Posts Tagged ‘unelected’

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

April 5, 2012

First of all, I have previously written – at length – that Barack Obama is a fascist.  I hope more people will believe me now.

In that article, I begin by correcting the historical fabrication that “fascism” was somehow “right-wing.”  It was most certainly NOT.  Hitler and his Nazism was on the far right of the radical far LEFT.  Fascism was a rival brand of socialism along with communism; and the war between the fascist Nazis and the communist Marxists was akin to a war between Pepsi and Coke or between Bratz dolls and Barbie dolls.

Then I start ticking off examples of fascist things Obama has pulled off.  And of course I just go on and on because there’s just so much.   Obama is a spurting firehose of fascism.

Even given the fact that “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” is a loooong article, there are current examples galore: for example there is the recent “hot mic” moment in which Obama reveals he is a Quisling just waiting to betray America when he doesn’t have to be accountable to voters during his second term (and see also here).  There was the issue of ObamaCare and all the lies that went into selling it to the American people and all the terrible developments that have come out since such as the SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR FUNDING GAP and the fact that up to 20 million workers will lose their employee-based coverage and be thrown into an inferior healthcare system.  And then there is the issue of the headline above, of course.

When Obama demonized the Supreme Court and the separation of powers Monday, he was merely continuing to reveal his contempt at the Constitution and the founding fathers who wrote it, such as when he said:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot.”

And so it’s really no surprise that Obama would say to the Supreme Court the moment it revealed it might not support his fascist messiahship, “OUT, damn spot!”

It’s just so much easier for an Obama to “fundamentally transform America” when Hitler is the government and the government is Hitler, isn’t it?

Appeals Court Calls President’s Bluff on Obamacare
Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012 08:17 PM
By David A. Patten

President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.

On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.

He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.

“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”

The order from the 5th Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.

As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the 5th Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.

The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws.

“Clearly, Jerry Smith was upset by the president’s remarks and he has every right to demand clarification,” judicial expert Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice told Newsmax. “Obviously, he’s making a point as well as requesting clarification.

“But the president left himself open to that,” Levey added. “Of course the president doesn’t really believe the Supreme Court can’t strike down unconstitutional laws. But if the president’s going to say things like that to demagogue, then he is responsible for them.”

Many observers saw the president’s remarks as a clumsy attempt to “work the refs” and influence the court’s decision on his healthcare reforms. His challenge to the independent judiciary branch of government provoked widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle Tuesday.

“For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice,” wrote Washington Post correspondent Ruth Marcus, who has been a staunch defender of the president’s policies.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, published a pointed editorial taking the president to task.

“Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law,” it stated. “As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama’s inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.”

By upping the ante, the 5th Circuit focuses more attention on a misstep that the administration would prefer go unnoticed. The president came under attack from the left and right Tuesday over what looked like a blatant attempt to intimidate the court and influence its verdict. He quickly backed off from his challenge to the judiciary, however.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected legislature.”

Obama went on to assert that overturning congressional legislation was so extraordinary that the burden of proof would be on those who felt it could be unconstitutional.

That view, however, appeared to be at odds with the position of the key swing vote in the case, however: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional,” Justice Kennedy said to U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli on the second day of oral arguments last week. “But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

[For the record, I added the link to the WSJ article.]

CBS begins its piece on this “unprecedented” fascism by Obama as follows:

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. 

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

As the CBS piece points out, the heart of Obama’s “case” is simply purely dishonest – and Obama has the law degree to document that he’s a lying fool rather than just an ordinary fool.

And, on the “lying fool” thesis, let me further point out that this ObamaCare law – as dreadful and harmful to America as it is – would almost certainly have been declared constitutional had it not been for pathological deceit by Obama.  An LA Times piece, even while being written from a decidedly liberal perspective, backs up that contention:

In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. “I absolutely reject that notion,” he responded.

But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his healthcare law might not be in such a mess today.

At the Supreme Court this week, both sides basically agreed that the Constitution allows the federal government to enact a national health insurance plan — even a government-run single-payer plan. (That, after all, is pretty much what Medicare is.) And both sides agreed that the Constitution allows the government to levy taxes to help pay for that health insurance. (We all pay a Medicare tax.)

But that’s not how Obama and the Democrats wrote their healthcare law. Instead, to avoid the stigma of the word “tax,” they included a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

It turns out that was a big mistake. As we now know, there’s one thing Americans hate even more than taxes, and that’s being ordered around by their government.

