The Real Reason Obama Attacked The Supreme Court (From April 5, 2012)

Barack Obama disrespected the office of the presidency with a speech he gave earlier this week. His challenge to the Supreme Court’s authority was wrong. They represent an equal but separate power of our government. It is not his place to challenge that authority. Further, to do it while they are considering his case (Obama-care) was unprofessional, undignified and shameful. It is a new low. And, though you’ll never read it in “proper” publications or hear it spoken by talking heads, most of America is asking a simple question, ‘just who the hell does this guy think he is?’

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will 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,” Obama said. Then adding, “I’d like to just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Let’s see, strong majority? Hardly. Obama-care passed the Democratic controlled House by seven votes. Judicial activism is not determining whether a law is or is not constitutional, as he would have you believe. Judicial activism is when judges allow their personal outlooks to guide their decisions, often contrary to precedent or to well established interpretations of the Constitution. And to push the idea that “…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed…” is just a blatant lie. That’s a large part of what the Supreme Court does.

USA Today showed clearly, the Supreme Court has a long precedent of over-turning cases. Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137):

The Constitution is first. All other laws are evaluated against the principles put forth by the Constitution. Period. End of discussion.

The truth is, in law school the Marbury case, when compared to a general education for us common folk, is on the scale of gravity or the world is round. It is a foundational block. There’s no chance it is skipped. And there is no chance, none, that Obama missed the class that day. No, he just outright lied to the American people, again. But why?

The prevailing thought is Obama’s comments were meant to intimidate the court, in hopes they will rule on Obama-care in his favor.

Texas Republican Lamar Smith, “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.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, “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.”

Newsmax.com reported, “Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III told Newsmax that President Barack Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court earlier this week was a dangerous attempt to “intimidate” the justices into upholding his controversial Obama-care law.”

Meese went on to say, “I think he is trying to intimidate the court, or at least trying to in effect rile up the public against the court — if they should make a decision which is constitutional, and which is adverse to him,” declared Meese.

Intimidation seems like a valid interpretation of his motives. But I’m skeptical. I find it difficult to believe the Supreme Court would ultimately be intimidated. Members don’t answer to votes. The reason for a life appointment to the bench is to allow them to rule without concern for popularity.

No, I don’t see intimidation. I see something a little more nasty. Obama, for his myriad flaws, is no dummy. He knows the law of the land. He knows his comments are inaccurate and will be called out. What folks are failing to realize, or acknowledge, is that he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care whether his comments are challenged by attorneys and he doesn’t care if the media rips him. The speech wasn’t for attorneys or the media or for white America. The truth is, and this is another reality you’ll be hard pressed to find in “proper” publications, his comments were aimed directly at the poor and uneducated.

Consider it. Reality for these folks is predominately grape-vine here-say, provided by friends, neighbors and family. Few of these folks are going to contemplate whether the mandate is constitutional or not, or whether the penalty is a tax or a fine. Even less will actually care. It’s not their reality. These folks don’t investigate contrasting opinions and cross-reference material to make reasonable judgments. They’re more likely to form an opinion based on sound-bites they hear from the news before their favorite TV show. They rely on headlines, not content. And that is exactly why Obama said what he said.

You and I hear a disrespectful challenge to the Supreme Court. The uneducated hear their hero standing up to white America. When Obama says if the court strikes down Obama-care it will be “unprecedented”, you and I hear a lie. His audience hears him warning them the white man is sticking it to them again. But don’t blame the people. It’s not their fault. Democrats have fostered this outlook for generations, through buying votes with assistance programs. Republicans are not guiltless either, for they sat back and, mostly through inaction, allowed it to occur.

Interestingly, the prevailing thought is that Obama has to conduct a slash and burn re-election campaign because he lacks accomplishments and can’t run on his record. I submit the reality is the exact opposite. He has, from his and the radical left perspective, accomplished much. He didn’t make a mistake when challenging the Supreme Court. It was an intentional play. He regularly ignores, disrespects and cherry-picks constitutional law. Is it because he doesn’t know the law? Please. He does this to break the mold, to set a precedent, so others will follow his lead. If you get enough people saying, for example, healthcare is a right, then healthcare becomes a right. He is not after subtle change. He is after a complete re-build of America as we know it.

Why has he attacked the energy industries with such ferocity? He knows he can’t transform America’s energy infrastructure during a presidential term. Although a proper objective, going green will take America 30 or 40 years. Why not, as any reasonable person would do, slowly unroll policy and nudge America along? Instead, he goes for the jugular and uses going green as cover for his destruction of America as we know it. It’s simple really. If you force the energy industries to conduct business expensively they must, in turn, raise the price to the public. When the public pays more money for heat, electricity or gas, they have less for other things. He is about stripping the wealth from the citizens because “money is power” and he can’t meet his radical objectives while the citizenry has power.

