liberals certainly will and Justice Kennedy will probably be getting the Chicago Thug treatment shortly.

bflat879 on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Using Obama’s line of argument, the Congress could re-institute segregation, forcibly billet troops in private residences, mandate that all second car purchases be vehicles made by GM and ban polka dots except purple ones… and the Supreme Court could not overturn them.

UreyP3 on April 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I cannot believe that a graduate of two Ivy League schools could say something so demonstrably dumb. That he claims to be a Constitutional scholar makes it even worse.

I awaite for the MSM to get to their “go to” legal analysts for comment. Don’t think that will happen.
Has Toobin weighed in yet ? Didn’t think so.

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

But the courts have been doing that since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison!

Marbury v. Madison is only within the first 20 pages of every Con Law casebook that I have ever seen. For him to have taught Con Law and to be seemingly ignorant about arguably the most important SCOTUS decision in American history is pathetic.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

cmsinaz, I just realized that you might have answered in regards to the link not being active.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend my legacy over any provisions within” the Constitution of the United States.

J_Crater on April 3, 2012 at 1:05 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

Better yet, when Brown vs Board of Education was deciding striking down all “popularly enacted laws institutionalizing segregation through the concept of “separate but equal”. By the way, was that an activist court or not?

l4l hasn’t a clue.

totherightofthem on April 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Schadenfreude
Cripe

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 1:05 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

Uh oh, now you’ve done it. You’re going to let loose the Mitt apologists like Cro Spatch and Basilsworst to tell us how stupid and ignorant we are for not embracing Mitt’s wisdom and restraint.

Right Mover on April 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I guess a Harvard ConLaw degree ain’t what it used to be.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

No worries schadenfreude

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I cannot believe that a graduate of two Ivy League schools could say something so demonstrably dumb.

I can. Because “educated” and “intelligent” are not the same thing.

Right Mover on April 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

My dream would be to have the Court vote against the mandate 8 to 1 with Kagan the lone dissenter. That way she would have to write the dissenting opinion herself. I would love to see Barry’s appointee have to put it all out there all alone. I don’t know about Sotomayor but I think it would be really uncomfortable for Kagan to have to dissent without the cover of, let’s say, Breyer or Ginsberg whose clerks would do all the heavy work of writing a dissenting opinion she could just sign on to.

DaveDief on April 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Oops. Didn’t read very well. Let’s rephrase: How would you characterize the court that issued the opinion in Brown vs Board of Education, or what do you suppose Mr. Constitutional Scholar would say was the nature of that court: activist or not? You remember B vs BoE, right? The opinion that struck down popularly enacted laws institutionalizing segregation and the notion of “separate but equal”, don’t you?

totherightofthem on April 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

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

Any SCOTUS justice who thinks rulings should be based on international law and not the Constitution should be removed from office immediately. And, I’m sorry but some of the recent rulings of the SCOTUS have been partisan. Kelo v. New London is a good example how the liberal justices decided to fundamentally change this nation’s relationship with government by legislating from the bench- which is why it is funny to see Obama out there whining about judical activism when he finds out or thinks that the ruling isn’t going his way.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Thems nice robes you got there. It’d be a shame if you got blood all over ‘em.

The Rogue Tomato on April 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I guess a Harvard ConLaw degree ain’t what it used to be.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

It does, however, cost quite a bit more (along with everything else).

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Please. It’s a temper tantrum from a failed President.

Jimmy Carter owes Obama a Hickory Farms basket with a big THANK YOU FOR TAKING OVER THE CROWN note.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 1:09 PM

It’s going to get very dangerous this summer.

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

and up until and shortly after the November election…

PatriotRider on April 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Rogue tomato

Winner!

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 1:12 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.

It’ll never happen, Tina. Political leaning trumps the Constitution.
Always has….always will.

timberline on April 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

but it is troubling the vote will likely fall along partisan lines. Questions of constitutionality just shouldn’t.

That’s because one side plays by the rules and the other side is a bunch of traitors that want to destroy the document.

SirGawain on April 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

What you have is a spoiled rotten bunch of vote buying union thugs with a possible iron fisted ruler in our White House.

They and he have it within them to be the worst evil ever to freedom held by the best and only free people the planet has ever known.

This man and these low vote buyers of the current commie thug Democrat Party are a clear and present danger to all mankind.

