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

Agreed – who cares if he rails against the court – it’s the quality of his argument and not the tone of his words that would concern me… if he had an argument. If the SC’s job is not to rule on laws enacted by a Congressional majority, what is their job?

Style Doggie on April 3, 2012 at 2:47 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?

bflat879 on April 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Obama claims credit where credit is questionable. If the recollection of the postman for Ayers parents has any credibility, it adds to this question. Ayers parents had told the postman that they were sponsoring a foreign student with a hard to remember name that sounded African. Months later he meets a young black man on the sidewalk outside their home. He says he was there to thank the Ayers for their support. When the postman asked the young man what he was going to do with his life, the response was to be the president. The postman says that the young man he met then is Obama today.

This would suggest that Obama was being prepared for the office from the time he was in College,with which could explain a lot of the doors that mysteriously opened for him.

As for the Harvard Law Review; up until Obama became eligible in his last year, the position as editor of the review was given to the law student that had earned the right to hold it through his or her academic achievement. The year that Obama became the editor was the same year the college decided that a black student should be given the editors position. Obama happened to be the only black student that applied. In other words he was given the position through affirmative action based on race. It is of interest here that there is nothing more than a memo of anything he published as an editor that historically resulted numerous publications. There is the claim that he had the grade average for the position, but that remains unproven without his records and in question in the light of his undergraduate grades not even qualifying him to apply to Harvard. The postman’s comments may shed some light on the possibility that Obama’s law degree was just a “gimme”. For those interested, Michelle was assigned to assist him when he later worked for the same law firm that she was working for. I have to wonder if this was more than just chance pairing.

As for his being a professor of Constitutional law, he was a lecturer. For those who have not been to college, or missed this, lectures normally draw the lecture from a course file that includes the notes, overheads, and handouts. They do not add to or as a rule, divate from the approved lecture. As we well know, Obama is good with reading what others wrote, and yet have little comprehension of what he is reading. An actor with his script.

I used to teach government and U.S. history, and thank God that I do not have to try and do that in today’s mess. Obama seems to have less understanding of the Concept of our Republic, the Constitution, and structure of our government than many of the students that I failed.

Obama does however seem to have a firm grasp on the principals and goals of socialism and communism, which socialism is the precursor for; and the support of those organizations who have as their goal the destruction of our nation as when know it, in words, hope and change for the future of socialism in America.

Among the socialist goals is the increase of power of the Executive branch while reducing the relevancy of the Congressional and Judicial branches, deficit spending to fund the programs he supports and increasing taxes on the wealthiest citizens. That is exactly what we are hearing him stating as his goals today.

Franklyn on April 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

SWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop it, dude! Yer killin’ us! Are you gonna take this act on the road? I’ll definitely hit the comedy club when you’re there.
Who writes this stuff for you, anyway?

Solaratov on April 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I don’t see him campaigning against Kagen and Sotomayor.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I HOPE he takes your advice!!!

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Talk about “dog whistle” code words. The OWS crowd will see this as a call to action. I know 5 Justices who need to watch their back. Thug nation.

tommyboy on April 3, 2012 at 2:50 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

If the Supreme Court had followed your wish in 1954, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land.

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Obama is discovering his BFD can be trumped by another BFD.

Obama’s BFD lost. Puffery, bluster, and threats won’t change that. Things were easier back in Chicago and Cook County, weren’t they? Governing is tougher when you can’t bully, dismiss, and ignore any opposition

Too bad. Try again. But this time try to play within the rules. Care to propose something else before the election, like a single-payer solution and a total government takeover of health insurance? Why not give it a shot? We know that’s what you really want. You didn’t really want that mandate anyway.

farsighted on April 3, 2012 at 2:55 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.
Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I would be impressed by your intellectual integrity, liberal4life, if you wrote what you just did in anticipation that liberal justices were about to overturn a conservative law. As it is, though, not so much.

Burke on April 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

But they’re all up for re-election!

