Posted on 07/05/2010 5:31:32 PM PDT by thecodont
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week after landmark decisions protecting the right to have a gun and the right of corporations to spend freely on elections. But the year's most important moment may have come on the January evening when the justices gathered at the Capitol for President Obama's State of the Union address.
They had no warning about what was coming.
Obama and his advisors had weighed how to respond to the court's ruling the week before, which gave corporations the same free-spending rights as ordinary Americans. They saw the ruling as a rash, radical move to tilt the political system toward big business as they coped with the fallout from the Wall Street collapse. Some advisors counseled caution, but the president opted to criticize the conservative justices in the uncomfortable spotlight of national television as Senate Democrats roared their approval.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is still angered by what he saw as a highly partisan insult to the independent judiciary. The incident put a public spotlight on the deep divide between the Obama White House and the Roberts court, one that could have a profound effect in the years ahead.
The president and congressional Democrats have embarked on an ambitious drive to regulate corporations, banks, health insurers and the energy industry. But the high court, with Roberts increasingly in control, will have the final word on those regulatory laws.
Many legal experts foresee a clash between Obama's progressive agenda and the conservative court.
"Presidents with active agendas for change almost always encounter resistance in the courts," said Stanford University law professor Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appellate court judge. "It happened to [Franklin D.] Roosevelt and it happened to Reagan. It will likely happen to Obama too."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“But BO, Kagan & Co. don’t care about upholding the Constitution.”
And I agree with you as well. However, the gang you mentioned is not yet in the majority on the Court. We will see if the Fab Five have the cajones to push back. I believe that they will.
C’mon, USSC! It’s payback time on obama.
(Hint: Eligibility.)
“I believe Goldwater was one of the inspirations to Ronald Reagan.”
As he was to the entire conservative movement that raised Reagan to power, and is raising itself once again.
I cannot say that I was a personal friend of Senator Goldwater, but I had the honor of meeting him once and speaking to him informally on a few occasions.
That man was “the real deal”. However, there are those that will, and are, following in his footsteps. He got it, and others do as well. We now live in dark times, but the light is coming. It is a good time for a patriot to be alive. We have a purpose, now more than ever.
Liberal lies about Goldwater were revealed shortly after the election of LBJ.
Liberal lies are always revealed. It may take time but eventually they are revealed for the lies that they are. It’s just a shame that liberal lies are usually revealed after its too late to do anything about them.
I've been thinking this argument is the very argument that will work to defeat the dems. Conservatives are often criticized as heartless, when we're actually realists.
Republicans may convince more with: 'we'd all like to think the dems plan would work, but years of experience show us human nature to be different. In this real world, we sometimes must make difficult choices.....'
"Obama and his advisors had weighed how to respond to the court's ruling the week before, which gave corporations the same free-spending rights as ordinary Americans."
The above statement encapsulates a fundamental misunderstanding that is prevalent in our (publicly educated) society and promulgated by the ill-informed (and nefariously motivated) media.
There was a 2003 "documentary" called The Corporation which stated that very misunderstanding. It received a great deal of exposure in college towns.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/
PLOT SUMMARY: "Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it. Written by Kenneth Chisholm (kchishol@rogers.com)"
The Supreme Court, nor any other court in the land, for that matter does not give rights to anyone.
The Constitution enumerates rights which are inherent. It also (in the Tenth Amendment) recognizes the existence of many others which are unenumerated, but still inherent.
The Constitution is a framework of limitation on the government's intrusion on and abrogation of, those rights.
The decision by the Supreme Court was not "activist." What was "activist" was the attempt by Congress to set its own rules for campaign money and skew the playing field in favor of Liberal PACs and Unions.
The wording of the article also perpetuates the mistaken notion that corporations exist independently of the people who run them, and that publicly held entities are somehow held by Americans who are not "ordinary", as if being "ordinary" was some kind of status to be legally protected.
Any "ordinary" American who has any form of pension fund, 401k, profit sharing or private investment in stocks or a mutual fund had his political speech abrogated by restrictions on the political activities of corporations of which they own a part.
(Interestingly enough, it is the Liberal politicians who keep telling the electorate that they are going to get them their share of "the pie" when it is the very investments that are held by those Americans that constitute the "pie" in question. The Liberals are, of course, suggesting that we would be better off to let them take control of our "pie" and decide who gets a slice, and how big it will be - for a fee, of course.)
The Supreme Court decision, while being vilified in the press and by Liberal politicians, was, in this case, about as non-activist as it could be.
If people aren't aware that these rights are THEIR OWN in the first place, they end up being ever so much more grateful to the government that swipes them all away and then doles them out piecemeal. It fits in with BO's erroneous view of the Constitution, that it should not be a charter of negative liberties (what the government can't do to you) but of positive ones (what the government MUST do for you).
*eyeroll* I know I'm a broken record on this but...First Amendment rights are God-given. Courts cannot "give" them to anyone.
If the supreme court would only say “papers please.” OB would wet his pants.
Because the liberal utopia is a fantasy, I do not believe it will ever happen.
Much like what happened in Greece, liberal utopias develop in that way and then when they fall apart, it is not a pretty sight.
I think that is why you are seeing Euros make a one eighty before it is too late for them to turn back.
I think we will see a lot more Euros taking harder stances on everything now including immigration policies and insane massive government spending on social programs.
Or, as no doubt (at least the Conservatives members) some Justices must be thinking: Hey Barry, "Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining!"
Don’t need a backup plan. Having the CJ swear in the POTUS is tradition not requirement. Any judge can administer the oath. (Note: LBJ)
Don’t worry. They will be. Specifically, they will fall victim to the wrath of the 2nd Amendment.
Coolidge’s father, a JP swore him in. A very moving moment for both men, as they were personally very close.
In his own words, Zero doesn’t like restraints imposed by constitutions (from a radio interview when he was pretending to be an IL state Senator). Remember when the Honduran president Zelaya ignored their supreme court order to abide by their constitutional term limits and Zero called it a coup? He doesn’t like it when these silly laws get in the way of establishing dictatorial powers.
I'm getting the very distinct and uncomfortable impression that our media is egging him on, by trying to present the other two branches of our government as being wholly unreasonable to impede BO's path to power. Although our government is designed with these checks and balances in mind (to foil the establishment of any dictatorship) the press and broadcast media forget this, and seem giddy with delight at the thought of making a "superstar" out of BO and ensuring that all else will bow to him.
It's more than the media's liberal bias and their apparent desire for a one-party government. This is a cult of personality.
I feel sick and angry thinking about this.
Doesn’t it occur to everyone that those Communist infiltrators are only some of the fifth column infiltrators. The media was a huge target and the haters of America and lovers of the breakdown of America sit on the staffs of most of America’s news organizations.
“Don’t need a backup plan. Having the CJ swear in the POTUS is tradition not requirement. Any judge can administer the oath. (Note: LBJ) “
If I were Roberts and Obama gets re-selected in 2012, I would have Ginsburg swear him in. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near the Insult in Cheif on Innaguration. Heck, if I were Roberts I would schedule hangnail surgery for that time and date to give a valid excuse to get out of it and let the libs OWN him.
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.