Posted on 04/03/2012 2:27:22 AM PDT by BCrago66
It’s been a long time since we’ve heard a presidential demarche as outrageous as President Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare. The president made the remarks at a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. It was an attack on the court’s standing and even its integrity in a backhanded way that is typically Obamanian. For starters the president expressed confidence that the Court would “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.”
Reuters’ account noted that conservative leaders say the law was an overreach by Obama and the Congress. It characterized the president as having “sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.” Quoth the president: “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
The curious part of the statement is that it wasn’t exactly a strong majority in the House or the Senate. In fact....a number of Senators had to be promised various things...to get them around to voting in support of this.
Mark Levin’s commentary on Obama;s remarks are pretty good too:
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-methodically-rips-apart-obamas-scotus-intimidation-argument/
 The bad news is obvious. At Free Republic, you'll get the truth and nothing but the truth from conservatives participating on the Internet's Premiere conservative forum. Please make your donation to Free Republic's Second Quarter 2012 Freepathon today and help keep the lights on so that others can find the conservative way. Click here to pledge your support! |
Would not surprise in the least!
And the MSM just puts on their knee pads and “adores” him some more.
Oh, Mr. Obama, let's just forget the mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and due to lack of a severability clause, your entire "law" is going to get tossed on the ash heap of history.
I damn-well hope the Justices are personally outraged by this president’s action. I hope they can plainly see the existential threat to both the relevance of the court as an institution and themselves personally. For as soon as a dictator propels himself to that position, his first actions are always to do away with the courts and anyone who resists him. What will they do, bend the knee to king Obama or stand for the rule of law? God, please help those fair minded justices who try to uphold the constitution.
Paging Mark Halperin.
Remember, boys and girls—he has inflicted TWO MORE leftist crazies to join the others already there.
(Think : wise latina)
Not much credibility left in them there black robes.
If the Supreme Court wishes to maintain it’s power, they have to turn back the Marxist grab for centralized power in the Executive Branch.
Without the constitution’s separation of powers and limit on Federal power, there is no reason for them to even exist. By the constitution, Marxism is illegal. It elimates the power of the Congress and the Judicial Branch.
“the president expressed confidence that the Court would “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.”
I believe he meant “Democrats elected to Congress.THAT in fact is what is unprecedented. No single major piece of legislation in the past century has been enacted on a pure party line vote, especially in the face of a persistent majority of the public in opposition. The Constitution and all its checks and balances were designed to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of a majority, but also the reverse.
The 2010 Congress was the most liberal since 1965-66. Obama exploited a very rare moment in which progressives had a temporary lock on the reins of power and rammed through a highly unpopular piece of legislation. He didn’t care whether it was constitutional: he was achieving a century-old progressive dream. So what he did as president literally was unprecedented. SCOTUS, OTOH, has on occasion overturned major pieces of legislation; that’s not unprecedented: that’s their job! For Obama to claim this is unprecedented shows how poor a constitutional scholar he is (either that, or he’s merely a flagrant liar: take your choice).
They are not mutually exclusive.
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.