Without the good and decent leadership of the American people great evil would have been done prior and could be done by these self deluded haters of freedom. The low ones on the planet are always there lurking for an open way to subvert freedom.

Clear this one current in the White House is a person of total disregard of what America is and always has been.

He has only learned hate from those around him, and is now closed off in a angery closed off place alone with very nasty thoughts about we the American people.

Given just a small opening to the total power he and they now clearly seek, the rule of law will end if they move much more down this very dangerous path they are now on.

No one wants to belive they are as sick minded as the evidence shows us by their words and actions, yet there it is real before U.S. now.

They will buy with our own tax money the chaines to bind U.S. unless we face the truth and meet this ugly thing at the vote booths in November of 2012. Other wise great evil will be done by these very troubled people.

Never discount facts.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Marbury v. Madison is only within the first 20 pages of every Con Law casebook that I have ever seen. For him to have taught Con Law and to be seemingly ignorant about arguably the most important SCOTUS decision in American history is pathetic.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I don’t think he’s ignorant about it. He just hopes most Americans are.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Marbury v. Madison is indeed a landmark legal case but was it really the most important? Granted it established judicial review but for better or worse Plessy v. Ferguson, the Dred Scott case, or the Miranda decision all fundamentally affected Americans in a way that Marbury v. Madison did not. Of course, all of these cases are taught in high school government class so there really isn’t any excuse why a jug-eared Harvard Law grad is out there declaring that overturning Obamacare would be unprecedented.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I don’t think he’s ignorant about it. He just hopes most Americans are.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Exactly.

(I’d still love to see those college transcripts though)

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM

faraway on April 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I get it. I get it. I do. I just think attaching the “ignorance” label to someone who is as arrogant as BHO is may be the wisest approach of all. Poor guy. Just doesn’t get it that we all see through him. He still thinks he’s awesome.

Attorney Frank Salvato agrees with both possibilities:

“…We the People really should be incredibly alarmed at Mr. Obama’s statement that a striking of the individual mandate included in Obamacare would equate to “judicial activism.” The statement is not only uneducated and absurd; it is either a warning sign that we have a constitutionally illiterate President or a Progressive activist who would just as soon spit on the Constitution than try to understand it. We the People should be alarmed that we have a President who would place his ideology and agenda above the people he is supposed to serve.”—Frank Salvato

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM

It does, however, cost quite a bit more (along with everything else).

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Not when your legacy father was thrown out midAfrican PhD due to an embarrassing Harvard AA “program” and every liberal activists has your back.

I believe the balance was “$0″

Cost to us….

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM

The Emperor will lose his jockstrap on this. No more hiding the ball, Bammy. Take your ball and go home.

timberline on April 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I wonder if Mr. President really even knows what’s in his health care plan. He didn’t write it, he never writes anything, does he?

scalleywag on April 3, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Rush just replayed the audio several times because he caught the slip that Zero made. He said, “over” before he said “upheld.”

Wow.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 1:24 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

Unlike lower Courts, SCOTUS has no Code of Judicial Ethics.

Federal judges in district and appeals courts must comply with formal guidelines that mandate they cannot engage in political activity, assist in private fundraising or take part in activities that give even the appearance of impropriety. But the nation’s nine senior justices are exempt from the code.

Chief Justice John Roberts says the the judges voluntarily abide by the rules, but that isn’t always evident.

Del Dolemonte on April 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I still think they should have walked out when “his arrogance” dissed them at the SOTU – never returning while the office of the presidency is so desecrated by his inhabitation.

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Drudge was right. The leak is in. No other explanation for this set of talking points from the WH/MSM.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Understood. We will, in the end, get what we as a people, deserve. And yes, old media is corrupt and complicit.

At least the internet, Fox and talk radio are still around. So far, anyway.

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 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

I’m so happy that you are pissed off. It tickles the schadenfreude in me. The more you moan, the more I like it. It’s like squeezing a liblemon. The result is liblemonade. Everybody loves liblemonade. Don’t you, lib4life?

timberline on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

“I’m not sure that’s appropriate.”
“What President Obama is doing here isn’t right.”

Wow, what bristling, lacerating criticism. Come on, guys, you can do better than this. President Punk is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court–although he doesn’t have the balls to confront anyone face to face–and the Republicans are perturbed.

I think what’s happening is that Obama is finally getting the first whiff of his ex-presidency and the horrendous legacy he leaves behind. And he doesn’t like it.

