Posted on 06/26/2014 10:12:51 AM PDT by rhema
Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the administration supported (though the case was argued by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).
The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.
So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”
Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background.
While yesterday’s Supreme Court decision unanimously rejecting the administration’s argument that a search warrant wasn’t required for the government to look at cell-phone records and data got a lot of attention, it’s not the first time the Obama administration has taken an anti–civil liberties stance. In last year’s case of U.S. v. Jones, the Justice Department essentially tried to convince the Supreme Court that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure should not prevent the government from tracking any American at any time without any reason.
Justice argued that the police should be able to attach a GPS device to your car without a search warrant or even any reason to believe you committed a crime. Fortunately for those who fear the ever-growing power of the federal government, particularly its abuse of new technology, all nine justices agreed that the Fourth Amendment prevents the government from attaching a GPS to your car without getting a warrant.
Even Justice Sotomayor, President Obama’s own nominee to the Court, agreed that the government had invaded “privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection.” But Eric Holder wanted to ignore the Bill of Rights and believed that his agents should be able to track all of your movements in public by attaching a GPS device to your car without permission from a judge. This is a frightening view of government power enhanced by new surveillance technology that would have directly threatened our liberty. When will liberals wake up to the fact that this administration takes positions on executive power that would make Richard Nixon and John Mitchell, his attorney general, blush?
Turley or Hannity said that there is a paragraph in the 100 page decision that is most relavant It states EO are not to be used to supervene the other points —the power of the presidency can not be used to deminish the powers of another branch of the government ( am paraphrasing)
We need to find that paragraph and give it the most publicity as we can!
Our decision in Chadha illustrates that principle. There, we held that a statutory provision authorizing one House of Congress to cancel an executive action taken pursuant to statutory authority—a so-called “legislative veto”—exceeded the bounds of Congress’s authority under the Constitution. 462 U. S., at 957–959. We did not hesi tate to hold the legislative veto unconstitutional even though Congress had enacted, and the President had signed, nearly 300 similar provisions over the course of 50 years. Id., at 944–945. Just the opposite: We said the other branches’ enthusiasm for the legislative veto “sharp ened rather than blunted” our review. Id., at 944. Like wise, when the charge is made that a practice “enhances the President’s powers beyond” what the Constitution permits, “[i]t is no answer . . . to say that Congress sur rendered its authority by its own hand.”
“Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?”
And yet, he’s still in office.
Way to go freaking go, Boehner!
It's funnier than that!
He always says he taught Constitutional Law, but never more than that. A tiny piece of Constitutional law, dealing with racial grievances and community organizing. A fantastic foundation on which to build a Federal Chief Executive career.
Learning on the job has proven to be beyond his wildest delusional abilities; and that of his handlers.
The results speak for themselves. A historical CF.
Here’s another funny that’s not mentioned:
The community 0 organized was controlled by a black Muslim street gang founded by a Mexican drug cartel, who socialized in drugs, male/female prostitition , murder for hire and were involved with Kadaffi in gun running and domestic terrorism
Noah Robinson ( as in M Robinson O) who is Jesse Jackson’s half bro is currently doing life for his involvment with the gang (drugs to east coast and murder iirc). Yes Jesse and MOs ancestors are from the same Friends Plantation area and MO spent enough time growing up in the JJ home to be called Sis by the siblings.
They were all close its reported until Noah’s arrest!
WE ARE FAMILY ......
I was hoping that question had been asked and answered today.
I hope I can find the authoritative answer.
My father’s uncle was a pilot in the Air Force. He now sits around and watches MSNBC all day. He truly believes that it is Obama trying to save the Constitution from the depredations of the Republicans.
He’s also a pro-choice atheist, and his daughter is a whack job liberal who spends all her time posting liberal crap on Facebook. Typically, she goes into a rage if anyone cares enough to confront her with the facts.
bttt
That’s POSOTUS to you!
Hey, give BammaB00p a break. It’s not easy governing 57 states!
but they’ve been avoiding the real questions,
2008 Article II Section I
2010 ACA
if they really think it’s now legal to shoot so called
pro-choicers, that says a lot about their mentality
But they didn't tell you *which* Constitution!
And just think, this is a “Constitutional Scholar” that OBVIOUSLY doesn’t understand the U.S. Constitutional limits of the Presidency!
And we common people are supposed to understand and follow the law(s), when well educated idiots like this are the teachers?!?!?!?
Obama and his team are extremists... the Supreme Court see that... just like citizens see it...
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.