Posted on 04/03/2012 8:09:08 PM PDT by Nachum
Much of the left seems inclined to shrug at President Barack Obama’s pre-emptive rebuke of the Supreme Court yesterday. One Democrat even urged Obama to attack the Court on the campaign trail if it overturned Obamacare.
A few liberals, however, realize that Obama’s attack is a threat to judicial independence, and ought to be condemned by all.
One such was Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, who said she would “lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate,” yet chided Obama for “channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges,” calling his attack “unsettling.”
Marcus was right about the danger, but for the wrong reason: judicial activism is not the issue here.
The president deliberately confused judicial activism--the wholesale manufacture of rights and laws by judges in accordance with their personal or political views--with judicial review, the power courts have to overturn unconstitutional legislation, which the Supreme Court has exercised since Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Obama’s assault on judicial review might seem bizarre--particularly coming from a former president of the Harvard Law Review, and a former lecturer in constitutional law at one of the nation’s most prestigious law schools--were it not for the fact that we now know of his connection to radical Critical Race Theory professor Derrick Bell.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
“a former lecturer in constitutional law at one of the nation’s most prestigious law schools”
Release the records, HOMOPOTUS!
**Obama’s attack is a threat to judicial independence, and ought to be condemned by all.**
He never should have approached them. Gee, when did I learn this??
Eighth grade?
well the SHTF today on Zero’s comment
- we gotta federal judge demanding a “minimum 3 page, single spaced” explanation from Holder on whether Zero intentionally sought to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States
rut ro! hehe
No, this is not bizarre, it is what Dictators do:
” - - - deliberately confused judicial activism—the wholesale manufacture of rights and laws by judges in accordance with their personal or political views—with judicial review, the power courts have to overturn unconstitutional legislation, which the Supreme Court has exercised since Marbury v. Madison (1803).”
The problem for Obama lies with the 50 % +/- that trusts what Obama says is the truth.
Can Obama keep his supporters dumb-downed until November?
GAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
snip- “Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases...”
Lest we forget the M.O. of Bath-House Barry and his minions...
http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate
I think that is what is key in this discussion.
That President Obama would say anything before the decisions has been rendered and announced is abhorrent, and many people have rightly seen it as an attempt to influence the decision through intimidation.
The man is depraved.
Dear obama: the Defense of Marriage act called. It wants you to enforce it with the same vigor that you attack the supreme court.
I liked Derrick a lot better when he was racing sports cars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.