Posted on 04/03/2012 3:39:33 AM PDT by servo1969
The Talking Points Memo headline reads: “Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut, pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court would damage itself if it did something so ridiculous as find Obamacare unconstitutional:
"The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it."
Blumenthal was clearly engaged in “begging the question”:
"A type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion."
By saying Obamacare is so self-evidently wonderful and legitimate that only someone crazy would disagree with it, Blumenthal makes you wonder why this matter is even before the Court in the first place. For the answer to that question, see “begging the question.”
What is less clear is whether Blumenthal, in reminding the court that the executive branch had the monopoly on physical power, was not engaged in a kind of subtle menace. After all, the Court’s power is not based on “credibility.” It is based on power vested in it by the Constitution. What would the administration say if someone argued that the president’s authority was based on “credibility” rather than his legal power as chief executive?
By saying Obamacare is so self-evidently wonderful and legitimate that only someone crazy would disagree with it, Blumenthal makes you wonder why this matter is even before the Court in the first place. For the answer to that question, see “begging the question.”
What is less clear is whether Blumenthal, in reminding the court that the executive branch had the monopoly on physical power, was not engaged in a kind of subtle menace. After all, the Court’s power is not based on “credibility.” It is based on power vested in it by the Constitution. What would the administration say if someone argued that the president’s authority was based on “credibility” rather than his legal power as chief executive?
So unworthy a sentiment as intimidation would not occur to Blumenthal any more than it would to Winston Churchill, who when speaking to Stalin in 1944, trying to persuade the Generalissimo to give Poland a break after the war, drew from him one of the bon mots of the 20th century.
Churchill was telling Stalin:
"That is why I attach such paramount importance to good neighborly relations between a restored Poland and the Soviet Union. It was for the freedom and independence of Poland that Britain went into this war. The British feel a sense of moral responsibility to the Polish people, to their spiritual values. It is also important that Poland is a Catholic country. We cannot allow internal developments there to complicate our relations with the Vatican …"
Then:
"“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill’s line of reasoning.
Churchill stopped short. He had not expected such a question. After all, he was speaking about the moral influence of the Pope, not only in Poland, but, also, throughout the world. Once again, Stalin reaffirmed that he only respected force, and brought Churchill back down to Earth from the nebulous heavens."
You had to hand it to old Uncle Joe: cut to the chase. All business, all the time. But maybe the real question the Obama administration is asking itself now is not: “How many divisions has the Supreme Court?” Rather, it could be: “How much of this Obamacare money have we already promised to the boys? And what the hell are we going to do if it doesn’t go through?”
Administrations which are not very particular about spending money from the future in the today are probably the improvident sorts who hire people in advance.
Perhaps one answer to Blumenthal’s observation is to flip the statement:
"An administration that can’t come up with the vig can lose an awful lot of support from the base real quick. The only reason people obey it is because they get a check in a brown envelope. And the administration risks grave damage if a promise of that magnitude and importance doesn’t come off, because people have already made down payments on cars and vacations in expectation of that commitment."
And by the way, the Soviet Union is gone, but there’s still a Poland. And last I heard, there was still a pope.
The title says it all
“...the court risks grave damage...” if it doesn’t defend the Constitution and vote down this obomination.
Doesn’t this LIB asshat fool realize there still is a Constitution?????? Huh????? What’s a Constitution?
Moonbat!
This situation did bring Honduras to mind for me.
‘Bammy knows EXACTLY about Marbury v Madison ......he doesn’t care....and is wanting to find out just exactly what We the People will do about it.
Liberals ALWAYS push the boundaries as far as they can.. And we conservative remain comfortable enough toilet them continue to getaway with it.
I know a lot of people here do not like Ann Coulter, but one has to admit
that she was dead-on with her take of the mob tactics employed by the
liberals.
Her book “Demonic” is a great study on the matter.
To let them.....sheesh ....posting while caffeinated....
The late Percy Sutton(Malcolm X’s personal attorney) and Khalid al Nosair(former Black Panther and now an advisor to the Saudi royals) made sure he got the presidency of the Law Review. 0bama is a fascist with racial and religious manias. He more and more is reminiscent of a certain failed artist and paper hanger. iMHO, he is becoming more and more dangerous..
“Will conservative justices have an “accident” or be assassinated outright?”
I was/am thinking the same.
*****What an embarrassment to this nation to have such a moron occupy its highest office*****
These people are not morons. They are evil.
They get away with this unconstitutional teaching because the curriculum of our educational system has been steered away from the true historical teaching of the founders principals to anything but.
The dumbing down of our children has been a deliberate plot by commies who have infiltrated the system. This misnomer that the people in power are dumb is misguided at best.
Or,"The Pelican Brief" solution.
If that happens, it is open season on moonbats, all moonbats wherever they live.
Being a random low level moonbat is no protection. they all have a bounty
****And we conservative remain comfortable enough toilet them continue to getaway with it.****
An interesting typo mo. :)
Barack was a constitutional professor.
I worked in academentia for a while and saw 0bama’s type way too frequently. The skin color varied, the sex varied, the “gender” varied, but they all shared one trait: They were as useless as teats on a boar hog and carried the stench of affirmative action on them.
Jackson said the same thing about the court: They made their ruling. Now let them enforce it.
But these same lefties have NOOOOO problem with rulings that say abortion and anal penetration is A-OK.
Fascist bas-turds.
Well, the answer to that question will determine the nature of the opposition to this guy.
Apparently, the GOPe believes the answer is "yes, of course he does".
.
I have read a number of similar articles about the One’s threats. Comments on those articles express disgust at a rate of 10-1 or more. I think the left knows the train has departed the station. This is their last chance to sieze power. The November elections will see 0bama defeated, they know it.
****I worked in academentia for a while and saw 0bama’s type way too frequently****
The worst part about it is that Obamas type are the loudest most obnoxious in your face types about their agenda. They never talk about anything else. I am constantly amazed how driven these people are to infect the rest of the world with the plight of communism.
I could tell within hours if not minutes what the “teachers” bent was, and no dissension was met with kindness.
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.