Just think of all the damage he has done. His successor will have the right (the duty) to blame his predecessor.

EMD on April 3, 2012 at 1:27 PM

It’s the Chicago way! “Nice little court you have; it’d be a shame if anything happened to it…”

CynicalOptimist on April 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM

…here’s a President of the United States who was educated at Columbia and Harvard and was president of the Harvard Law Review, yet he has no understanding of the Constitution or the function of the Supreme Court.

bflat879 on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Why do you think we have never seen his college grades, published papers, etcetera, etcetera? Obama was just another token black accepted to fill out the university’s diversity requirement. He is not brilliant and never was. He does not have an original idea in his head and he is so stupid he actually believed the pointy-headed commies he studied under. Mostly he only knows how to blame everyone else for everything and the LSM lets him get away with it.

woodNfish on April 3, 2012 at 1:30 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 fact you’re pissed off makes me very happy.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM

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

Are you for real? He knows exactly what he is doing. He found out from Kagan what happened last Friday and now he figures that this is is his only chance to change one mind. He is well aware of what the SCOTUS has done in the past.

kozmo on April 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Obama can’t wrap his head around the concept that he isn’t the boss of the Supreme Court – that they are, in fact, equal to him in power.

disa on April 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I wonder if Mr. President really even knows what’s in his health care plan. He didn’t write it, he never writes anything, does he?

scalleywag on April 3, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Nobody really knows. Despite Pelosi’s claim. It was approved and two years later the stink continues to eminate from all 2,700 pages.

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Listening to the apoplectic reaction from idiots like l4l, you have to wonder how the Republic survived for 240 years without Obamacare and the mandate. The country survived a depression, a civil war, 2 world wars, a cold war, 9/11. We got through all that. But going another 2 minutes without being forced to buy health insurance we don’t want or need….that will be the end of the Republic.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:35 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

Subway is in no danger of losing a top Sandwich Artist to the New Yorker.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 1:36 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

I am sure you’d prefer a “Donkey Farm “

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Said this yesterday hereabouts and I’ll say it again: Obama and the Dems are setting the stage for not accepting/abiding by/honoring any SCOTUS decision that doesnt go their way.

First we had the clown show of Carville-Begala demonizing in a partisan invective manner a branch of government co-equal to the President.

Then Obama himself, in full Thug-in-Chief mode all but dared the Supremes to overturn Obamacare.

Bet you a box of jelly donuts that if the SCOTUS overturns Obamacare, the President, Congressional Dems and the MSM will not accept it and just keep plowing ahead with the fundamental transformation of the United States of Obama.

Can anyone see a situation where the court tosses Obamacare on a 5-4 vote, then Pelosi, Obama and their ilk all say “well, we disagree with the court but we have too much respect for the co-equal branches of government so we will take our medicine abide by the decision?”

Yeah, me neither.

Far more likely imo, is a simple shrug of the shoulders by Obama accompanied by words to the effect: “Who cares what the Supreme KKKourt says. I won, I am The Obama.”

Sacramento on April 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Listening to the apoplectic reaction from idiots like l4l, you have to wonder how the Republic survived for 240 years without Obamacare and the mandate. The country survived a depression, a civil war, 2 world wars, a cold war, 9/11. We got through all that. But going another 2 minutes without being forced to buy health insurance we don’t want or need….that will be the end of the Republic.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:35 PM

We got through all that with an “unelected” SCOTUS that would uphold the Constitution.
Then comes Obama !

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 1:41 PM

First, here’s a President of the United States who was educated at Columbia and Harvard and was president of the Harvard Law Review, yet he has no understanding of the Constitution or the function of the Supreme Court.

bflat879 on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

And, theoretically, he taught Constitutional law at some point. Those students should get their money back.

talkingpoints on April 3, 2012 at 1:41 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 fact you’re pissed off makes me very happy.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM

HappyEd? Doesn’t seem possible, lol

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Exactly what constitution was he supposed to be a scholar of?

jayhawkingeorgia on April 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Listening to the apoplectic reaction from idiots like l4l, you have to wonder how the Republic survived for 240 years without Obamacare and the mandate. The country survived a depression, a civil war, 2 world wars, a cold war, 9/11. We got through all that. But going another 2 minutes without being forced to buy health insurance we don’t want or need….that will be the end of the Republic.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:35 PM

As far as l4l is concerned, the Republic began on Jan. 20, 2009.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Marbury v. Madison is indeed a landmark legal case but was it really the most important? Granted it established judicial review but for better or worse Plessy v. Ferguson, the Dred Scott case, or the Miranda decision all fundamentally affected Americans in a way that Marbury v. Madison did not. Of course, all of these cases are taught in high school government class so there really isn’t any excuse why a jug-eared Harvard Law grad is out there declaring that overturning Obamacare would be unprecedented.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I think it is. Without Marbury v. Madison, the SCOTUS might have a completely different identity.

