Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Again! WH warns of 'unprecedented' SCOTUS ruling
Washington Examiner ^ | 4/4/2012 | Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

Posted on 04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by tellw

President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.

"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.

But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."

The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.

Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.

Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obama; obamugabe; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: tellw
Totally unfair of O'Donnell to confuse Carney with the facts!

Although, there is progress - the MSM is now actually checking the facts! One small step for a woman, one giant leap for all of America!

21 posted on 04/04/2012 1:27:41 PM PDT by In Maryland (Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

So, let’s say the SCOTUS declares the entire Obamugabe Care Law unconstitutional and throws it out.

Obamugabe says, “Fine, we will institute it anyway, SCOTUS be damned.”

THEN what do you do?.......................


22 posted on 04/04/2012 1:30:34 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djf

If Obama was unsure of certain provisions that might render his crown jewel unconstitutional. He should have used the Line Item Veto that the Republican controlled House passed with Unanimous Consent and was signed by a Democrat president.


23 posted on 04/04/2012 1:31:02 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

It was declared ‘unconstitutional’.............;^)


24 posted on 04/04/2012 1:32:20 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JLS
The quotation from Carney is the really interesting part to me. Carney is of course an idiot.

Don't you just want to stick his head in a toilet and flush?

25 posted on 04/04/2012 1:32:50 PM PDT by AAABEST (Et lux in tenebris lucet: et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

What’s this we? The House hold the purse strings.


26 posted on 04/04/2012 1:33:15 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tellw
Supreme Irony


27 posted on 04/04/2012 1:34:06 PM PDT by QT3.14 (OBAMA and his past: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

“How many fingers, Winston?”


28 posted on 04/04/2012 1:34:20 PM PDT by LRS ("This is silly! It can't be! It can't be!!" "Oh yes it is! I said you wouldn't know the joint.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: In Maryland

There was a time when CBS was the gold standard in broadcast news.
Once of twice this week, I thought I saw it again.


29 posted on 04/04/2012 1:34:20 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 70th Division

Is this where you found that stat? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf

I suggest everyone post it on their Facebook.....or whatever other means they communicate to family and friends.


30 posted on 04/04/2012 1:35:21 PM PDT by goodnesswins (2012..."We mutually pledge our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tellw

In Obamaville we wave a magic wand and all things become constitutional


31 posted on 04/04/2012 1:36:56 PM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
THEN what do you do?.......................


32 posted on 04/04/2012 1:38:38 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

But.....but.......it was a democratically elected congress!!!!!


33 posted on 04/04/2012 1:39:21 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tellw
-- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court --

No; he knows Critical Race Theory, and what Critical Race Theory says is that you should throw out pesky sh*t like the Constitution, and work around pesky institutions like the US Supreme Court, when those things get in the way of social justice. Why? Because things like the Constitution and institutions like the Supreme Court are the products of the White Man, and they merely perpetuate the White Man's hegemony over the power and the $$$$ floating around this awful land called the United States of America.

This is exactly the reason why Breitbart's vetting viz. CRT is so damn important.

Only those who are willingly blind cannot see it for what it is. Obama's entire life has been leading up to this point. Literally - his entire life.

34 posted on 04/04/2012 1:39:33 PM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tellw

The real problem is that in January 2009 we inaugurated what we thought we had elected, a president, one who swore to uphold the U. S. Constitution. But what we really inaugurated was an executive community organizer or, to put it more accurately, a revolutionary.

This man who was elected to an office that he is committed not to faithfully execute, but to faithlessly neglect in order to transform what he views as a flawed Constitution. Manifestly, he believes the Constitution must be transformed from an enumeration of the “negative rights” of a federal government of equal and divided powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, whose chief intent is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the government into an enumeration of the “positive rights” of the collective citizenry, whose chief intent is to empower a federal government of unequal and hierarchical powers, EXECUTIVE, legislative, and judicial, to both oversee and administer those rights to the collective citizenry in whatever way it sees fit.


35 posted on 04/04/2012 1:39:33 PM PDT by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

I was surprised at the Tea Party protest (D.C. 2008) at the number of young people with mini Constitutions in hand. Very encouraging.


36 posted on 04/04/2012 1:40:38 PM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tellw

‘law professor’? Wow?

I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last week. I watched People’s Court on the tv. Am I now a ‘law professor’?


37 posted on 04/04/2012 1:42:39 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

There hasn’t been a budget passed in three years, yet the government still runs.......


38 posted on 04/04/2012 1:43:39 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Rush is correct. Zer0 is playing to the ignorant voter base who believes freedom is the free stuff you get from the government.


39 posted on 04/04/2012 1:44:40 PM PDT by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Aparently not a very memorable one because noone remembers him. Nor, can they find his college records!


40 posted on 04/04/2012 1:44:40 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson