RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Barack Obama, Constitutional Buffoon

* Bumped Up *

For a guy touted as the, “smartest man” to ever occupy the Oval Office, Barack Obama is a dummy. The icing on the cake is the assertion that Obama is a “Constitutional Scholar.” BOLLOCKS!! The man is a clown.

He started a verbal brawl with the Judiciary Branch yesterday during a Rose Garden appearance, where he made the false claim:

“Ultimately I am 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,” Obama told reporters today while speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Obama reminded reporters that conservative commentators, have complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint,” that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

“An unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

My old boss, a retired Marine Colonel taught me the saying, “DUMB IS FOREVER.” Well boys and girls, Obama is forever.

Marginal students who have taken a college level course on American History understand that the Supreme Court established the PRECEDENT of overturning a law in Marbury vs. Madison:

It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional”.

Only an ignorant, unschooled pretender of a “constitutional scholar” would assert that the Supreme Court would be doing something “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” in declaring a law passed by Congress “unconstitutional.”

Fortunately, the Judicial branch is not about to let Barack Obama get away with this specious, false nonsense. A Federal Appeals court fired back today with both barrels:

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.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Does this prove that Barack was just an EEO selection for Harvard Law Review? How in the world could a serious, competent lawyer claim the fantasy that Barack spun yesterday?

  • TexasVetgal

    Absolutely a buffoon of epic proportions.
    The MSM sure drag in some rotting carcasses don’t they?

  • morris1030

    Strong majority?  What bubble is Obama in and how does he expect anyone but an idiot to buy this BS?

    Obamacare passed by a hair.
    Meh.

  • no_longer_a_democrat

    I have never since any brief, any paper, nothing written by this idiot.

    I never bought into his constitutional prof garbage, he might have taught it, but it was on to avoid and get around the US Constitution and how the founders were wrong to have negative powers, how the founders were wrong to limit the govt’s powers.

    Barry Soetero –> Buffoon

  • Flop_Flipper

    OT but very important.

    Debbie Whatshername I see nothing, nothing Schultz swore that attacking Romney’s religion was preposterous. Yet what do I find today while surfing the net? The All Obama All the Time Network (BSNBC) doing just that.

    This is from Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Tingle’s BFF.

    “Mormonism was created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it. Forty-eight wives later, Joseph Smith’s lifestyle was completely sanctified in the religion he invented to go with it. Which Mitt Romney says he believes,” he also said.

    The link has a video of him saying more disgusting things. If you can stomach it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

      Jesus lost his temper and overturned tables in the Temple.  Therefore all angry people are bad.

      Book 1 MSM The Prophets of Bullsh*t.

      Good grief is that the best they have? Obama is toast. So sayeth The Lord.

  • jrterrier

    romney on the president’s statement:

    “Well the whole idea of the Constitution and the courts that apply the
    Constitution is to have the capacity to ensure that Congress and the president
    do not pass legislation that violates the Constitution,”

    The former Massachusetts governor described the Supreme Court as “one of
    the bulwarks against the unconstitutional acts of the majority.”Added
    Romney: “So the president suggesting that somehow the Court would be violating
    its duty by applying the Constitution to test the validity of a piece of
    legislation is an extraordinary reach and a misunderstanding, and I think a
    distortion — a purposeful distortion — of the role of the judiciary.”
    Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney
    to Newsmax: Obama Intentionally Distorting Supreme Court’s Role

  • Flop_Flipper

    After reading many of the comments below from the resident Obot horde, I came to a startling conclusion. These folks really know their shit. Because they are so full of it.

    Perhaps some ingenious individual will invent an Obot enema. Could make a fortune.  Larry could advertise it here and pay for this blog for years to come.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

    I can’t wait. Even if Obama pulls off his assured victory, as confirmed by his open mic comments, doesn’t mean we can’t exercise our 1st Amendment rights and make his rule miserable.  We ain’t under Odinga and this ain’t Kenya. 

    There are many forms of slavery.
    Using people of certain groups against another is one.  

    I will not tolerate any dictator. No matter the ethnic group. Obama is not our Greek column having, crossing the Rubicon,   mankind prophet, fix all of the world’s problems, that he’s claimed  to be.

    Remember ancient Rome. Bread and circuses only last so long.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

    Oooh look. Welcome damitajo1!  Every disagreement will be viewed as your petard hoisting.  

    I am black and will tell everyone I know that I have been insulted by card carrying, sheet wearing, cross burning  types that want to disenfranchise me.  Can’t let them “blackies” have their say now can we? Theys must  says “yes massa” and agree with those eating lobster, caviar, and other exotic foods. Don’t forget the current 1st Lady has the largest staff in history.  Not only that she is exhorting children to convince their parents and  grandparents to vote for her husband.  Dictator handbook 101.  Control the children and the adults will follow.  Remember that dictators may look like you.  Heck they may be of the same ethnic group.  History shows it still didn’t stop them from screwing you over the same as anyone else.    Remember not color of skin but content of character- see MLK Jr..

    I still a waitin’ for massa Obama to gimme that free car, house, money. Then I can works for him on his gubmint plantation while he give more money to to banks, Wall Street, lobbyists, and all dem folks that is payin’ his way.

    MLK Jr. wasn’t a Republican. Oh wait. Yes he was.

    Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. He signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

    Who tried to block Civil Rights legislation that was DEMOCRATS!  The Dem Party renamed them Dixie-Crats to try to distance themselves. However, many of them were re-elected to public office.  

    Eisenhower  tried to change things and warned us about the military industrial complex.  They didn’t dare kill Dwight D. but JFK had his brains blown out.

    • elizabethrc

      I just love the smell of real intelligence in the air.  Way to go Dolly.

    • Flop_Flipper

      I think that young people are totally ignorant of the fact that it was the Dems that whipped up racial frenzy and discrimination in this country. When I hear some blacks comment about the hundreds of years of slavery I don’t recall any of them also saying that it was the Dems that promoted it. They either don’t know this or have conveniently ignored or forgotten it.

      Affirmative Action was a good program, in principle. It allowed folks that didn’t have opportunities because of blatant Democrat discrimination to get a leg up. But after a few generations of helping out it has now become considered as an entitlement. And that is a problem.

      Young people feel as if they are entitled to government benefits, that it’s ok for them to not exceed because the government will give them special rights regardless of their intelligence or skills. And that is a problem too.

      I have nothing against helping out the less fortunate. I actually encourage it. But I know the difference between helping someone that wants to succeed and tries to and helping someone because they think they are entitled and don’t have to do a damned thing but sit on their ass, collect government “benefits” and vote for Democrats.

      • FLDemFem

         Hundreds of years of slavery?? In Africa maybe, but not here. The United States, post-colonial, had 89 years of slavery. We have had 147 years since 1865 without slavery. In colonial days, it’s the British who should get the blame, and for allowing it to take root here, they introduced it, after all.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/GCA245V3NTYPYUTKHYO7JTSLMM laura

      Hate to shake your foundation, Dolly, but you must know you are not really black.  After all, you don’t think like one.  So therefore..