Even the left have widely panned Obama’s incredibly harsh remarks directed at the Supreme Court as untrue.  The reliably leftist LA Times editorial board affirmed that “There are several things wrong with the president’s remark.”

And then, the following day, when Obama allegedly tried to “walk back” his remark, he said more things that were untrue.  He tried to say that there hadn’t been a law struck down on economic issues since the New Deal days; that was a lie and Obama has the law credentials to know it is a lie: In 1999, in States v. Morrison and in 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down laws that had been passed by Congress using an unconstitutionally-overly-broad usage of commerce clause as justification.  It hasn’t been that long since the Court exercised its Marbury powers which it has affirmed since 1803, and it isn’t that unusual.

Justice Kennedy rightly called that out in the first day of oral arguments before the SCOTUS.  Justice Kennedy said that today (Monday) Obama’s mouthpiece is arguing that the mandate is not a tax.  Tomorrow (Tuesday) the same Obama mouthpiece is going to come back to the same courtroom on the same case and argue the exact opposite thing from what he’d argued the day before.  And excuse me for pointing out what a collection of lying fascist fools you people are.

The same swing-vote (Kennedy) also affirmed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

And Justice Scalia pointed out that ObamaCare forced people to buy a product simply so the government could call it “commerce” and regulate it.  Justice Scalia said to the Obama lawyer’s examples, THOSE cases dealt with commerce; THIS case deals with people who HAVEN’T participated in commerce – people without insurance.  You’re going to force millions of Americans to buy something they haven’t bought just so you can then turn around and regulate them.  And if they don’t you’re going to hit them with a penalty you call a tax but only when it’s convenient to you to call it whatever you’re calling it at any given time.

I point out at the beginning of my above article re: Scalia that liberals as a species simply aren’t capable of listening and engaging in the other side’s arguments; they simply either want to shout and chant over you or declare you politically incorrect persona non grata.  And so when oral arguments began arguments that they could have heard and tried to counter for two years came as a complete shock to them – because they had never bothered to actually listen to us or engage with us – like the quintessential fascists that they are.  And the result was that the fascist left was shocked and panicked as they watched their government takeover of one-fifth of the American economy begin to go up in smoke.  Hence Obama’s unhinged statements denouncing the Supreme Court before it had even made its decision and certainly before any grounds for that decision had been provided.

My challenge for those who want to minimize Obama’s incredible words on Monday which followed his public attack on the Supreme Court at a State of the Union address is to find George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan doing anything like that and disrespecting the Supreme Court – a coequal branch of government – that way in such a public forum.

Would Conservative Court Striking Down ObamaCare Be ‘Judicial Activism’? Only According To Liberal Relativism

April 5, 2012

William F. Buckley famously provided an example of “relativism” as:

“the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around”  — William F. Buckley, Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography

[For the record, it was Greg Gutfeld on the April 3rd edition of “The Five” on the Fox News Channel, who adapted that particular Buckley analogy to ObamaCare and “judicial activism.”].

When Obama and other liberals try to frame a Supreme Court decision – particularly when that decision has not even been rendered and the grounds of that decision have not even been provided – as “judicial activism,” it is beyond dishonest.

Liberal commentator Ruth Marcus hits on this “disservice” to justice:

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.

Again, the SCOTUS not only hasn’t issued its ruling yet, but they most certainly haven’t provided their grounds for their ruling!!!  For Obama to dictate to the Supreme Court that “if you rule against me, you are an unelected and therefore illegitimate and discredited body, but if you rule for me, then you can go back to being legitimate again,” does profound and disturbing injury to our constitutional republic founded upon the separation of powers.  And Barack Obama ought to live in infamy for that act of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America that he falsely swore to uphold and defend.

What is “judicial activism,” stripped of the delusional relativistic spin that Democrats want to apply to pervert something that has so often outraged conservatives???  The answer is that it is inventing concepts not found in the Constitution whatsoever – such as “penumbras and emanations” used to justify Roe v. Wade.  EVEN RUTH BADER GINSBURG HAS SAID THAT ROE V. WADE WAS TERRIBLE LEGAL REASONING!!!  And the spirit of judicial activism can be summed up in famous liberal justice Thurgood Marshall, who expressed the essence of his judicial philosophy as follows:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

THAT is what judicial activism is.  “You do what you think is right” (substitute your own will in place of the law) “and let the law catch up” (ignore the law altogether because you are re-creating it and what it said prior to your imposing your will on it frankly doesn’t matter to you one iota).  Considering a law and seeing glaring issues of unconstitutionality and then striking down that invalid law is NOT “judicial activism.”  It is what the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED TO DO and what the founding fathers DESIGNED IT TO DO.