For the record, I would love to see an old syllabus from Obama’s COn Law class. I have a feeling 4 weeks were spent on Roe v. Wade and another 3 weeks were spent on Lawrence v. Texas. I truly would be stunned to learn that he even covered the Commerce Clause cases.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 1:44 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

Yeah, health insurance is a fundamental right, everyone knows that. And it’s the job of the Supreme Court to make sure that everyone gets health insurance.

talkingpoints on April 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I’m angry. Who the hell gave the SCOTUS the right to declare a law passed by a *large* majority of a duly elected Congress–Unconstitutional? The temerity of these 9 people is truly unbounded. They should be ashamed at themselves and…

What do you mean the Constitution?

Oh, never mind…

NOMOBO on April 3, 2012 at 1:45 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

It should scare them. Were talking about a Chicago thug with union and Black Panther thugs to do his bidding. “Nice house you got there Judge so-and-so. Be a shame if anything happened to it while your wife and grandkids were inside.” This scum is Leftist scum, and they are not above anything.

2ndMAW68 on April 3, 2012 at 1:45 PM

By the way, saw you on Cavuto yesterday, Tina. Way to call the Dems out for lying about Romney’s PAC ads funders. Good job.

bntafraid on April 3, 2012 at 1:45 PM

If there is a leak – what recourse can Chief Justice Roberts implement?

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 1:46 PM

NEWSFLASH!!!!
liberal4life has just been uncovered as a plant by the management of Hot Gas to liven up the boards. Seriously, do you really believe that someone could honestly be that ignorant?

NOMOBO on April 3, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Bet you a box of jelly donuts that if the SCOTUS overturns Obamacare, the President, Congressional Dems and the MSM will not accept it and just keep plowing ahead with the fundamental transformation of the United States of Obama.

Sacramento on April 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

This. He’s ignored court rulings before, so why bother paying attention to SCOTUS?

txsurveyor on April 3, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I don’t think he’s ignorant about it. He just hopes most Americans are.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM

They clearly are. I would venture to say that if you went to your nearest big city, and asked 100 people what Marbury v. Madison was, 80%, easily, would have no clue that such a case exists, and about 15% would say they have heard of it, but get what it said wrong, or simply not know what it said.

This is how Democrats win elections. They promote schools that graduate people with no thinking ability, get these people to stay dumb by giving them government goodies, and then convince them that the Republicans are evil because they want to force those people to work and be self-sufficient.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Rush just replayed the audio several times because he caught the slip that Zero made. He said, “over” before he said “upheld.”

Wow.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM

What was the gist of the clip? I missed the first part of Rush’s show today.

smellthecoffee on April 3, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Drudge was right. The leak is in. No other explanation for this set of talking points from the WH/MSM.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

dunno…..The Grand Narcissist’s ego took quite the trashing during the hearings, and in the media follow-up.

This could be another heavy-handed tantrum.

either way….major (and obviously transparent) faux pas.

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Hey Norton!!
Winghunter on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I didn’t say that there haven’t been decisions that could be construed as partisan. Kelo is a particular sore point with me, too.

But if you go down that road, it never stops. It’s a no-win game.
For every decision where you allege that liberals are legislating from the bench, the other side will do the same, as in Bush v. Gore.

Worse, it advances the liberal meme that the Supreme Court should be like a little legislature.

The Congress has the power to vastly curtail the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Let’s see the Court limited to admiralty law. America would be better off, in the long run.

Emperor Norton on April 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Bet you a box of jelly donuts that if the SCOTUS overturns Obamacare, the President, Congressional Dems and the MSM will not accept it and just keep plowing ahead with the fundamental transformation of the United States of Obama.

Sacramento on April 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

lol….a sucker bet….and with something as important as jelly donuts.