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

        I know I know.  Hey look there goes another brother of another color!  Get him! Ahem. 

  • HELENK2

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/coke-caves-face-democratic-boycott-threat/444346

    democratic boycott

    this is the same tactic that was used to make the banks issued mortgages to people who could not afford them. We all know how well that worked out

  • HELENK2

    http://drinkyourkoolaid.com/associated-press-chief-offers-lavish-praise-for-obama-sickening/

    Associated press chief  introducing backtrack. why does this guy look like he is on his knees?????

    • Flop_Flipper

      Probably because he hopes that he can give Obama a blowjob.

  • jrterrier

    OT – “The U.S. Treasury Department was given one day to complete its review of the government’s $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra LLC, the bankrupt solar-panel manufacturer, to accommodate an Energy Department press release, according to a Treasury audit.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-03/solyndra-s-loan-guarantee-was-rushed-treasury-audit-says-1-.html

    Santorum needs to get out of the race so that Romney and his superpac can start campaigning against this garbage. 

    • Flop_Flipper

      They have no problem fast-tracking a project they want. Keystone, not so much.

      I agree with you about Santorum. Would add that the combined SuperPACS of all candidates need to start fighting back as soon as possible. PPP shows Romney ahead in PA by 5%. Not sure if they are yanking our chain but it sure sounds good to me. When it reaches 18% I’ll be dancing in the streets.

  • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

    OT but funny.
    Carol Costello of CNN asked on her Facebook page who was more radical Obama or the GOP.

    Over 7,000 responses and overwhelmingly Obama is named as the most radical.   Oops.  Try to spin that one.

  • mumphrey

    “My favorite part of the “vote” was Speaker Nancy telling The House, ‘If you want to know what’s in the bill you’ll have to vote for it first.” Defend that why don’t you.”
    …“zzzzzzzzz….. oh come on, she was on every tv stration in the County saying that.”
    So then it should be short work for you to come up with a link. ¿right?

    • Hokma

      Why don’t you try and “link” some neurons together to form an original thought?

      Link? Anyone who never heard Pelotis say that is living in far from civilization and in a jungle – -  – oh that’s you!!

      • Flop_Flipper

        I’m certain she considers herself PelOTUS.

    • jrterrier
    • Flop_Flipper

      You are either blissfully ignorant or just yanking our chains. Even the MSM (sort of ) reported this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

    I’ve been reading the comments and I am just fascinated.  

    My bottom line is this:

    Those 9 SCt Justices know more about the law and previously decided cases based on  the US Constitution than our President has ever known.

    The essence of real leadership is this IMHO:  
    Knowing when to speak and when to shut up and let things play out according to the Constitution of the USA.

    Billions of taxpayer monies  (bailouts and stimulus) were given to banks and big businesses that were not elected.  Where is the outrage?  Some of us  have been consistent and were no happier when GWB  did  it than when Obama did it.  

    Drop the race card.  The unemployment rate now is higher for young  black men than under GWB. That’s sayin’ something. 

    There are  Obama supporters that even today that are praising Obama  for “giving them something”.  Is that the society we want?  People, no matter the group, dependent upon government largess?  History has shown that that way lies dictatorship.  How can you not obey a government that provides your very sustenance?   

    As an American citizen, descendant of slaves (which Obama is not), and someone that has read the historical record that people of all groups fought to end slavery and  Jim Crow, I am tired of  it all.   

    • Hokma

      Brilliant comment!

      • Flop_Flipper

         I concur. This is a front pager type of comment. Awesome words Dolly.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

          I don’t know about awesome but thanks. 

          • KenoshaMarge

            I say awesome too Dolly!

             It always strikes me as funny odd that it’s quite all right to make negative comments about conservative AA citizens, like Clarence Thomas for example, but any negativity directed towards the Prezdint is racist.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

        Thank you.

    • damitajo1

      And, Dolly – what exactly do YOU know about Constitutional Law and history? Not much, apparently. 
      http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2012/04/earth-to-conservatives-compared-with.html

      • Hokma

        Okay slick – -  what do you know about the subject? Your information is from a radical socialist lawyer who has a Yale Law degree. Any idea how many crooked lawyers I’ve come across who gradiated Yale Law? They much have a course in corruption. The guy teaches “critical race theory.” End of discussion.

        • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

          Operative word: Theory.  Not truth.

          • Flop_Flipper

             And no proof.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

        I never said I knew about Constitutional law. I said the Supremes  knew more as a group. So let’s leave that strawman alone. BTW since I am black your disagreement means you’re a racist. Just following Obama and his supporters playbook ya know. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

        I have books in my personal library. But I guess us ignorant spooks, with Obama as the exception, are too stupid to read.

      • Flop_Flipper

        The Constitution of the United States of America Article 3, Section 2

        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    • elizabethrc

      That needed to be said.
      Add to that that Obama seems bizarrely ignorant of how Americans feel about the separation of powers and the respect we hold for the Supreme Court.
      He never should have been given the reins of this country.  He’s beaten the poor horse so mercilessly the poor thing is now a runaway he can’t control.

  • Hokma

    “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison, Federalist 47
     
    In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
     
    “Tyranny of the majority” was an enormous concern by the founding fathers. Tyranny is defined as the “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power.”

    The passage of Obamacare was a tyrannical move that played out on national television in the famous meeting between key members of both parties and Obama where Obama sat there like a king and mocked very legitimate proposals by the GOP. And it played out in unscripted town hall meetings across the country.
     
    There is zero question that Obamacare was passed without any consideration of the views of the minority party and with a razor thin majority in both houses with zero GOP votes. More concerning was the fact that Obama and company willfully ignored a large majority of Americans who were vehemently opposed to the healthcare proposal and eventually bill and still are.
     
    In their effort to force this down America’s throats they passed a law that was grossly unconstitutional and only politically motivated judges will see this as constitutional. As Anthony Kennedy remarked, it would be a fundamental change in the relationship of the government and the individual.
     
    Had Obama/Pelosi/Reid not abused their authority of the majority and sought to include concerns of the GOP we would have come up with a healthcare bill that would not be in front of the Supreme Court right now.

    • damitajo1

      Tyrannical move? lol. You people just spew things without any possible knowledge of history. http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2012/04/earth-to-conservatives-compared-with.html

      • Hokma

        I could run circles around you on history clown.

        You keep linking to that radical socialist lawyer who teaches “critical race theory” and is clearly not American.

        If you don’t have anything intelligent and thoughtful to add then you should expect a barrage of insults.

    • Flop_Flipper

      Obama and his horde didn’t just ignore the concerns of the minority party, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader called them un-American.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/XEDHO55LWYQG4LL5WIPYHHMDSI miriam

    You wrote: Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be “unprecedented” in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress’ power to REGULATE AN ECONOMIC ISSUE like health care.”
     