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Obama should campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

One doesn’t “campaign seriously against the corrupt judges.” If judges are corrupt, the Constitution has a remedy. It’s called IMPEACHMENT.

As Jon Meacham (no conservative or libertarian he) wrote:

“But here is a pretty good rule of thumb for Democratic Presidents: if it didn’t work for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms and a World War, it probably won’t work for you either.

In one of the rare political debacles of his long life, FDR overreached after his landslide win against Alf Landon in 1936. (Roosevelt carried every state, save for Maine and Vermont.) A largely conservative Court had already struck down key parts of New Deal legislation, and there was the threat of more anti-Roosevelt decisions to come. And so FDR proposed a plan that would have enabled him to appoint additional justices in an attempt to shift the court’s political orientation. The effort failed, miserably.”

So, PLEASE, tell Obama to take on the Supreme Court. Low-life, thuggish behaviour is just his style and watching him go out in disgraceful defeat will be gravy for some of us.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Division of Powers, enough said. Please continue your liberal rants Mr. President. And I hope your brain dead stooges follow along.

DDay on April 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Man ever comment HA thread I go on today libtard4life is there in full tantrum mode. Good for us. We’ve got to have someone to laugh at.

RMOccidental on April 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM

It is a political court and should be treated as such.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Was it a “political court” when it struck down military tribunals and granted habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants (a first) when Bush was POTUS or is it only a “political court” when it won’t create new Federal powers out of whole cloth for you?

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM

It is a political court and should be treated as such.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

You can call it what ever you like, I personally call it one of the divisions of government. Did you not take a government class? Checks and balances mean nothing to you?

DDay on April 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

f the SC’s job is not to rule on laws enacted by a Congressional majority, what is their job?

Style Doggie on April 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

To rubberstamp all demo laws and throw out all conservative laws. After all demos are infallible(but even if not, their ‘unmatched intelligence’ and ‘boundless compassion’ overrides any little errors they make).

yhxqqsn on April 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

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

That’s really funny! Somehow I don’t see any of the five that are thought to be likely to strike down OCare being intimidated by BHO.

His own appointees? Especially Kagan? That might be a different story. But they see most everything his way already, so he’s just preaching to the choir.

EconomicNeocon on April 3, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I disagree with both Allah who yesterday wrote that this statement by Obama isn’t much more than a clever campaign tactic, and with Tina today who writes that it is simply shockingly ignorant, but not much more. Obama should not be doing this. It weakens the separation between governmental branches which is partly maintained by studious respectfulness, even if that respectfulness is sometimes phony. Obama did this during the SOTU, too, browbeat and denigrated the justices for a decision they’d made. If he gets away with this harassment a second time, he may be emboldened to move on to the next step, which is to ignore the SC’s rulings whenever they’re inconvenient. Does anyone doubt he wouldn’t do this? Good for Mitt for pushing back. I wish he would push back in many areas as he’s doing here. Liberals are young teen deliquents and they will keep crossing boundaries until you tell them, “No!” Could you even imagine in your wildest fantasy a conservative pulling a stunt like this?

Burke on April 3, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Things can’t be good for him if he’s spending another day on the attack.

matthew8787 on April 3, 2012 at 3:23 PM

o/t

“Last Friday, former Obama economic transition advisory board official and Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich dismantled the supposed Obama economic recovery as a massive boondoggle for the rich:

According to an analysis of tax returns by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, the top 1 percent pocketed 93 percent of the gains in 2010. 37 percent of the gains went to the top one-tenth of one percent. No one below the richest 10 percent saw any gain at all.

In fact, most of the bottom 90 percent have lost ground. Their average adjusted gross income was $29,840 in 2010. That’s down $127 from 2009, and down $4,843 from 2000 (all adjusted for inflation).