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Drudge was right. The leak is in. No other explanation for this set of talking points from the WH/MSM.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Anyone who doesn’t think Kagan waddled straight up Pennsylvania Avenue to spill her guts to her boss after the first deliberations is kidding herself.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

First, here’s a President of the United States who was educated at Columbia and Harvard and was president of the Harvard Law Review, yet he has no understanding of the Constitution or the function of the Supreme Court.

First, he may have set foot on the campuses of Columbia and Harvard, and served as president of the Harvard Law Review, but we have no hard evidence that he actually received a legitimate education (other than being indoctrinated by his mentors) in either institution. Nor do we have evidence that he was qualified to be appointed president of the Harvard Law Review. Which can explain why he appears to have no understanding of either the Constitution or the Supreme Court. OR he does understand, and lies, as both act as impediments to accomplish his agenda

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM

That said, it’s important to realize that there IS a substantial difference of opinion and that a 5-4 vote isn’t just the result of hyperpartisan hack judges “legislating from the bench.”

Outlander on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I get that there’s a substantial difference in opinion, but looking at the Constitution from any angle other than originalist is legislating from the bench. The phrases in the Constitution had a meaning at the time they were ratified and if judges say they’re going to judge according to a new meaning just because they like the new meaning better, then they’re judging according to a standard that we the people never agreed to. They’re injecting their own whims and notions of what’s good and what’s not into constitutional questions and that’s the very definition of “legislating from the bench”. I can respect differences of opinion that arise from people trying to apply the original meaning of the Constitution, but I can’t respect people who apply a whole different meaning just because that’s the way they want the Constitution to be.

NukeRidingCowboy on April 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM

He’s not ignorant. He’s tailoring what he says for the unwashed masses — the rubes too stupid to rule themselves. If the constitution impedes progressive/liberal/marxist progress it must go, as should a supreme court that has the audacity to tell him what to do.

ClanDerson on April 3, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I truly would be stunned to learn that he even covered the Commerce Clause cases.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM

It is one thing that he refuses to let the public see his transcript or senior thesis (which I suspect is radical). Nevertheless, I haven’t seen one former student talk about Obama as a teacher. I have to wonder if this was one of those jobs like Michelle Obama had- no work but a large paycheck.

But, of course, we need to remember the quote from 2007 when candidate Obama said- “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” That should be part of any RNC ad and connected to all the unconstitutional things that have been going on the past three years.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

What an arrogant POS! And for a self-professed expert and professor on the US constitution, he is an idiot! The argument he made yesterdat was basically the ACA should NOT be found UN-Constitutional because a Democratic Party Super Majority hastily rammed the bill into law without one single GOP affirmative vote and with the majority of Americans opposing it AND because he and his fellow progressives believe the bill is a good thing. Again, for a Constitutional scholar, that was a pathetic defense of the bill as none of that has any bearing on the bill’s Constitutionality.

He himself KNOWS the bill in Un-Constitutional, obvious by his disrespectful attempt to demean and intimidate the Supreme Court Yesterday. Obama called the Supreme Court a group of ‘un-elected’ people. The Supreme Court is the 3rd Branch of the the Federal Government, as established by the US Constitution, the same Constitution for which he has no respect and which he has violated no less than 12 times so far. He verbally demeaned the Justices, who were nominated by Presidents and voted into their position by Congress. They are part of the system of Checks-and-Balances established by our Founding Fathers as a mechanism to prevent people like Obama from infringing on the rights of the American people.

As if to prove his arrogance and/or stupidity, Obama disrespected and and challenged the Supreme Court members to overturn his legacy/law. Tell me, how wise (STUPID) is it to disrespect, demean, insult and challenge the Supreme Court BEFORE they have rendered their decision? If any members were sitting on the proverbial fence regardinmg a decision, Obama may have just poked the beehive, providing enough incentive to rule his law Un-Constitutional.

Finally, there has been talk about a possible ‘leak’ within the Supreme Court back to the White House. Is there SERIOUSLY any doubt who that might be?! Kagan not only wrote the defense argument for ACA, creating a level of conflict of interest of near-biblical proportions, but she also owes Obama her position on the Supreme Court. Anyone of INTEGRITY in such a position would have recused herself from this case; however, no one associated with the Obama administration has ever been accused of having ‘integrity’. Without Kagan on this case Obama stands NO chance of a victory. With her compromised/bias arse, all the Liberals need to do is sway 1 vote, most probably Kennedy’s. If partisanship could be totally remoevd from this case and all decisions made Constitutionally, this case is a slam-dunk with no one arguing for the bill being Constitutional. Kagan, however, and her refusing to recuse herself is the ultimate display of partisanship and of a ‘Supreme Court Justice’ sacrificing the Constitution for loyalty to a fellow Democrat/Liberal.

easyt65 on April 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Anyone who doesn’t think Kagan waddled straight up Pennsylvania Avenue to spill her guts to her boss after the first deliberations is kidding herself.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I call B.S. on this.

