Posted on 04/03/2012 2:10:13 PM PDT by mwilli20
I was going to wonder if the Justices were really serious about the rule of law or just for Bush.
The law is arrogant as OBama, but, still, this guy is a joke.
Wise latina is another term for a latina getting her wisdom from doing a job as a whore on the sidewalk.
ping ... excellent post!
To tell you the truth, it does not matter. Obama has the media like Clinton did. All cover up and the left has the re-education so most of the public has not a clue about the constituional form of government.
With the GoP backing progressive Romney and staying silent as obama moves to communism, that is what is going to happen. We are kicking against the pricks; wasting our emotions and mental energy. It’s all b.s.
Amazing indeed.
I'd guess the main reason she is basing her argument on the "pursuit of happiness" concept is because that is exactly where the Supremes found the "right to privacy" that lead them to the 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. This ruling invalidated ALL of the laws of the 50 states on this subject and the companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, pretty much sewed up the right to kill your unborn child for ANY reason, at ANY time, ANY where (a doctor is found willing to do it). We see where THAT slippery slope has brought us. God help us if this administration is given carte blanche to tell us what will make us happy!
We both know his vision to transform America involves a spiral toward socialism/marxism. Yet from our electives in congress, and from those currently running for POTUS, when it comes to his stated intent, all I hear is **crickets**
I can’t help but wonder what it is, which keeps them silent? Is it fear? Is it ignorance? Or, are they all in on it? Since they all go about as if Obama is merely misguided. Yet, we know nothing could be further from the truth.
Obama is on mission. He is focused. Obama intends to do what his cousin Osama attempted to do...totally annihilate America, to the extent she resembles absolutely zero edifications her past glory. Obama intends to drive a stake through her heart. He has stated so from the beginning, when he said he intends to transform America.
Please ping me too if you find it. thx
Well I guess that explains that!
Interesting post. Thanks.
Newt has on numerous occasions called Obama extremely radical and dangerous.
He’s the one gasping for political air, however.
:-(
The deliberate mischaracterization of the Judicial branch as 'unelected' is a straw man fallacy of the first order being used by Øbama and his cømmunist sycophants to stampede the ignorant.
That it's duplicitous premise has not been fatally attacked here at FR surprises me, and I say that as a man many years removed from academia.
And the true evil of said premise lies not in it's attempt to hoodwink the uninformed re the Supreme Court, but in its brazen frontal assault on the essence of our republican form of government !
Nominees for direct elections for offices from dog catcher to Congress are decided upon by US citizens via a simple majority vote.
Henceforward, those elected are empowered to act on our behalf in their respective posts until such time as their term of office expires.
To wit: under our Constitution, the citizenry elects Senators from each state to represent us in the upper house for terms of six years.
Those Senators, under authority of Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, must either approve or reject - via a 2/3 majority - any nomination by the Executive for:
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
Nominations for the offices above under A2S2 must therefore, in fact, pass the muster of a 'super majority' (2/3) of our elected Senators to assume their respective posts.
How then is the latter not an example of the very basis of our Founders' desire that we be a Republic ? !
And how is Øbama's brazen attack on the Court's legitimacy not a frontal assault on the very basis of the Republic itself ? ?
Keep in mind it was Boehner who was "accidentally" recorded by 'Rat operatives when he was on his car phone "helping" the enormously effective Gingrich with a strategy to deal with Gingrich's "ethics charges". IMO Boehner is on Boehner's side.
OTOH Obama's thugs may have his grandchildren...
I never said that we shouldn’t go after Obama hard on this. I think it is perfectly appropriate for the political branches and politicians to blast Obama for his Supreme Court comment. I just don’t think it is appropriate for judges to do that because it feeds into the narrative he was trying to create.
Is it possible that our Republic would be saved by the Judicial branch, even while stacked with Clintoon/Zero appointees?
I kept wondering when the someone within the alphabet agencies would do something, leak info, take some action to protect us. Nothing visible has happened. Could it be that Roberts will exonerate himself after swearing in the impostor?
Someone should write a children’s book:
“The Little Dictator that Couldn’t”
What did you come up with. I cannot remember a similar event, but perhaps back in FDR's administration?
Audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/JudgeSmithDOJOrder.mp3
The MSM has done there best to botch the context and bury the lead, even pave it over.
This is transcript in full context:
Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Justice Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –
Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.
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.