Chief Justice John Roberts had an interesting point to make about his judicial philosophy when he was going through the nomination process:

John Roberts: “I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

Contrast that with Thurgood Marshall’s “I impose my own will on the law and force the Constitution to say whatever I happen to want it to say at any given moment” view.

Some articles I’ve written hit at some of the VERY legitimate constitutional questions raised by Supreme Court Justices:

It’s A ‘Tax’ When It’s Convenient For Us But It’s A ‘Penalty’ When It’s Convenient For Us: Deceitful ObamaCare Attorney Mocked By Supreme Court Justices

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

And just to add insult to that injury to the U.S. Constitution there’s the fact that there is the headline “CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion” and the even more shocking fact of “Another Little ObamaCare Surprise: How About A SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR Funding Gap?

Everything – and I mean EVERYTHING – that Obama has said about ObamaCare and the Supreme Court has been a demonstrable lie.  Founding Ideals has gone after some of what Obama has said:

Dishonest Statement:

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”

The Truth:

The law passed by a very narrow majority (220-215 in the house with 39 Democrats voting against it). That certainly wasn’t a strong majority. The program was so divisive that massive protests were held in opposition to the bill and its passing energized the nascent Tea Party. Even today a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare.

[Further, it passed in the Senate by such a tiny necessary majority that the Scott Brown election – with Scott Brown running on the promise that he would be the “41st vote” to stop ObamaCare – threw a huge monkey wrench into the Democrat campaign to ram it through and necessitated all kinds of procedural gimmicks such as “to deem it passed.”]

Dishonest Statement:

“With respect to health care, I’m actually — continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.”

The Truth:

There is no precedent where the Federal government has forced people to purchase a good or service from a private company.

Mere Hyperbole:

“That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.”

A more honest answer:

The CBO’s estimate is that 20 million people that will lose coverage because the perverse economic incentives encourage employers to drop coverage for their employees. No one knows what the net gain will be. (Based on other Obama success stories like Cash for clunkers, Solyndra, etc – I predict that the number of net newly covered individuals will be much less than 20 million)

On April 3rd, in a question and answer, Obama said:

OBAMA: Um, we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a[n] economic issue like health care that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner, right? So we’re goin’ back to the thirties, pre-New Deal.

Again, that is simply FALSE.  In FACT the Supreme Court has struck down at least TWO laws that had been passed on the basis of the same “commerce clause” that was used as the grounds for ObamaCare.  In 1999, in States vs. Morrison and in 1995, in United States vs. Lopez, a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and expansive federal powers under the guise of regulation “economic issues” were struck down by the Supreme Court.  Which is to say that Barack Obama not only as a former lawyer, but as a “constitutional scholar,” is openly lying to the American people.

The Supreme Court has struck down on average provisions of two laws every single year.  What Obama said is beyond ridiculous.

In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court quite literally struck down the laws in all fifty states and wrote the new law by itself.  And for the same liberals who celebrate that law to demonize a Supreme Court for striking down a law that clearly extends the commerce clause beyond ANYTHING that the founding fathers envisioned is itself demonic.

There is also this fact that came out of the exchange with Obama:

during the Q&A, the moderator is the chairman of Associated Press, Dean Singleton, who said, “Mr. President, you said yesterday it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. Yet that’s exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence.”

Which gets us back to the fact that overturning ObamaCare would hardly qualify as “judicial activism.”  It is simply the Supreme Court’s job to consider a law brought before them and compare it to the Constitution to see if said law is supported by the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without honor, without integrity.  That is a fact.

Justice Antonin Scalia said something interesting in a debate with ACLU president Nadine Strossen about the idea that liberal “judicial activism” would one day come back to haunt liberals:

                 Scalia: Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court —

    26:57 Strossen: — I think that day has come! (laughter) —

    26:58 Scalia: And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

I’m to the point where I actually hope that right-wing justices rise up and do unto the left as the left has done unto us for the last eighty years.  So here’s to hoping for some right-wing judicial activism to re-balance the scales that have tipped so far away from our Constitution that it’s not even funny.  We’re far past the point of being able to negotiate with liberals to fix the problems that will necessarily implode us and leave us a bankrupt banana republic.

P.S. The infamous Supreme Court “wheat” decision from 1942 that ObamaCare defenders keep citing is one of the things that desperately needs to be overturned if we’re ever going to actually have anything to do with the Constitution again.