In other words, the Obama “recovery” hasn’t leveled the playing field – it’s tilted it more. That makes sense, since most of Obama’s measures have been aimed not at providing jobs for working class people, but at subsidizing friends, allies, and union bosses. The rich continue to get richer – and much faster – under Obama, even as he claims the mantle of class warrior.”

http://robertreich.org/post/20171217334

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/03/Robert-Reich-Obama-Recovery

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Felsa.berkeley.edu%2F~saez%2Fsaez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf&images=yes

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 3:24 PM

An unrepresented move if they strike it down.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

This is something one of my grandkids might say. You know how little kids try to join an adult conversation, but they don’t really understand the big words? Yeah, I think I’ve finally figured out l4l.

Dee2008 on April 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I don’t recall Obama or any other progressives getting angry about the “activist judges” in Kelo vs. New London decision which favored the “rich, evil” pharmaceutical company, Pfizer. Why not? Because it was the leftist justices who tipped the verdict, and they did so strengthen the Federal Government’s ability to seize private property under the collectivist pretense of the “common good.”

Logic on April 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM

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

The empty suit will huff and puff and blow their house down.

rukiddingme on April 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Obama is a nasty piece of work.

claudius on April 3, 2012 at 3:29 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

Dang, you are really something. I didn’t know the SCOTUS Justices were running for something. I always thought they were appointed. And, I won’t quote case precedent because many above already have. You are either willfully ignorant, or truly ignorant like your fearless thug leader.

HomeoftheBrave on April 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Plus, his ignorance is showing.

Those of you who are calling 0bama ignorant need to reexamine your premise.

0bama is not ignorant.

The only ignorance that comes into play is the ignorance of the general populace. He uses that ignorance to pressure those who would stand in his way. The Supreme Court is already receiving hundreds of thousands of pieces of mails from ignorant people demanding that they uphold 0bamacare because 0bama lied and scared them into it.

Ignorance is thinking that 0bama is ignorant, rather than an evil master manipulator.

That is his power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

LegendHasIt on April 3, 2012 at 3:34 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

Honestly, it depends. I have had great conversations with liberals, and awful conversations with conservatives. It depends more on the person than his political beliefs.

But yes, I do tend to agree that people who work hard tend to become Republicans. And that is why college kids also tend to be democrats – most (especially in the top 100 colleges) have their parents pay for everything and are there to have fun for 4 years (I think anyone that has gone to a US News top 100 school can attest to this). And even after college, when you get your 1st job, that pays poorly, you still dont get it. But when you start making a decent salary, and can use the money that you make through your hard work, you are not as keen to give it to Democrats to distribute it to people who refuse to work hard and better themselves.

So, to make a long story short, yes, those that work hard tend to be Republicans. And America became great because of hard work, not the Obama model .

milcus on April 3, 2012 at 3:35 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.

No matter what heinous crimes against freedom and the Constitution that Obama might commit, impeachment proceedings would never happen with the likes of Boehner and McConnell leading a GOP majority and concerning themselves with comity and Beltway collegiality.

Right Mover on April 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM

You can call it what ever you like, I personally call it one of the divisions of government. Did you not take a government class? Checks and balances mean nothing to you?

DDay on April 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

ought*

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:41 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

Did you slip on your Che’ t-shirt and put We shall Overcome on the stereo when you typed that colossal slice of hyperbole out of nothing?

did you?

Thug-nation,… just lie smear and make threats when you loose in the arena of ideas.

Basic civics escape you completely..

Executive
legislative
judicial

three co-equal branches of government, checks and balances to ensure tyranny doesn’t long stand in the peoples Constitutional republic. Congress makes the laws, the president enforces them, and the Supreme Court rules on whether those laws are Constitutional and not in violation of the peoples rights as defined by that Constitution.

Basic grade school civics that I learned as a boy in 1965/66 in the 1st and 2nd grade. It’s not rocket science and has sustained this republic since 1787.

· The Final draft of the Constitution of the United States was ratified on September 17th, 1787;

You and Obama are fools.. this tool cannot even grasp the basics, a president so profoundly ignorant of our very system of government, who espouses the core reasoning of socialism to justify his power grabs, his thuggish behavior..