The Supreme Court is at least a mile from the White House.

She hasn’t walked a mile in her life, probably had a motorcade of SUVs to cart her substantial butt over there.

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

My dream would be to have the Court vote against the mandate 8 to 1 with Kagan the lone dissenter. That way she would have to write the dissenting opinion herself. I would love to see Barry’s appointee have to put it all out there all alone. I don’t know about Sotomayor but I think it would be really uncomfortable for Kagan to have to dissent without the cover of, let’s say, Breyer or Ginsberg whose clerks would do all the heavy work of writing a dissenting opinion she could just sign on to.

DaveDief on April 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I assume that she has hired some competent clerks by now, so her ignorance would not show in her writing as it does in her oral questioning.

slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I call B.S. on this.

The Supreme Court is at least a mile from the White House.

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

LMFAO

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I don’t think he’s ignorant about it. He just hopes most Americans are.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM
They clearly are. I would venture to say that if you went to your nearest big city, and asked 100 people what Marbury v. Madison was, 80%, easily, would have no clue that such a case exists, and about 15% would say they have heard of it, but get what it said wrong, or simply not know what it said.

This is how Democrats win elections. They promote schools that graduate people with no thinking ability, get these people to stay dumb by giving them government goodies, and then convince them that the Republicans are evil because they want to force those people to work and be self-sufficient.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I have shared this here before – but when I attended a wedding in Salem Mass last year – our freinds freinds were all Ivy League students/grads, etc.

The level of both stupidity and arrogance was breath taking when it came to not only political issues – but basic education of most things. Some highlights:

“Obama is the smartest President ever”
“I am a liberal conservative”
“Bush was a pilot only because his dad was one and didnt really know how to fly”

I expect a level of hipster “I know everything” – but the engagement was simplistic at best, as was their liberal conclusions and delusions.

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM

…his ignorance is showing.

That’s not unprecedented either.

backwoods conservative on April 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM

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

But impeachment and, more importantly removal from office will require GOP in control of both houses of Congress. Otherwise, it is just a partisan exercise because there is nothing that would be considered high crime by a bunch of corrupt Democrats.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Hey, we should all support any GOP’er or MSM’er who puts sunshine on this tactic.

The more light, the higher the odds of it backfiring on Barry.

Skip Gates – Citizens United. Now Obamacare. Pattern developed.

budfox on April 3, 2012 at 2:14 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

Your tears of outrage water my garden of happiness.

Solaratov on April 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I don’t suppose Harvard will be holding a “Constitutional Law” scholar chair open for Barack Obama when he leaves the White House.

He just figured out that the Supreme Court is not “elected” when he nominates the justices upon a vacancy?

He just figured out that the judiciary is a separate branch of government that can actually disagree with the executive or the legislative or both on issues of constitutionality?

He just figured out that Supreme in the title of the court actually means what it says, that it is the court of last resort for citizens to seek redress for abuses by the other branches of government?

He just figured out that the Supreme court does not work for him?

Maybe there’s been a mistake in his bio.

I know it says he “taught” constitutional law at Harvard (which he didn’t), so fine. We’ll leave the distinction between giving a lecture and being an employed professor alone for now. But, here’s the rub:

Accepting that he lectured on the Constitution at Harvard Law, my question is: the Constitution of which country?

IndieDogg on April 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Has Obama had Rahm Emanuel fedex “dead fishes” to Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy?

olesparkie on April 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Yep.
Our class warfare president is just “doin what he do……” Very much like our good friend Hugo Chavez.

I never thought I would see our country with such cretins in power. It’s almost as if most people don’t know anything about history… what’s that you say? They don’t?? Ohhhh….

KMC1 on April 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM

You can take the politician out from Chicago but you can’t take the Chicago out of the politician.

Yakko77 on April 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Rush just played audio of Zero giving another speech on this today. A reporter challenged him about the “unprecedented” remark and Zero promptly provided his carefully crafted blather, which now introduces the concept of “economics.”