Fascist-In-Chief Obama Demonizes Supreme Court YET AGAIN (‘WAAAAH! They Won’t Let Me Have My ObamaCare! They’re Traitors To My Regime!!!’)

April 3, 2012

If the Supreme Court votes against ObamaCare, it is an illegitimate body of unelected conservative hacks; but if the same Supreme Court supports ObamaCare, then it is forever validated and the ruling should be set in stone.

If the American people weren’t degenerating into a nation of dumbasses, then they would frankly rise up and demand that Barack Obama be impeached and removed from office  for his fascist attempt to usurp the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Ostensibly the Supreme Court is supposed to be above and beyond the realm of politics.  As we know, that clearly isn’t true given the fact that political presidents get to nominate judicial appointees and a political Senate gets to exercise its role of “advise and consent.”  And as we know, sometimes there are more liberal justices on the court and sometimes there are more conservatives on the court.  And as we know, the last time a president attempted to delegitimize and stack a Supreme Court, it was a damn Democrat then, too.

Barack Obama is beneath nothing; which is why he has now repeatedly politically attacked the Supreme Court of the United States.

Apparently Obama got a secret phone call tipping him off that the Supreme Court decided to protect the last tiny shred that was left of the Constitution.

April 02, 2012
Obama Takes Aim at Supreme Court, Calls Them ‘Unelected Group of People’

Previously, Obama invited the Supreme Court to attend his State of the Union speech just so he could demonize them over the Court’s protecting 1st Amendment guaranteed speech in their Citizens United decision:

Somehow the “constitutional scholar” who taught at an elite university fails to understand that a bill being passed – particularly a bill being passed with basically no Republican votes whatsoever – in absolutely no way makes it “constitutional.”  It wasn’t very long ago that Obama sicked his attorney general on a duly and lawfully passed law in the state of Arizona.  It wasn’t very long ago that the California voters passed by a substantial majority Proposition 8, only to be shot down by a single judge who then quickly retired so he could be beyond the reach of the people.  And Obama cheerleaded those decisions.  And the US Congress does not rise above the law any more than the states or the people do, Barry Hussein.

And how many times did Republican presidents publicly demonize the Supreme Court in open contempt for the constitutional separation of powers???  That’s right, just like what Obama is: ZERO!!!  Because that’s a loathsome act that only an abject disgrace to the presidency would sink to.

Hint: Obama has picked two Supreme Court Justices (Kagan and Sotomayor) himself  for this “unelected body.”  They are both clearly illegitimate according to Obama’s own attack.

There had been a long precedent of Supreme Court justices attending the speech as a symbol of the three branches of government being united together under a common Constitution.  But Obama’s demagoguery pretty much put the kibosh on that.  Supreme Court justices risk being singled out and attacked if they attend such a politicized event.

Please remember that if the Supreme Court decision goes in Obama’s favor, the Court will be every bit as “unelected” as if it had ruled against Obama, and it will be every bit as illegitimate.

Please also remember that the murder of innocent babies is also illegitimate.  The difference between Republican conservatives and Democrat fascists is that the former respect the rule of law even when they firmly believe the law is wrong.  Democrats take to the street and violently riot as we have seen them do with the fascist Occupy movement and very recently with the Trayvon Martin episode.  If Democrats can’t make the laws and then shove those laws down other peoples’ throats, they don’t believe they should be accountable to it in any way, shape or form.

And please remember that the very Constitution itself is illegitimate according to Obama.  After all, it was that document that Obama decried when he attacked the Court as “unelected.”

Mind you, he’s no different in that view than pretty much any other liberal ideologue – as documented recently by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pissing on the Constitution.

Obama said:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Let’s also not forget this Hypocrite-in-Chief has now repeatedly used the power of his courts to undermine the DULY PASSED LAWS OF NUMEROUS STATES.  Let’s not forget how Obama trampled all over the Constitution when he made recess appointments while the Senate was STILL IN SESSION.  Let’s not forget how Obama spoke to a racist Hispanic “rights” group called “La Raza” (“the race”) while they were asking him to unilaterally stop deportation proceedings against illegals. Obama said:

The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Let’s not forget that Obama did precisely what he himself had just called un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional when he essentially pardoned illegal immigrants who had already been caught and were awaiting deportation.

Let’s not forget that this is THE most unconstitutional presidency in the history of America.

It’s not the Supreme Court that is invalid: it is the president and the presidency of the United States that is invalid. 

And what do you expect in God damn America???