Posted on 04/04/2012 9:26:11 AM PDT by george76
Obama’s little temper tantrum over the Supreme Court voting down his unconstitutional takeover of the health insurance industry may have awakened a sleeping giant — the Judiciary. Good lawyers know better than to tick off judges.
And your common graduate of Cleveland State University knows the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law. Apparently a Harvard education was wasted on the president because on Monday, the president said it was “unprecedented” for a “group of unelected people” to tell him no. Instead of studying John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Barack Obama must have been poring over George Wallace’s tirades against that “group of unelected people” in Washington.
...
What sort of 40-year-old American who is not a socialist blathers on about “negative liberties”? He wants unlimited government. That’s socialism. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith called him on that perverted view of constitutional government. Expect more of these confrontations, not less as Barack Obama has chosen anger, hate and spite as his re-election theme.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.dailymail.com ...
The Doctrine of Negative Rights - or as Obama referred to it, the "charter of negative liberties," is the OPPOSITE of socialism, you idiot.
If Americans WOULD "blather on about negative liberties" a little bit more, we wouldn't be facing freaking collectivist armageddon now.
I've heard he actually used ...
...much harder to pick up.
Most likely the fact that they falsified data on their bar applications, like aliases and citizenship caused them to remove themselves before it became public, to their political detriment.
Really? I didn't see that in the article. Link, please. Thanks.
Is his picture in either the Occidental, Columbia or Harvard yearbooks? What about any student newspapers?
Could someone have been paid to take the tests for him?
There is something deeper in both of them giving away the "E" ticket.
Hee Hee
I see you got the joke, and raised me one!
It’s interesting to note if you check the same listing now the phrase “court ordered” is removed from the response.
Poor Bill Clinton got shafted compared to the things this guy is getting away with.
Isn’t that absolutely amazing? Did we ever think, in those horrible Clinton years, that we would ever think he was just a piker and didn’t do that much wrong? Did we ever think there would be a worse liar and scammer?
Thanks! Interesting that there are no “former names” listed for Barry Soetoro.
With his evident drinking problem, I doubt he passed too many bars until he got taxpayer funded Crown Royal.
It is sickening that the media made a bigger deal about alleged cocaine use by George Bush (no evidence, no admission) and they rarely if ever said anything about Obama’s admitted cocaine usage.
I still find leftist and everyday folk who didn’t know that Obama used Cocaine, but they swear that Bush is a drug abuser.
Thanks Media. You leftist propaganda whores.
I should of said the Obama administration, not Obama (although the thought of him having to do it personally brings a smile to my face). The three pages, single spaced thing is in fact a requirement laid down by this judge asking for the administration to clarify the President’s comments that it would be “unprecedented” if the Judiciary struck down Obamacare. Obviously there is plenty of precedent and the court’s power to strike down laws as unconstitutional is at the heart of its coequal status with the Executive and Legislative branches even if they are “unelected” as Obama pointed out.
Constitutionalists complain when radical blackrobes make law. Roe is THE poster child of judge made law. Recently the Ninth Circus imposed fag marriage.
There are no similar errors, nothing remotely close ever emerged from a conservative majority on any court.
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.