Why has he not demanded a budget from the senate, run by the party he controls? Why has the deficit increased by $5 trillion dollars under his watch? Is it because he doesn’t realize he’s spending money we don’t have? Or is it to intentionally destabilize the country? When the Fed prints money, the value of the dollar decreases and that means you have less money.

Why has he done absolutely nothing about unemployment? Because he fails to realize it exists? No, because he actually wants high unemployment. The more suckling from the government teat, the more citizens will rely upon him and his party (the Democratic strategy of buying votes). Worse, the less ability these folks have to fight back against the radical changes.

He hasn’t done a thing about housing except allow banks to delay foreclosures. Do you really think that policy is to protect you? Hardly. It’s so home values stay depressed. Depressed home values means no equity and no equity means no way for you or me to borrower money. He can’t transform America, the way he wants it, without bankrupting the citizenry.

Someone help me. Someone name and outline a policy he has implemented, that was truly about protecting the country, improving the economy or helping the citizenry. But don’t waste my time with the trivial. I’m not interested in the “$500 in everyone’s pocket”, or the “$1200 savings over a year” gimmick legislation. I want real, major policy, implemented to the benefit of America.

Obama is about changing America to what he and his minority on the far-left feel is valid, not what the majority feel is valid. To do this, he must destroy common notions about the Constitution, so others will feel embolden to challenge it, too. He challenges the court because he doesn’t respect it, he wants to do away with it. He must make sure you and I are stripped of any wealth so we are less capable of resisting his change. Because he represents the minority, he must use race and class-warfare to divide the majority. A piece of pie is easier to consume than the whole. He must spend wildly and run industry into the ground to harm the economy or worse, to bankrupt the country. He is not after subtle changes. He’s playing for keeps. He is after profound changes only accomplished by the destruction of the old and a complete re-build of the new. Obamerika.

And so, you no longer have to scratch your head and wonder, ‘just who the hell does this guy think he is?’

June 28, 2012

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

I.M.Citizen

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

Thanks for this thread. I have a difference of opinion that is based on my opposition of legislating from the Bench, separation of Powers, well read it for yourself:

Now that Chief Justice John Roberts has destroyed the boundary between the Judiciary and the Legislative Branches of the US Federal Government by changing a legally approved fine into a tax with no vote from the Legislature, there is no limit to what laws the SCOTUS can now reinterpret to their benefit.

The Backdoor conversion of a fine in Obama”care” into a tax by Justice Roberts requires that The People convert the other Rogue rulings of the SOCTUS into rulings consistent with the US Constitution. Obviously this cannot be done by lawyers, as lawyers do not obey laws, they just reinterpret laws to suit themselves.

Obama”care” is the Death Knell for America, and this horrific law was upheld today by our SCOTUS. The People must rewrite the US Constitution so as to restore the System of Checks and Balances between our co-equal branches of Government, first with the Judiciary, and then a severe reduction in the authority of the President.

Intriguing, perhaps, but utterly silly, Panglossian blather. By this time next year, we will have had three chances to turn back Obamacare cold: (1) Olympia Snowe, a republican, voted to let the bill out of committee onto the senate floor; (2) The supreme court could have applied the constitution to Obamacare today; (3) November 2012.

Snowe and Roberts just gave away the first two out of three. When the stakes are this high, you don’t give away clear wins as part of a some clever, deep strategy. You take the win and go home. You didn’t see Kagan or Buzzy voting against Obamacare as part of a deep strategy. That’s because they don’t do stupid things like deliberately losing today so they just might win tomorrow.

"The truth is, and this is another reality you’ll be hard pressed to find in “proper” publications, his comments were aimed directly at the poor and uneducated.

I strongly agree with that analysis. In part why some say the Republicans always bring a knife to a gunfight. Effective communications is two-way process.

My mantra has been, concepts that seem common sense and logical to most here, is completely foreign to the poor and uneducated. When Republicans talk, we preach to the choir, There is no way the message from the Republicans resonates or even makes a blip on the uninformed radar.

The war has been lost in the classroom and in the media that informs. Obama understands that very well.

Looking at the cold reality of America, one must conclude the following:

1.) We are a Nation in decline;

2.) The problems we have are of our own making;

3.) The Iron Triangle of ‘RINO-—Liberal Agenda Media-—Democrat’ will always unite to fight off any attempt to change the decline of Amerika. Afterall, where would be be without ‘Bipartisan Cave-Ins’ from ‘both’ sides of the aisle.

4.) “ If you want something done right, then you have to do it yourself.” is an old bromide that has been true in the past.

I sent you a ping on my recent thread: “Will State Constitutional Conventions Convene in 2013 or 2014?” to more fully develop my suggested response.

Lemme know what your opinions are. Thanks.

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.