Go ahead and attack the most respected branch of government,.. your funeral when the public backlash sweeps you from office..

please do this..

we cannot get rid of Obama fast enough.

mark81150 on April 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

Why do you use meaningless statistics to try to prove points 97.3% of the time?

RMOccidental on April 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right follow the constitution and I disagree with that.

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals the constitution

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Explain the legal reasoning behind the law being upheld. Why constitutionally should it be upheld? Do not tell me how it insure people, etc. etc. Explain to us with your brilliant legal mind why it should be upheld.

BTW I fixed your post for you

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

You know it is what it is, whether you like their opinion or not. I personally feel that many of my personal liberties have been stepped on, by this court and past. And I still believe we have the greatest form of government in the world. So grow up, everything doesn’t always go your way.

DDay on April 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

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

Obama was simply playing Chicago-style intimidation politics: “You do what we want or it will cost you.” There is no ignorance involved. Obama knew exactly what he was doing. That’s how his entire presidency has operated.

How’s life in the parallel universe, Tina?

bw222 on April 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

An unrepresented move if they strike it down.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Assuming you meant “unprecedented,” pray tell, libtard4life, whatever happened to, say, the Income Tax Act of 1894 or the Agricultural Adjustment Administration of 1933 or the National Industrial Recovery Act or provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 or parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994?

STOP DRINKING THE OBAMA KOOK-AIDE, “YOU HAPPY PUPPET”!

How did they teach you to be just a happy puppet dancing on a string?

How do you manage to speak, your mouth a frozen grin?
A dullard strung on the wire.

When the master’s gone you hang there with your eyes and your limbs so lifeless.

Tell me something, if the world is so insane, is it making you sane again to let another man tug at the thread that pulls up your empty wooden head?

Your hollow head, your marble eyes, your wooden hands and your metal jaw pins all wait in limbo for the man who knows how to move you this way.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Yeah, ‘cuz everyone knows that right-wing radicals wanted the court to overturn Bush’s military tribunals and grant habeas corpus rights to foreign nationals, who had never stepped foot on American soil.

**eyeroll**

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 3:50 PM

So… Does Levi4Life think that DOMA should be upheld?

And of course, when the legislation is left of Che, and you support it, even a ‘moderate’ court is going to be ‘conservative’.

The_Livewire on April 3, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Consider the source. Obama is an ignorant thug from Chicago.

Labamigo on April 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Isn’t it common practice in Democratic Socialist movements to denigrate the “Unelected” Supreme Court when they oppose the executive just before completely ignoring their ruling and pushing for indefinitely extending the president’s term of office (usually “for life”) because it is the “will of the people”.

I’m not implying anything… I’m just sayin’…..

AverageJoe on April 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I seem to recall a website a while back about an individual that was in Russia and part of a conversation. The conversation was with a couple of old KGB friends and a passing comment was made concerning a future American President. The comment had to do with a black man who had a strange name beginning with O. Could this op have been running for years???? This is in reference to Franklyn on April 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM and other revelations concerning Odumbo.

retiredeagle on April 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

And the 2/3 of America who want ObamaCare and/or the mandate thrown out.

You’re on the losing side of this one and your whining shows it.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

When the Left was outraged that the Westboro Baptist Church won in the Supreme Court with an 8-1 decision in Snyder v. Phelps, which justice sided with them?

When animal rights activists and animal lovers were infuriated that the Supreme Court overturned a law banning crush videos (sexually provocative videos of women in stilettos crushing kittens) in an 8-1 decision, who was the one justice that sided with them?

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

My God, you’re not only this dim, but a pure ideologue.

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

No you tool,.. the court skewed LEFT till Roberts and Alito were sworn in,.. the Court simply returned back to the mainstream of thought. That it’s no longer a reliable leftwing stamp of approval drives you nutz..

good, I hope you chew your leg off in frustration..

then snap off a finger and smoke it like a cigarette.

The left no longer owns the Court.. You can pine for the days of that insane Warren Court, but they are done, gone…

The Court is our last resort protection from a tyrannical president and Congress.. Thank God for that, since the left routinely broke every rule, twisted, lied and distorted fact to pass that debacle against overwhelming public opposition..