Apparently the Clown posse picked up on the pushback on this.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I have shared this here before – but when I attended a wedding in Salem Mass last year – our freinds freinds were all Ivy League students/grads, etc.

The level of both stupidity and arrogance was breath taking when it came to not only political issues – but basic education of most things. Some highlights:

“Obama is the smartest President ever”
“I am a liberal conservative”
“Bush was a pilot only because his dad was one and didnt really know how to fly”

I expect a level of hipster “I know everything” – but the engagement was simplistic at best, as was their liberal conclusions and delusions.

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM

To be fair, there is a lot of that from people on the right wing as well.

Politics is hard. It requires actively following developments, forming your own beliefs, etc… For most people, it is much easier to form simplistic beliefs based on what your peers say, then to form your own.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I tend to side with the conservative approach. I also acknowledge Justice Breyer’s rather embarrassing attempt at describing the key Commerce Clause cases during oral argument suggests that at least some of the liberal justices aren’t seriously engaging the issue. That said, it’s important to realize that there IS a substantial difference of opinion and that a 5-4 vote isn’t just the result of hyperpartisan hack judges “legislating from the bench.”

Outlander on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Exactly. It’s not that SCOTUS is being partisan per se. But the root of the partisan divide in both SCOTUS and Congress — and the nation, for that matter — is the difference in the view of what the government should do. To borrow Thomas Sowell’s expression, between the constrained and the unconstrained vision of government. As long as liberals want to give the government unlimited power in order to build a utopia, there will be a divided Supreme Court, and a divided Congress, and a divided nation.

And since unlimited power lends itself easily to tyranny, we can’t give in on our side either.

So which view does Mitt Romney have? Big government programs like Romneycare strongly suggest a more utopian position, or at the very least a willingness to give the utopians what they want.

tom on April 3, 2012 at 2:28 PM

For the record, I would love to see an old syllabus from Obama’s COn Law class. I have a feeling 4 weeks were spent on Roe v. Wade and another 3 weeks were spent on Lawrence v. Texas. I truly would be stunned to learn that he even covered the Commerce Clause cases.

How many weeks were spent going over Derrick Bell’s CRT screeds?

teke184 on April 3, 2012 at 2:30 PM

To be fair, there is a lot of that from people on the right wing as well.

Politics is hard. It requires actively following developments, forming your own beliefs, etc… For most people, it is much easier to form simplistic beliefs based on what your peers say, then to form your own.

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM

To an extent – yes – and of course youth has its “Macro World View” a little skewed.. but I can have a pretty indepth conversation about just about anything with a non liberal.

I believe the backbone of true success stories in America align with a conservative ideological view.

Work hard, be fair, support your neighbor – but dont infringe upon him, understand there are repercussions to actions, learn to fish instead of eating fish… etc, etc.

The HS dropout who picked up a hammer – then sold his business for $10M will have a much more conservative manner and intelligence – than a trustfund Ivy League kid who gets legacied into anything.

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

The president’s comments yesterday to the effect that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional

Dear Jake Tapper,

Please ask the President if he now supports DOMA being upheld as it was passed by a majority of democratically elected representatives.

The_Livewire on April 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Supreme court is not an objective branch of government . At least in 2012.

It is a political court and should be treated as such.
A bunch of mercenaries who are tasked with making lives miserable for Americans. An unrepresented move if they strike it down.

Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I guess a Harvard ConLaw degree ain’t what it used to be.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I got a Harvard ConLaw degree from a dispenser next to my toilet.

WhatNot on April 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

But Obama appointed the corrupt ones to the court!

WhatNot on April 3, 2012 at 2:44 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.

For those involved in the legal process, this does not come as a surprise. More and more, judges don’t judge – for one reason or another – and when they do, it’s based upon a personal ideology. A review of any pair of legal briefs will show that there are rulings that can be used to support almost any side to any proposition, so judges pick and chose what suits their personal sense of “fairness” and “morality.”

As unfortunate as is it, good jurists are hard to find and stare decisis died a couple of generations ago.

EdmundBurke247 on April 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Supreme court is not an objective branch of government . At least in 2012.

It is a political court and should be treated as such.
A bunch of mercenaries who are tasked with making lives miserable for Americans. An unrepresented move if they strike it down.

Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

What the heck is an “unrepresented move”? Were you going for “unprecedented”? You must have mis-read the talking points.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4