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.
LOL
So now the narrative is that, if a law is ‘big and important’, it’s automatically constitutional?
Interesting concept...
What? You’ve never heard the phrase, “too big to fail”?
;-)
I predict a replay of FDR’s Court Packing battle.
In that one, FDR lost the battle but won the war. He did not get to pack the Court, but afterwards they suddenly got religion and started seeing things his way.
Even if Obama loses this, look for the Left to put on a full-court press. “The Court is BROKEN and MUST be FIXED!” will be their battle cry. Court packing, mandatory retirement...they’ll try something. Will be a stealthy George Soros effort, not unlike the Secretaries of State Project.
Not entirely true. Every member of the military swears an allegiance to the Constitution, not to the president.
The president of Honduras overstepped his granted powers. The court ruled that he should be removed from office. He got a visit from the military, and agreed (with the alternatives never revealed to us) to leave the country the next day. Understand that this was a guy not inclined to give up power.
Obama immediately declared the even an “illegal coup” (along with Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and other despots), and threw US diplomatic power at returning the ex-president. This continued, even when a thorough reading of Honduran law showed beyond question correct and legitimate actions were done according to the Honduran Constitution.
The point: when the military is sworn to the constitution, the court DOES have an army.
In the book “Left Behind,“ a snake-oil salesman named Carpathian brings the World to ruin.
Dictator Baby-Doc Barack is our Carpathian as he tries to bring America to ruin.
Not just every member of the military, but every member of the federal government, including all the "alphabet soup" police style agencies. Now, the question becomes, will such as those honor their given word, or not?
I know not what course others might take, but as for me, I choose to end my life as I've lived it, faithful to my G-d, loyal to the country I was born in, and true to my own given word...
the infowarrior
Likewise any talk of “suspending the constitution”. Suspend it, and we get a full reset to “by right of conquest”.
That reminds me of the "Far Side" cartoon where the chickens are going to attack the farmer--they get as far as the front porch of the farmer's house and one of them asks the others, "Why do we always get this far and then chicken out?"
In response to Stalin's question, when the Church undermined the Communist Party's legitimacy in the eyes of the people, the Party fell.
If tomorrow the Supreme Court publicly issued a ruling that Obama was not the legitimate President, how many generals would continue to follow Obama's orders?
****And we conservative remain comfortable enough toilet them continue to getaway with it.****
An interesting typo mo. :)
In “caffeine-no” veritas...
Liberals ARE pushing this country down the TOILET.
What was portrayed as a military coup in Honduras in 2009 (and criticized by Obama) was in fact the Supreme Court ordering the president (a Chavez puppet) him arrested for trying to change their constitution. He was sent into exile by the military, and an interim government was put in place; sanctions were placed on Honduras until they allowed him to return, but he didn’t get his job back.
Heck, I learned about Marbury v. Madison when I was in JUNIOR HIGH - back when you were required to pass the Constitution Test in order to get into High School. And, then again, my Junior year in High School when, once again, we had to take and pass the “Constitution Test” (with a score of at least 75% or above) simply to GRADUATE.
Frankly, I think Obama himself (not to mention his supporters) were quite shocked when it turned out that MILLIONS of “stupid Americans” are more aware of what’s in the Constitution and how our system of Government works than our President. I often find it rather amusing when the liberals believe their own propaganda.
I SO wanted to *debate* with a liberal friend of mine from High School who went to UC and took a class taught by Obama last night. Unfortunately, she wouldn’t bite and is remaining silent - as are most of my liberal friends on this subject - because they KNOW they have not a leg to stand on in trying to defend Obama’s idiocy and threats to SCOTUS.
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.