You violated Senate and Congressional rules, locked the doors to keep republicans out of the room while working with lobbyists to craft a big money payoff to democrat party donors.. then rammed it through in violation of the legislative rules,.. Obama stamp it..

and the SCOTUS slammed on the brakes.. as it was designed too..

Your ignorance of how that is what it was made to do reveals how ignorant and petty your politics are.

mark81150 on April 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Or it could just be that the law that Obama is trying to get passed and it’s just plain unconstitutional.

L4L, there’s nothing wrong with dedication, but honestly, do you believe that everything that comes out of his mouth are pearls of wisdom so rich we could retire the debt?

Really? C’mon I won’t be offended if you honestly said “I don’t agree with everything..”

We won’t tell.

BlaxPac on April 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

How are checks and balances out the window due to 5 Rep Justices, considering the executive branch is held by a Dem and Legislative is split?

The current roster upholds checks and balances you nitwit.

So according to our resident moron: true checks and balances is when the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are all Dem…

May I suggest throwing away the Obama Law Guide Cliff Notes?

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

You do mean constitutional, right ?

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

Obama has put two on this 2012 court, right ?

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

You don’t play well with others, do you.

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 4:01 PM

If the justices had lightly questioned and feigned worship towards Obamacare, then the left would be making completely the opposite argument.

Hypocrites.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 4:01 PM

What powers should Obama be limited from?

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 4:01 PM

To hell with those politicos occupying the halls of congress . . . how about deference to liberty, the Constitution and the people. Forcing the people to buy health care they do not want is an act of a tyrant and acting against the will of the people will destroy this once great Republic.

rplat on April 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out.

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. The court has decided to be political instead of objective.

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. The court has decided to be political instead of objective.

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

You wouldn’t know “checks and balances” if they walked up to you and slapped you across the face. Where was your concern when Obama made “recess” appointments when the Senate was not and could not pursuant to Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America be in recess?

I despise you Obama-Firsters.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 4:06 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?

No, it’s pure political calculus. IMHO Obama studied the Constitution the way a military officer studies his foes — to know his enemy, and discern how to destroy them. Obama knows full well how our Constitution works, and has said on many occasions that he doesn’t like it, it limits his “ability to get things done,” and constrains his power.

EasyEight on April 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Still waiting on your legal analysis of this issue.

But I am not holding my breath.

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Libtard4Life:

The answer to my questions in my 3:56 PM post is that “right-wing, radical, corrupt ideologue” Samuel Alito.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Please continue…usually your stupidity is boring, but today it’s actually pretty darn funny.

Erich66 on April 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out.

That’s the ticket. Have him toss in Congress while he is at it.
Create King Obama.

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. The court has decided to be political instead of objective.

With no decision announced, your present reaction is entirely irrational. ENTIRELY.

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

You are creating a conclusion.

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Actually, judicial review of whether or not Congress overstepped the spirit and letter of the commerce clause would seem a perfect example of checks and balance in action.

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

You can repeat it’s political all you’d like, but words aren’t magic, even if you squint your eyes close really tight, concentrate really hard and hope that they are.

Save yourself some time, stop it and get back to mouth breathing. Or not, it doesn’t really matter, now does it.

RMOccidental on April 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

LOL.

So Obama is out to destroy the reputation of the Supreme Court rather than admit that he overreached.

What else will the narcissist pig do before this is over? I expect him to go full on delusional by November, mobilizing his shuffling bands of liberal4life zombies and calling for an all-out Kristallnacht on anyone who would dare disagree with the beloved Obamafuhrer.

Republicans and conservatives need only stand back and watch — and make sure day in, day out, every minute, every second, from now until November point out that the Democrat Party is now the Obama Party. If you vote Democrat in any way, you are endorsing, supporting, and worshiping Barack Obama. No Democrat is mentally or morally capable of disagreeing with or standing up to Obama; they all agree with Obama that the government should take over everything, that all Americans are racists, that the Supreme Court is helplessly corrupt, and everything of the sort.

