Skip to comments.Sources say smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be inevitable
Posted on 07/13/2010 1:45:56 AM PDT by Red Steel
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.
A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.
This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Be still my heart ..
I see you found the nugget Star. :-)
This would be an EXCELLENT time for Republicans to stall further Obama appointments to ALL Federal judgeship.
How does adherence to the constitution become a ‘smack down’.
This is a ridiculous premise.
That wouldn’t be a nugget ... it would be
the Blessed Boulder ........ ;)
I’m hip. Anytime an article starts with “Sources Say”...
Should have known better.
Keep dreaming. When was the last time the GOP did anything but roll over and play dead every time 0bama wanted to do anything? They helped vote to confirm the "wise" Latina. They seem quite eager to confirm the she-man. Apparently the GOP thinks that the word "bork" is only something the Swedish Chef says.
And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm. ...
Agreed. Sources also said Rahm Emanuel was going to resign as well. He's still there.
I am amazed to hear that the Kagan vote has been delayed one week at the request of the republicans.
Don’t have any details.
“Be still my heart ..”
Big difference between knowing something is wrong and doing anything about it.
rahm was to resign in a few months, not immediately. I think it was to be around Christmas.
Isn’t the author of this little piece of sensationalism the same guy who got Zotted for threatening you? Us? Somebody?
Obamacare is squarely in the Court’s pervue. The author sets out the law’s basic flaw well.
However the president’s qualifications to hold office are affirmed by the electoral college and not some court. The Constitution sets forth the only ways a president may be removed: Expiration of his term of office, Impeachment in the Senate, and Death or Resignation allowing the VP to take office. Whatever his personal opinions, anyone expecting Roberts to issue a cease and desist order telling Obama to vacate the White House is kidding himself.
As for Holder, he is an Executive Branch officer. Separation of Powers most likely will shield him.
First, I am not a lawyer.
It seems that BHO was not the POTUS until Roberts swore him in. Remember, they did it twice to make sure.
If Roberts swore BHO in on false pretenses, could Roberts rescind or invalidate the swearing in?
I know one cannot transfer title of stolen goods.
WTH?!?! Never heard that one before. Since when are the qualifying documents to serve as potus the responsibility of the electoral college?
I'd like to believe that, but I don't. Still, I do think Bambi's on a collision course with the SC, although I don't know what is going to provoke the final confrontation.
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.