Obama is the opportunity to destroy the Democrat Party for once and for all. Everything that Obama does should be put in the mouths of every single Democrat. Make them own him.

northdallasthirty on April 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I pray that the Supreme Court puts a stake in the heart of Obama’s vampiric National Healthcare Monster.

This nation’s health…and our pocketbooks…simply cannot afford it.

Here’s my take.

kingsjester on April 3, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out.

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. The court has decided to be political instead of objective.

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Yes indeed. Axelrod needs to set up a strategy that makes it clear to everyone that the Supreme Court and the Constitution should be ignored in favor of the dictates of the Obamafuhrer.

Axelrod needs to make it clear to everyone. Obama is the all-powerful. Congress has no right to disagree with Obama. The courts have no right to disagree with Obama. Anyone who disagrees with Obama in any way is a traitor and should be punished.

Every Democrat believes this. Every Democrat everywhere agrees with Barack Obama that the Presidency is all-powerful. Only Barack Obama knows the good. Only Barack Obama, the Lightworker, the Almighty, can appropriately pass laws, rule, and decide what is and isn’t constitutional. All Democrats support Obama in every shape and form.

Use the insanity of Barack Obama to destroy the Democrat Party.

northdallasthirty on April 3, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Please continue…usually your stupidity is boring, but today it’s actually pretty darn funny.

Erich66 on April 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM

All things considered, it’s actually quite frightening.

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Oh, and by the way, with a hat tip to Ace: screaming brat Obama’s bluff just got called.

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

That sound was the Obama-Holder DOJ collectively soiling itself. They are forcing Obama for the first time to put on public record whether he actually believes the vomit he spews.

northdallasthirty on April 3, 2012 at 4:24 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

So if they don’t rule in your Masters favor, they should have their reputation besmirched, especially when by default, SCOTUS cannot fight back?

Really? That’s what the Great Leader decreed? And you, as such would follow it blindly?

Cowardice. Plain and Simple.

BlaxPac on April 3, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I caught Megyn Kelly today when she was discussing this video by Tatyana Ali. It was on the Obama campaign website, but Kelly said it’s now been taken down. Here’s the Daily Caller’s summary:

President Barack Obama’s under-the-radar campaign to spur turnout in the African-American community is echoing the promise of post-election flexibility given last month to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

“What really excites me about [an Obama re-election] is that a U.S. president has only two terms,” Tatyana Ali, an Obama-boosting actress, says in a video on the African-American section of Obama’s campaign website.

“In the second term, it’s on, because we don’t have to worry about re-election,” says a laughing Ali, whose video was produced by Black Entertainment TV.

The mask keeps slipping, no matter how many times they try to erase their tracks.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Your are either the most ignorant poster on this site or you really just like messing with people. Please note, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. So, if Axelbutt wants to degrade them let him do so at his own ignorance it will not matter to them one bit.

DDay on April 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM

All Barack’s missing is a hoodie.

SouthernGent on April 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out.

Axelrod is a scumbag, a shrill screeching leftwing shill who would burn kittens in a barrel if he thought it would get one single vote for the “Won”.

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. The court has decided to be political instead of objective.

utterly stupid statement, that they might strike down Obamacare is proof that checks and balances DO EXIST,.. if they upheld it, how would that be a check you moron?

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

FDR tried that, Nixon too…

didn’t work so well for them did it?

You would attempt to discredit and destroy the SCOTUS, because it’s fulfilling it’s designed function? You would what… lead torch bearing mobs of mouthbreathing progressives to Robert’s home to threaten his life, and his family?

WOULD YOU DIRTBAG?

You’re advocating the destruction of an entire branch of government just because you do not control it.. that’s tyrannical, that’s fascistic, that’s unAmerican and utterly criminal in intent. You and the kos-sick kids do that..

and after the Capital Police and US Marshals round you up and ship you off to court.. pray that the judge who hears your case over threatening judges doesn’t take that personally. The people don’t support you, will not.. those mouthbreathing Kos-sick inbreds and nutroots are NOT America.. when only 20% of America will admit to being progressives, you are fringe by definition.

You wage war on the court.. and see who wins skippy..

go ahead, we dare you..

mark81150 on April 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I brought the Ali video news into this thread because it’s another revealing indication that Obama isn’t really interested in checks and balances. He wants to do whatever he wants to do.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Barack the Malevolent, behold.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 4:32 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!

I can’t remember the exact quote nor what it was in reference to. But didn’t Obama tell some journalist during a press conference, maybe last year, something like “Most people don’t understand what we are doing, it’s too complicated for them. That why they elect us to handle it all”

I’m never quit sure whether Obama is an incompetent Marxist or a clever one. I lean towards incompetent. Maybe he really believes what he said last year. That most of us are just too stupid to understand he’s lying most of the time or that we know he doesn’t have a clue.

JellyToast on April 3, 2012 at 4:32 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

Please define “Corrupt Judges” for us.

And while you’re at it, I am still waiting for you to define “Judicial Activism” for us.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Del Dolemonte on April 3, 2012 at 4:35 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

Another reason people think he got a leak because of this faux pas here. “As I said, we’re confident that this will be over…” Uh, uh, uh, ” that this will be upheld.”

Did you catch that, Mr. Snerdley? Here play that again. Play the sound bite three here just from the top again.

OBAMA: As I said we are confident that, uh, this will be over — that this will be upheld.

RUSH: Uh, uh! Ooh! Ooh! Some people are thinking, “Well, it’s on his mind that it’s been overturned and he doesn’t like it.”

It’s up on Rush’s website.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/03/obama_puts_out_bounty_on_supreme_court

Way down the page under the video of Zero.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Too bad this isn’t an election year…

… or the GOP could run a series of campaign adds explaining the Separation of Powers, how Bills should be passed and how the Democrats wrote and passed Obowmacare, and how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect us from what the Democrats are trying to do.

What…?

… oh.

Seven Percent Solution on April 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Checks and balances go out of the window when 75% of cases decided since Alito and Roberts were appointed skew right.

It is a political court and the American people out to know the supreme court is not what it used to be.

5 justices are mercenaries doing the bidding of right wing radicals

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Define “Judicial Activism”. With specific examples.

Del Dolemonte on April 3, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Too bad this isn’t an election year…

… or the GOP could run a series of campaign adds explaining the Separation of Powers, how Bills should be passed and how the Democrats wrote and passed Obowmacare, and how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect us from what the Democrats are trying to do.

What…?

… oh.

Seven Percent Solution on April 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM

The 30 year old School House rock video’s are more impactful than the 2012 GOP.

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Scalia a skulldaggery activist thug judge

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out……
liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Say what you really mean:

Axelturd and 0bama should incite their sycophants and have them go in BEFORE the SC can make their decision, and hang everyone but Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg.

All he needs do to rule like the despot that he wishes to be is to say:

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest court?

LegendHasIt on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

That sound was the Obama-Holder DOJ collectively soiling itself. They are forcing Obama for the first time to put on public record whether he actually believes the vomit he spews.

northdallasthirty on April 3, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Now that will be fun to read. A Federal Court asking the President to back-up his public bs. Watch him double down.

If you are in Dallas area, hope you are OK.
Nasty weather in those parts today.

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Scalia a skulldaggery activist thug judge

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

He’s from Chicago ?

Jabberwock on April 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out.

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. The court has decided to be political instead of objective.

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

LOL! You’re really going off the deep end today, Dear.

1. O’bama is employing Axelrod’s strategy to do what you suggest already. You’re admitting that Dear Leader is too Dim a Bulb to come up with the idea on his own. Congratulations for admitting what the rest of us knew in 2007.

2. Your second statement assumes that the Court will overturn the whole thing. You know this how?

3. Define “Judicial Activism” for us.

By the way, in Florida, Supreme Court Justices are actually elected. After they all used Judicial Activism to try to Steal the 2000 Presidential Election for a Democrat, several of them were “rewarded” by Florida’s voters by being re-elected again.

You musty be so proud of them.

Del Dolemonte on April 3, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I don’t know why everyone’s so upset. Obama is a Constitutional lawyer, after all, an expert on the Constitution, a brilliant law professor who graduated from and taught in the Ivy League. He must know what the SCOTUS’ duties and responsibilities are.

Oh, wait…

idalily on April 3, 2012 at 4:47 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

The federal court system is unamused by the “Constitutional Scholar” whining about the forthcoming decision.

teke184 on April 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Scalia a skulldaggery activist thug judge

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

As opposed to Kagan who should have recused herself…

kingsjester on April 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Scalia a skulldaggery activist thug judge

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Get the money back from whomever educated you.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out.

Checks and balances are no longer in existence. The court has decided to be political instead of objective.

If that is that case they should also deal with everything that comes with being political including negative publicity.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I don’t think I’ve been this amused by you. You’re so over your fool head here.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM

“…some GOPers are going so far as to suggest…”

That’s usually followed by something dumb…as is the case here.

This is more interesting –

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/09/120409taco_talk_toobin

verbaluce on April 3, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I don’t think I’ve been this amused by you. You’re so over your fool head here.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Isn’t it amazing? This fool actually thinks that Americans will embrace Barack Obama stating that only he is allowed to pass, rule, and determine whether or not laws are constitutional.

Of course, liberal4life and 0bamaderangementsyndrom believe that to be the case, as does the Obama Party that they worship and the media that propagandizes for them, so they literally are doubling down on unchecked dictatorship.

northdallasthirty on April 3, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Scalia a skulldaggery activist thug judge

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Whom, on his worse day, has a better grip on the Constitution and it’s limitations (remember that phrase, you will see it again) than apparently the President or his advisers.

BlaxPac on April 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM

5th Circuit smackdown – panel challenges government lawyers to support Obama’s claim that court cannot strike down law. (At AoS).

LASue on April 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Axelrod needs to set up a strategy to damage the reputation of the court as bias should they throw the healthcare law out……
liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 4:04 PM

S/b “biased”, you plankton/gnat-brain.

Schools give us nothing for our taxes, nothing but stupid moochers.

Plus, you are clueless on the courts.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Scalia a skulldaggery activist thug judge

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

His IQ is bigger than all the others/Obama/your’s put together.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Scalia a skulldaggery activist thug judge

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Scalia is the worst of them all on the political court.

He just does not even care what the other side has to say. All he cares about is legislating from the bench using right wing agenda.

To h#ll with other opinions. He is a disgrace to the integrity of the court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

The bill is toast and Lagan leaked it. It is totally bad news for him. If it wasn’t bad news he would of never said anything. The boy king knows he has no accomplishments. Therefore slash and burn and go out in a flame of glory.

Conservative4ev on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

It is hard to believe this person was the editor of the Law Review.

It is hard to believe he uses the word “unprecedented” unscientifically.

Of course the Supreme Court has overturned laws made by the Congress before, that is what they DO.

Whatever is unprecedented about it is so fuzzy I missed it?

The Congress, The Judiciary and The Executive branch are the checks and balances of government.

The Congress, according to Obama had some overwhelming majority that voted for this law. Well, not so, and the public was not with them either.

The Congress (House) more recently decided that the health care bill was frought with error and has sent a bill to the senate to abolish it. That was by a great majority.

The President does not care what kind of great republican majority might send him a bill, he can veto it. That is the same power the Supreme Court has, they can Veto, in a sense, Health care. No matter how many people voted for it, if it doesn’t pass Constitutional Muster. That is all.

Fleuries on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

It is possible, after all, to simultaneously think the individual mandate is good policy and unconstitutional or, conversely, bad policy and constitutional.

E gads.

Ok Tina, pleas give examples of bad policy that would be constitutional. Please.

Akzed on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4