    But that is NOT what he originally said.  This ‘clarification’ makes me think that a  lawyer on his staff heard his first statement and–after picking him/herself up off the floor–recognized how the ignorance of it would be received, and quickly wrote a  what-I-really-meant cover.  

    • damitajo1

      You do know that conservatives blast the court more than anyone else. http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2012/04/earth-to-conservatives-compared-with.html

      • Hokma

        This guy is simply trying to link use this blog to drive traffic to his website.

    • Flop_Flipper

      Yet, we simply misunderstood him. We should have known that Obama wasn’t really that stupid. I mean, come on, this is Obama we’re talking about. President of the United 57 States of America. And Teresa Heinz.

  • PPAA

    “Conservatives Bristle At Federal Court’s Retaliatory Move At Obama”

    The legal battle over the constitutionality of the health care law was always going to be hard-fought. But in the aftermath of Supreme Court arguments, Republican-appointed appellate judges have taken the unusual step of publicly confronting President Obama after he bristled at the notion that the high court would overturn the law. That wouldn’t be an unusual play for an elected politician, and indeed congressional Republicans have blasted Obama for politicizing the judiciary. But federal judges are supposed to stay above the political fray. And even conservatives are concerned that the circuit court judges stepped out of bounds Tuesday — and made Obama’s point about judicial overreach for him.

    “I find all of this a bit incredible,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia.

    The controversy goes back to Monday, when President Obama made his first lengthy public remarks about the oral arguments, and suggested it would be “unprecedented” for the court to strike down the health care law. Conservatives reacted harshly — of course there’s precedent for the court to strike down laws they deem unconstitutional. Obama, they determined, was gearing up to take on the judiciary in the event of an adverse ruling on his signature domestic accomplishment.

    On Tuesday, Obama revised and extended his remarks. “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an 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,” Obama said. “So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

    “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.” Obama added.

    Word apparently didn’t reach the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in time.

    Appellate Court Judge Jerry Smith, presiding over a three-judge panel hearing a separate challenge to the health care law, lit into an Obama administration attorney.

    “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?” Smith asked. “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.”

    Then he assigned the Justice Department homework. “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.”

    This was a bridge too far.

    “The president was being cute in his statements,” Fitzpatrick said. “I don’t think he really believes courts ought to defer to the political branches; I don’t recall him expressing displeasure when the Supreme Court struck down Congress’s partial-birth abortion law, for example. But the president is a politician. He’s allowed to be cute. Federal judges are supposed to be above that. I suppose that’s what we get for giving them life tenure.”

    “Clearly Obama pissed off Smith through yesterday’s sloppy talk,” said one Republican lawyer in Washington who reviewed the exchange. “What he’s doing here is a bit aggressive insofar as it’s not like he learns anything from the briefing. It’s quasi-punitive, but it’s some lawyer in the civil division who is working on this right now, not even a White House counsel lawyer, so it’s punitive in an ineffectual way. … Obama screwed up [Monday] by speaking sloppily, but substantively he fixed it [Tuesday]. I’m quite confident my side will overplay its hand here.”

    Many conservatives and Republicans were unnerved by Obama’s initial statement, but even among them the consensus is that it’s not the judges’ job to punch back politically or defend its own turf.

    After listening to audio posted by the court, Orin Kerr — a professor at George Washington University Law School and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy — concluded, “[t]he order still strikes me as highly inappropriate: The DOJ lawyer was quite clear as to DOJ’s position, and lower court judges deciding cases based on briefing and argument should not be going outside the record to come up with assignments to litigants based on press releases by politicians in such politically charged matters. It just makes the judges look like political actors themselves, which doesn’t help anyone.”

    Republican leaders in Washington have been silent on the altercation. That could change, of course, but if it doesn’t, it’s probably because it’s a perfect example of the overreach Obama was warning against.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/conservatives-bristle-at-judges-punching-back-at-obama-over-health-care-law.php?ref=fpa

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      BS

    • Flop_Flipper

      Obama isn’t in the Senate any more. Not that he was there long to begin with. And while he was there he wasn’t actually there very long either. Too busy campaigning. He doesn’t have the privilege of revising and extending his remarks any longer.

      • PPAA

        You always have the option to revise and extend your remarks when buffoons misinterprete them, whether intentionally or not.

        • Flop_Flipper

          Typical Obot response. When he says something wrong it really isn’t wrong, we just didn’t understand what he meant. In other words, “Shut up you bunch of ignorant rubes. The master has spoken.”

          • PPAA

            What exactly was said that was wrong?

            It is pretty simple. If the SCOTUS rules against the mandate it will be setting a precedent given its previous rulings regarding the commerce clause. Obama was always talking about this ruling and these healthcare bills. He was not make a general statement about the SCOTUS in general as LJ seems to suggest.

          • Hokma

            PPAA – Again first read what the commerce clause is from books. I was going to ask how it actually applies to this healthcare debacle but that is inviting another cut-and-paste job from the Daily Koz Kidz. So why waste the time.

      • HELENK2

         flip
        just play the obot theme song that they sing to backtrack everyday

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVGove7IsI

  • damitajo1

    This article is disgusting. The headline is even worse. Obviously, Obama knows that the SCT has invalidated statutes before. But in your racist zeal to dismiss Obama as a “buffoon,” you ignore reality. He was talking about the level of activism by the court as being unprecedented. While one could quibble with that (as a lawyer, I can name others), but your post is insane. 

    Also, Harvard Law Review does not have some “EEO” policy that mandates affirmative action. You are just another stupid white conservative male who can’t count. Although white men dominate institutions of power, you believe that “unqualified” women and persons of color are a threat to the country. Shame on you. 

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      LOL!  The race card!  Thanks for the laugh!

      • PPAA

        Actually, it was LJ who brought up race in his comment above:

        “Does this prove that Barack was just an EEO selection for Harvard Law Review? ”

        • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

          Actually the fact is that EEO will always be tied to race.  Your point?

          The fact that Affirmative Action was designed to give a weighted advantage to persons of color, among other categories, makes it inherently racist.

          If people are going to whine about race, they also need to accept the fact that EEO came about because of race.

          • PPAA

            Why does LJ bring up EEO when he has zero knowledge whether Obama benefited from affirmative action? It always seems to come back to this with LJ. He has mentioned this many times. He seems to have a problem with something.

          • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

            PPAA:  How little you actually know of the world in the 1970s and 1980′s.

            Start your knowledge quest with the idea of :

            QUOTAS in regards to student acceptance in universities and extend your learning to HARVARD and Affirmative Action QUOTAS.

          • Hokma

            PPAA -

            I would have at least expected you to read Obama’s books. If you did you would know that he transfered to Columbia as part of their affirmative action transfer program.

            He got into Harvard Law because Percy Sutton called and asked for a favor.

            You want facts at least friggin a book moron.

        • DianaLC

          In answer to a comment below for which there is no “reply” link:  LJ and the entire population of the U.S. have no knowledge of how O was accepted anywhere because O has spent gazillion dollars to make sure that there is not way we could do research to answer that question about Obama’s college records.(Look up the word “hyperbole” before you respond about my use of the word “gazillion.”)

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

           No, as pointed out by Veronica and Hokma, Obama admitted to it.  Up you game kid, you are getting served and your ignorance is embarrassing.

          • PPAA

            Admitted what?

            Care to provide any proof what so ever? How about a link to a credible source?

            Same old same old. No actual facts to back up all the BS.

          • Hokma

            PPAA -  you don’t read – you don’t comprehend comments and you certianly have not read any books. Why don’t you try starting with something simple like a book written by Obama.

            You are void of any intelligence and as LJ said all you do is embarass yourself with your inane comments.

            You want a linkl? Try linking some neurons together and comprehending what some comments are.

    • DianaLC

      I will say that qualified persons of color and women are NOT a threat to this country.  But I, an ex-teacher, and my sig other.  who worked for the EPA for decades before retiring, witnessed many instances of “unqualified” men and women being hired into position over and above much more qualified men and women to fill “quotas.”   Qualification and merit often now have nothing to do with hiring practices. 

      Of news lately, are the Asian-American kids who refuse to list their ethnicity on applications because of quotas.  Given their cultural backgrounds,  Asians, who usually do study harder, score higher, etc., and so are more qualified, but are not given the slot or the position because quotas for Asians have already been met and now the organization or company has to meet other “ethnic” quota requirements. 

      You can say this is not true, but many out here in the real world know it’s true.  Keep in mind I am a person who long ago wished with all my heart that Barbara Jordan would run for President, so please stop before you call me racist.

      • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

        Oh crap, yes!  I was on hiring committees where the color of a candidate’s skin triumphed over a more qualified candidate.  We would be told to meet the quota.  Take federal money (in this case, Dept of Education), make the quota.

        Usually, in a few months, we’d be interviewing for the same position again, because the quota hire didn’t have the skill set or motivation to do the job, even with OJT and mentoring.  

    • Flop_Flipper

       racist = buffoon?

      If he used the word baboon I would probably agree with your character assessment and say something about it. Please don’t equate anything negative being said about Obama as racist. For one thing, it’s insane. For another, you are liable to get banned. We put up with Obots here. We don’t put up with being called racists. So chill or fuck off.

    • Hokma

      How did Obama get into Harvard Law? How does a “C” student get into Harvard Law? Do you know who the late Percy Sutton was?

      How was the University of Chicago Law School forced into hiring Obama to teach a course?

      There are so many African Americans who have achieved on their own. Obama never did.

    • Hokma

      “But in your racist zeal to dismiss Obama as a “buffoon,” you ignore reality.”

      Well now it appears you have a resdent Black nationalist LJ to call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

       damitajo1 – from the time he was running in the primaries to this point, Obama has intentionally played the race card and has created greater divisions (plural) in this country than any President in American history. The real racists are people like you who are the ones who are bigots.

      • Flop_Flipper

        Absolutely!

  • jrterrier

    hey win43, in response to  your “jrterrier – maybe you should have more than ZERO legal experience or education before you start pretending that a few isolated examples demonstrate the thinking of the legal mainstream.”

    what do you know of my experience, legal or otherwise?  you seem to be proving my point.  is this just another sign of your lack of experience?  you should never argue based on facts not in evidence. 

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Bullseye!

    • win43

      Why don’t we get back to the question, then. I’ll go ahead and assume that you’re a federal appellate judge with decades of experience, and we’ll analyze this case. Deal?

      Copied from below, because there’s more space here:

      Are you saying that there are precedents governing this case, or not?

      If the answer is yes, what precedents? Why are Lopez and Morrison more applicable than, say, Wickard (or Comstock, but that’s going off in another direction)?

      If the answer is no, then we in fact agree: if the Court strikes down the ACA, it will be, literally, without precedent.

      (Hint: if you want to talk about Lopez and Morrison, you need to start with the three Lopez categories).

      So what do you say, Mr. knowledgeable legal analyst?

      • jrterrier

        I’ll leave it to the SCt to answer your legal questions.  I don’t need to get into a fight (aka pissing match) over the size or extent of my knowledge with you. we’ve established by your own words that you have limited or no legal experience (one-year since your graduation).

        All I will say is that obviously, the attorneys who authored the briefs for the parties and the amici have presented ample arguments and precedents for their position.  As well, reports from both sides of the political spectrum, including Jeffrey Toobin, a 1986 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, former AUSA, and well-known liberal commentator reported that the Administration’s turn before the Supreme Court was a “train wreck”.  It apparently was so bad that the President felt the political need to demagogue the issue because his Solicitor General did such a poor job of arguing its merits.

        by the way, you may be showing your bias by referring to me as “Mr.”

        • win43

          I see. So you are unable or unwilling to engage the actual legal issues. Instead, you will rest on ad hominem arguments.

          Strong case you’ve made, counselor. Or Ms. Counselor, if that’s more accurate.

          Let’s sum up: the issue is whether it was fair for President Obama to say that a SCOTUS decision to strike down the ACA would be “unprecedented.” 

          I advanced the argument (with which mainstream legal scholars agree) that nothing in existing precedent indicates that the mandate is unconstitutional. Thus, if the Court wishes to strike it down, it will have to fashion a new precedent. Thus, Obama accurately called such a prospective decision “unprecedented.”

          You advanced the argument that I’m only a year out of law school. Thus, ???

          This one figures to be a nail-biter indeed.

          • jrterrier

            No, my answer was to respond to the claim that it would be unprecedented to overturn the statute with two cases,  off the top of my head,  where the Sup Ct held fed statutes unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds and to include a couple of articles from reputable legal scholars who disagree with the view of your “mainstream” legal scholars.  If you want more detail, read the briefs. 

            The rest is up to the Supreme Court. 

            My comments to you have in no way been ad hominem.  You are the one who cited your legal background apparently in an attempt to shut up those who disagreed with you by showing special expertise.  Your legal background is limited.  That is not an ad hominem attack; it is a statement of fact that you graduate 1-year ago.  In my opinion, it behooves you as a young lawyer to refrain from speaking with such certitude on matters that clearly are not so certain.  Very few things in the law are.  From the press reports, it was not just the conservative justices who grilled the SG, others including Breyer & Sotomayor also had questions. 

            My opinion is that the president’s anticipatory attack on the Supreme Court is a bad thing for the country.  It is particularly bad for this president who is a Harvard Law School graduate and Editor of its Law Review to attack the Court.   In my opinion, it is an attempt to delegitamize the Court in advance of what he must believe is going to be an adverse ruling.  You bet that if he believed the SCt was going to rule in his favor he would be singing their praises. 

            My opinion that the President’s attack on the SCt is bad for the country is based on my experience as an American citizen, nothing more, nothing less.

          • win43

            jrterrier: and I explained to you that those two cases — Lopez and Morrison — are not, in fact, applicable precedents to the issue in dispute in this case. In fact, not even the conservative scholars you cite rely on those cases: they’re simply too easily distinguished from this case (go ahead, check for yourself).

            You have not yet responded to that point. You have not cited a single precedent that actually applies. Instead, you have responded with statements about me — as if that matters at all to the issues we’re talking about.

            And if you want the mainstream: no better example than Charles Fried. He was Solicitor General under Reagan, and is now teaching at HLS. He and Prof., Abbe Gluck (Yale Law, former Supreme Court clerk) submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 104 constitutional law scholars nationwide.

            As to the merits of what Obama said: as I said elsewhere in this thread, there is nothing new or dangerous about a President criticizing the Court. Presidents have been doing that since the beginning. If the Court doesn’t want to look illegitimate, it should stop issuing decisions (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, now potentially this one) that are nakedly political and untethered to any precedent.

          • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

            Jterrier  - the flaw is assuming Win43 did graduate.

            The question is where is Win43 posting from?

      • Hokma

        “If the answer is no, then we in fact agree: if the Court strikes down the ACA, it will be, literally, without precedent.”

        You are out of law school only about a year and know more than any justice on the Supreme Court. Oh, the arrogance of youthful ignorance.

  • HELENK2

    his stupidity and ignorance is going to cost us.
    alienates Canada and Mexico will cost comsumers

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/dumb-diplomacy-alienates-canada-and-mexico-costs-consumers.php

    • DianaLC

      Helenk2,  this is a great read.  And to think that he used an opportunity to address financial/trade concerns to deal with the threat to his ego over the arguments before the SCOTUS just shows how entirely narcissistic he is.

    • foxyladi14

       thanks Helenk.

  • Pingback: President Obama Wades Into Battle With The Courts… | bearroombrawl

  • HELENK2

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/04/Former-Obama-Student-Obamas-Ignorance-of-Constitution-Embarrassing

    former student calls backtrack’s ignorance of the Constitution embarrassing

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Not to mention the posting of the Federalist 78 -

      Go breitbart!

    • DianaLC

      Wow–you’re on a roll with your links.  This must be so much fun for this guy.  I mostly had really great professors, but there were a few who were just not worth much.  It would have been so much fun to be in a position later in life to say what this guy is able to say.

  • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

    All speculation to Obama’s education, path to glory, etc,etc,etc, could be cleared up by an examination of ALL of his records.  

    They’ve been sealed and buried for a reason.  Since those are not available, then all there is to go on is his actions and statements.

    If this latest stunt has any correlation to his records, he’s neither brilliant or educated.

    Let’s not forget.  He has no visible or viable paper trail past to be seen. That alone makes his pitiful life/and lies all fairytale smoke and mirrors kubuki theatre.

    • KenoshaMarge

      If the corrupt media that were swooning at his feet had vetted him as they should have we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

      Obamacrats and the AA population would still have voted for him overwhelmingly, based on race, but the Independents might not have done so.

  • c_e_s

    What gets me about these things [and not just the ACA] is that the arguments and wranglings are about some lofty and vague legal concept, instead of dealing with the substance and content of the case. 

    I’ve watched a friend argue a case in a state’s Supreme Court and there was simply NO discussion about what actually happened in the case, it was all [legal term] here and [legal notion] there. 

    What we need is more “common sense”. Period.

  • DianaLC

    “Does this prove that Barack was just an EEO selection for Harvard Law Review?”

    Yes. . . . and it also appears to me that the DNC did an EEO selection of a President during an election that was almost guaranteed to go to the Dems even if they had put Bullwinkle the Moose up against the Repubs.  And they did that against the will of voting members of the party

    “How in the world could a serious, competent lawyer claim the fantasy that Barack spun yesterday?”

    A competent lawyer could not say such a thing.  But let’s remember that BO and his lovely wife voluntarily gave up their licenses to practice law.  All my lawyer friends contend that no matter what their reasons for quitting a practice, they would pay the cost of keeping the license in place and would only voluntarily give it up to avoid some kind of sanction.

    I would not be surprised if these judges aren’t a little miffed to have someone this incompetent lecturing them about the law and the Constitution.  I’m hoping some of them are in totally passive aggressive mode at this time.  It’s one tactic that drives narcissists mad.

    • win43

      “All your lawyer friends…” LOL.

      All my lawyer friends contend that no matter what their reasons for quitting a practice, they would pay the cost of keeping the license in place and would only voluntarily give it up to avoid some kind of sanction.

      Pure BS. For one thing, neither Obama “gave up their license.” They both voluntarily deactivated their licenses, but those licenses are still on file and could be reactivated with some simple paperwork.

      More importantly, I think “all [your] lawyer friends” are full of crap, if they even exist. Lawyers who are not practicing law deactivate their licenses ALL THE TIME. In addition to the bar dues, having an active license requires that you keep up on annual CLE credits. Frankly, it’s a pain in the ass if you’re not practicing. Given how easy it is to reactivate, the smart move is to deactivate if you aren’t going to be using it.

      • DianaLC

        So now I’m a liar and don’t really have lawyer friends.  You can spin your game of semantics all you want.  (By the way, my closest lawyer friend worked in a DA’s office prosecuting gang cases.  He had to carry a gun and drive to and from home each day by a different route as he had “hits” ordered on him.  He had been offered the position as a judge by our Dem Gov at one time but didn’t want to move to the capital city.)  Most of the lawyers I know didn’t get their licenses through EEO routes and paid for them and are proud of them. 

        The Obamas never had the intention of using our tax dollars that put them into their high positions to get an actual education and do some work.  They just used it to put themselves in a position to tell us how they think we should think. 

        I read MEchelle’s thesis–whine, whine, whine–present her survey findings which didn’t really support her thesis and then make excuses for why the findings did not support her thesis.   Don’t bother looking for it now.  It’s been pulled from the Web.  I wonder why.

        • win43

          You’re changing the subject.

          Lawyers who are not practicing law deactivate their licenses on a routine basis. Period. There is nothing unusual about what the Obamas did.

          Neither Obama paid for their education with tax dollars — they borrowed money like everyone else.

          Neither Obama got their law license through affirmative action. They earned their degrees, and passed the bar. 

          Just like white lawyers.

          • DianaLC

            They got their schooling to be able to take the bar by affirmative action.  Mechelle got her acceptance to school because of a brother–legacy. 

            You accuse me of changing the subject while you pick nits and play semantic games–”deactivate.”  Yes indeed.  In fact they never in reality “activated” them by practicing law did they? 

            The point is that this man is no legal wizard.

          • win43

            Diana — Both Obamas practiced for a time, actually.

            It’s not merely a semantic difference, either. Both Obamas HAVE licenses, which would not be the case if the oft-repeated lie that they “surrendered” them were true.

            And it’s repellent that you can’t believe that a black couple could get into schools on their own merits. You have absolutely zero basis for that.

            You have zero evidence beyond your own opinion (which frankly looks bigoted, at this point) that suggests anything other than that they earned what they have.

            Just like white people.

          • FLDemFem

            Michelle said that she and Obama both “struggled to make average grades” in college. Average grades do not get you into Harvard Law School without help, even grades from Princeton and Columbia. They both had help, Affirmative Action in Michelle’s case and Percy Sutton in Obama’s.  And Michelle’s law license was “de-activated” before she went to work for the hospital, apparently something to do with insurance fraud.

          • DianaLC

            win43–I love how obots answer and answer until they get to a point on a thread where there is no reply link.  That way they get the last word.  Well, here I am answering you below.  How do you know that we didn’t get lots of information out of the Chicago papers about the Obamas during the 08 primary.  You come to this site so recently and understand nothing about the discussions of evidence that have gone on years ago in regard to this person in our WH.  Just because the rest of the country to a large extent does not pay too close attention to politics does not mean that most here also don’t know much.

            How was I able to mention anything about MO’s thesis if I hadn’t read it from the Web before it was pulled?  How was it that I knew about her brother?  How did FLDemFem come up with her response. 

            So to say as if YOU know everything that we know nothing is ludicrous and does not prove anything at all.

            Have you heard of the argumentum ad ignorantiam?  Basicall the burdon of proof here is on YOUR shoulders, not ours.  You are trying to prove the “positive” position that O was fully qualified that O got everywhere on merit.

            This hiding of records is just the strategy of making sure that you can always say that we have no proof. 

            But you never, never, never, never address the issue of how many of the masses of poor people the Obamas might have helped if the enormous sums of money spent on hiding his records had instead been spent on charity.  You never answer why they feel they have to HIDE things.

      • JohnnyTwoDog

        “having an active license requires that you keep up on annual CLE credits. Frankly, it’s a pain in the ass”

        Excellent point! Now we all know why Continuing Legal Education is a requirement for maintaining a license. The consequense of not continuing an education is a very stupid lawyer.

        Obama – the Poster Child for CLE requirements.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Amongst the “Treyvon” moments, it’s still important to remember the subterfuge and corruption, such as the selection of Obama, the usurping of the delegate voting process, and the  fraud perpetrated by the Democratic party in 2008.

      Domestic Pearl Harbor.

      • wylrae

        And but for the actions of May 31, 2008 some of us (well probably much more than some) life-long supporters of the Democratic party had our eyes opened.

        • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

          Absolutely.  Done with the dems.

          • KenoshaMarge

            Same here!

  • mumphrey

    ¡Breaking news!  I have conclusive proof (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/04/04/late-night-open-thread-moving-pictures/) that Barack Obama not only wasn’t born in the U.S., ¡he wasn’t even born on Earth!  Here’s a picture of him making some kind of weird sign to show he’s an alien from some far-off world or galaxy or something.  You guys need to get right on this and cover the story the lamestream media won’t touch.  I have faith in you all.  ¡Get to work!

    • DianaLC

      What does this have to do with the point of LJ’s article?  You act like seventh graders who didn’t do their homework and try all kinds of distractions in class so the teacher gets off the lesson plan.  You also are forever, as per LJ’s explanation of what is forever.

      • mumphrey

        Hey, I’m only trying to help.  I thought it would be good for the cause for you to know that President Obama is a space alien from another world.  I hadn’t seen this scoop on the site here, so I thought maybe you didn’t know.  But if this is true, then this might well be the “smoking gun” you need to “blow this case” right “out of the water” and get Obama “removed from office”.

        • DianaLC

          Another seventh-grader response.  Trying to be cute but being only obnoxious.

        • Flop_Flipper

          Now that you mention it, I seem to recall that one of the beasts growing inside the alien looked remarkably like Obama. I am SO on this. I can’t thank you enough.

          • DianaLC

            Now that you mention it…..

        • wylrae

          If you really wanted to be helpful you would go to one of your leftist blogs.  Some of us come here prefer listening to common sense and facts instead of the constance childish antics of you trolls; i.e., “but they did that”, “I know, but they did that”, “well they did it first”.  Some of us have lived a long time and through experience and observation have learned to not give a ???? about Harvard, Oxford, Yale, Cambridge, Columbia, etc., etc., especially when some uppity uppity’s try to impress us by letting us know they attended such a high brow school.  There is likely just as much, if not more, a$$ kissing goes on there as at the colleges and universities we attended; probably only big difference is the number of people who get into those high brow schools through political/in side pull of some sort compared to our colleges and universities.

  • mumphrey

    I’ll second what win43 said.  You can’t be so clueless as to not know that Republicans have railed against “activist courts” and “legislating from the bench” for years.  It’s what politicians do.  You must know that.

  • win43

    Oh for shit’s sake, relax, Larry. Here’s Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address:

    At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

    Public presidential pressure on the Supreme Court not to overturn laws passed by the other two branches is a time-honored tradition. They don’t do it because they haven’t heard of Marbury v. Madison — they do it so that they can run against the Court in elections.

    • DianaLC

      This only applies to the will of the people—at the time the stupid Obamacare legislation was foised upon the public, the polls (which one of your kind on this site likes to feel are magic) showed overwhelmingly that the American people did NOT want the legislation.  When the Dem cabal under the direction of head  evil sorceress NP and her bumbling apprentiss Harry Reid foisted it upon us, we took our WILL to the voting booth in the midterm election.  Remember that?

      I do hope with all my might that the Dems will be foisted on their own petard by the SCOTUS.  (I’m guessing some of them are still seething at having the incompetent juvenile in the WH lecture them before Congress and Tee Vee cameras.)

      • mumphrey

        That word you were looking for?  It’s y-spelt “apprentice”.

        • DianaLC

          Good for you.  But you got my point.  I have been able to admit my terrible typing.  My fingers go faster than my mind.  But, I am quite sure that you had to look up the saying to be able to correct my choise of verb.  Did you look up the derivation of the word “petard”  (something I already know) because that is also what you are.

          • win43

            How does your mind make it into “apprentiss,” LOL. That’s a spelling error, not a typographical one.

          • mumphrey

            Yes, I know a petard is a small bomb and that the word comes from the French word meaning “fart”.  But if I might give you some unasked-for advice, it’s better to steer away from puns when your typing and spelling are so bad that the reader might mistake your would-be wit for ignorance.  Just a thought, not a sermon…

          • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

            It happens every time.  They soon can’t argue on Obama or his pitiful record, so they resort to middle school tactics to build up their egos. With the current set of Obama drones it’s:

            The bigger the argument, the smaller the – another meaning for petard.

          • elizabethrc

            It’s interesting and perhaps telling that those who are so intent on correct “form” are pretty lean on understanding “content”.

        • DianaLC

          Since you obviously won’t answer my point about the derivation of the word “petard” and continue to pick nits about spelling/typing etc. 

          I will explain to you in detail what I was doing in the comment to which you have taken so much offense.

          Of course I know “hoisted” is the verb commonly used in the expression “hoist on one’s own petard.”  The fact that I could call up that expression shows that somehow I know it.  But since I had used the verb “foist” when I described how the Dems passed the bill, I deliberately chose to change the expression, keeping however, the word “petard” because to me the Democratic Congress at the time had indeed done a lot of figurative flatulating.  (Now run to the dictionary and read the etymology of the word “petard.”)

          What I liked best about my comment was the mind’s image of the sorcerer and the apprentice in Disney’s wonderful “Night on Bald Mountain” sequence in Fantasia.  NP certainly appeared to me to be playing the part of a severely botoxed sorceress and HR always reminds me of a clueless Mickey Mouse.

          As for ISS and ICE as letter sequences, you try to think about it.  When you are pronouning in your mind, which one comes to mind first?

          • KenoshaMarge

            When someone answers your comment by saying that attacking you is “fun” you know they aren’t worth your time or energy. Just another adolescent troll and a complete waste of time energy and oxygen.

            You cannot reason with unreasonable people Diana.

        • DianaLC

          Indeed your advice is unasked for.  However, as a teacher, I have often not picked nits until the final paper is turned in.  This is not a classroom situation.  You are not the teacher.

          You are picking nits to attack me personally and not really address the main idea of what I am trying to get across.

          With you simple-minded nit pickers I will from now on be more careful.

          • mumphrey

            Yes, it is nitpicky.  But it’s also fun.  And for a bunch of people who make such a point of calling those who don’t agree with them “idiots” or “ignorant”, well, I find it ironic that you can’t be bothered to look over what you write for spelling, usage and coherency.

          • Flop_Flipper

            Please just continue to be your wonderful self. To hell with the Obots!

        • DianaLC

          And I hope you know that I don’t give a rat’s patooty about your supposed academic rigor. (And, yes, I can use the variant spelling of “patootie” if you can use the variant spelling ”spelt” of ”spelled.”)  Some of my worst professors were like you, able to deflect by picking nits rather than addressing the arguments.  You prefer trying to humiliate rather than to talk person to person.

          You are probably the epitome of the “latte liberal.”  These are “educated” people who think their education in certain universities and their connection to some sort of “accepted” way of thinking makes them superior.  Then because they think of themselves as so superior, they deign to take on the “causes” they have decided the ”common” people would (or in their minds “should” ) support since they know what’s good for everyone.  They work on theory and unproved hypotheses without following any sort of accepted form of scientific research in an attempt to prove the hypotheses.  If they think it, it must be true.  (I recommend a book for you:  The Rise and Fall of Social Psychology.) 

          I have been completely tested by your sort and would not take your advice ever.  I have also been tested and am well aware of my own IQ.  I have also been tested in the sense of life experience, and I can tell phonies when I come in contact with them–even over the Web.

      • win43

        The people democratically elected the Congress that passed the ACA, and President Obama. And the President and Congress both ran on a platform that included exactly that kind of healthcare reform. And won. And then they democratically enacted the law.

        Who needs a civics lesson, now?

        • DianaLC

          And perhaps the will of the people was for Gongress to do something about fixing healtchcare problems and doing something about the costs in our country.

          But did the will of the people expect that then the Dems would act like the old Soviet Politburo in making thier supposed “fixes.”  Did any true American expect a Speaker to tell us, in effect, to sign on the bottom line without reading the “contract.”  Did any right thinking American think it was correct to have the Speaker tell us, as if we were tiny children, that we could read it later to find out how much we liked it? 

          When it became apparent that Congress under Dem authority had misinterpreted how we wanted them to follow our will, we voted in the midterm.

          There is your civics lesson.

          • win43

            So you think the role of the Supreme Court is to attempt to divine and apply “the will of the people” instead of constitutional law? 

            You’re saying laws should get overturned when unpopular, and upheld when popular, regardless of constitutional precedents?

            That sounds like what you’re saying, and that’s laughably off-base. As far as the Court is concerned, all that matters is that a law was duly enacted by the political branches, and that it was constitutional. “The will of the people” does not otherwise enter into the analysis. 

          • DianaLC

            win43–you obots on this site are just about the most logically challenged people I have ever come across, even in 7th grad classes.  Your attention spans are minimal, as are you comprehension abilities. 

            By mentioning the “will” of the people, I was addressing your Messiah’s comments about the law and claiming Obamacare had been the “will of the people.” 

            No, I certainly hope the SCOTUS does understand its duty to protect the Constitution.

            I was answering your stupid suggestion that the “democratically” elected Congress at the time, acting in a completely Politburo type of way, was simply enacting the will of the people.

            I really didn’t know that Kool Aid had such a serious deleterious effect on someone’s thinking abilities.  You guys are worse than some of the meth heads I’ve seen.

          • win43

            Diana – you just can’t stay consistent…  or maybe you just can’t follow a conversation.

            We were talking about Abraham Lincoln’s statement (remember my original comment?). He said the same thing Obama said: that when the Court rules on an issue, it takes the issue out of the hands of the elected branches.

            Now, why would it matter to the Court that the elected branch has done something unpopular rather than popular? As you concede, it doesn’t. So I don’t see what you’re fussing about. 
            Your only point seems to be griping about the Dems winning the 2008 election and doing exactly what they promised.

        • Hokma

          Obama did NOT run on “exactly the kind of healthcare reform” that was passed.

          As far as civics you may have missed your classes on the constitution and its development.

    • Hokma

      “the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

      Your argument falls apart because Obama/Pelosi/Reid arrogantly defied the will of the people in passing Obamacare whic cannot be denied based on polls and public events.

      As I commented before, this is a clear case of “tyranny of the majority” which was a major concern of the founding fathers, In their tyranny they overreached and frankly screwed up.

      As Justice Kennedy said this would fundamentally change the relationship of the government and the individual.

      Are there good things in Obamacare that should remain? Yes. But in the recklessness of power Obama/Pelosi/Reid went too far. 

  • elizabethrc

    I especially loved the part where the judge told the AG that the written response had to be single spaced and on no less than 3 pages!  Does this constitute taking Obama to the woodshed?  It was so wonderfully done that there’s no mistaking that this was a parent reprimanding a wayward child.  In this case, the child is probably going to stamp his foot, ignore the order and demand that America bend to his will.
    This test of wills is bound to sour even many liberals because there are those among them in Congress who, when pushed to the wall, love and are loyal to America before the person.  In this case, they know that Obama is a transient,  but America will endure and they’re not going to let anyone tamper with our systems in the outrageous manner he’s attempting. 
    Fortunately, Obama is devolving as a President before our very eyes.  He makes mistake after mistake, overcalculating his powers and abilities and underestimating the voters. 
    I smell panic in the air in the WH.

    • Flop_Flipper

      If he does ignore the order I really look forward to the next shoe dropping. Excellent analysis elizabethrc.

      • elizabethrc

        Thanks, FF.  I so wish that I had a president I could write something positive about.
        Wishful thinking, that.
        Where’s November when you need it?!!

        • Flop_Flipper

          All in good time. It will be worth the enduring wait.

  • Hokma

    Only an ignorant, unschooled pretender of a “constitutional scholar” would assert that the Supreme Court would be doing something “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” in declaring a law passed by Congress “unconstitutional.””

    That pretty sums up Obama’s real resume. 

    He was no better than a “C” student who could only gain admission into Occidental College.

    He only got into Columbia University as part of their affirmative action transfer program and also got not better than “C” grades there (as per Mrs. Obama).

    The only reason he ws able to get into Harvard Law was because the late Percy Sutton used his influence to get him in and he has publically admitted to that many times.

    So how does a “C” student suddenly become a genius and graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law? Fixed grades for political purposes.

    The only way of affirming Obama’s claim of Magna Cum Laude is now seeing all his tests and papers. Because his exposition on Supreme Court Authority makes Obama an “F” student and no better.

    • PPAA

      Actually striking down the healthcare bills would be unprecedented because they would also be striking down their own commerce clause precedents. Obama is right.  Strike down these bills which were passed by the majority in Congress would be unprecedented.

      • jrterrier

        are you kidding?  where did you get your law degree?  as justice kennedy put it, the mandate would change the fundamental relationship between the citizen and the government.

        • win43

          PPAA is absolutely right. The Court’s own Commerce Clause (and Necessary & Proper Clause) precedents support upholding the ACA. If the Court strikes the law down, it would literally be unprecedented in the modern era of the Court.

          • ObamaDubya2ElectricBoogaloo

             Yeah, because we all know that PPAA has a better grasp on constitutional law than Supreme Court Justice Kennedy…

            lol /s

          • win43

            ObamaDubya –  Mainstream constitutional scholars agree on this one — take for example Prof. Charles Fried, who was Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan: 
            http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/02/141978/fried-aca/

            The only lawyers and judges who disagree are those on the far right wing. Unfortunately, the present Court has four of those, and Kennedy is also quite conservative.

          • Flop_Flipper

            As Einstein said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

          • jrterrier

            In the last 20 years, the Supremes have struck down two fed statutes because they exceeded commerce clause authority:  US v Lopez,  514 U.S. 549 (1995) (gun law) & US v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598(2000) (violence against women act).  So it would not be unprecedented in the “modern’ era — whatever that means.

            In Morrison, the Supremes stated: 
            “Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and State authority would blur.” The majority further stated, “[I]t is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign.” Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion also expressed the concern that “Congress [was] appropriating State police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

            wikipedia has pretty good articles on both opinions.  but you can also read the opinions at the supreme court website.  and i’m sure there is lots to read at various other sites.  probably very good legal analysis at:  http://www.scotusblog.com/

          • win43

            jrterrier – I already responded on your Lopez/Morrison mistake downthread. No need to duplicate discussions.

          • jrterrier

            win43 perhaps you should get a bit more experience under your belt (than the 1-year since your graduation) before you go off spouting what is or is not unprecedented in supreme court jurisprudence.

            here is just one article by a Georgetown Law School professor explaining why the mandate is unconstitutional based on Supreme Court precedent.

            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1680392

            here’s more literature on the subject:

            http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-individual-mandate-an-unprecedented-expansion-of-federal-power/

            this latter article was written by Ilya Shapiro, who holds an A.B. from Princeton University, an M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School (where he became a Tony Patiño Fellow). Shapiro is a member of the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme

          • win43

            jrterrier – maybe you should have more than ZERO legal experience or education before you start pretending that a few isolated examples demonstrate the thinking of the legal mainstream. Pretty funny that you denigrate my education and experience — implicitly conceding that they matter — when you have none of your own.

            If you really do want to argue the law with me, go ahead and start a new thread. I’ll meet you there.

            FYI — you know who actually researches and writes most legal opinions? Law clerks, a year or two out of school.

          • Hokma

            We’ve been through this. This does not qualify for protection under the Commerce Clause at all. And the examples used require a complete suspension of reason.

            The only thing unprecendented are the ignorant kahones of Obama and his complete ignorance of constitutional law – which then questions his supposed magna cum laude.

            I love that he is being brought ot the woodshed on this. THAT is unprecedented.

          • wylrae

            So did you and PPAA both attend Obama’s school of constitutional law?

        • PPAA

          You do not get it. It is all about the commerce clause and the precedent that SCOTUS has sent before regarding the commerce clause. Why do you think most legal experts from both the right and the left had said there was only a small chance the mandate would be struck down. If it is struck down it will have nothing to do with the law, but will be all politics. The 2000 election all over again.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6RLFUOLWP23SJ5RQHENEPHKME David L

            Its fun to read PPAA’s posts along with Win43′s posts, they both prove that, Intelligence is no impediment to stupidity, as Albert Einstein quoted  !!

      • Hokma

        Stop cutting and pasting crap from the Obama cult site and go back into your basement and first learn exactly what the commerce clause is which may be way above your head because it requires reading something other than a blog.

    • elizabethrc

      Obama was made Editor of the Harvard Law Review for one reason and it had nothing to do with being qualified for the job.  The administration at Harvard was under intense pressure to put minorities in key positions.  While there, according to people who were also on the staff, he spent much of his time lolling at his desk with his feet up on it.  He seemed to think that his job was to delegate and not actually work.  Does that sound familiar?
      Further, he’s the only editor in the Review’s history to never have written anything. 
      And this is what we have as President; a man who doesn’t like to work, appoints his friends and yes people, qualified or not, to do the work and then blames anyone else when, as is inevitable, their efforts end in failure.
      Playing on ‘white-guilt’ has put a dangerously inept man in a position of power, in the process seriously jeopardizing our country.  Deeming it ‘time’ to put a black into the Presidency isn’t reason enough to vote for someone. 
      I expect our presidents to have a fully vetted background check and independently documented records of his accomplishments, school records, including whether he or she was an affirmative action or  foreign aid student and proved leadership qualities, as well as his past associations.
      I guess that’s too much to ask.

      • win43

        Nope. The Harvard Law Review membership actually elects their own board — the administration has no input.

        Obama got that position because his peers liked and respected him.

        • elizabethrc

          I have a hard time believing that you are that naive.  You honestly think that pressure and a lot of it was brought to bear on whomever selected Obama?
          Percy Sutton pushed and pushed hard to get him in.
          As to his peers liking him, the accounts from some of the people there at the same time are decidedly different from what you’ve heard.

          • elizabethrc

            Second sentence should have read “was NOT brought to bear”…..

          • win43

            What accounts? Provide them.

            What pressure did the administration bring to bear? Provide a story.

            I graduated from HLS less than a year ago. I know how it works much better than you do, and I can promise you that there’s nothing the administration does, or even can do, to affect selection of the Law Review president. Unless and until you can prove otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.

          • Hokma

            win43 –

            “I know how it works much better than you do”

            Really? I assume you gained entrance because your undergrad grades were very good and you did damn well on your LSAT.

            What were Obama’s undergrad grades? (“C”s according to his wife) What was his LSAT?

            Did you need a powerful political figure like Percy Sutton to get to the head of Harvard Law and demand you be admitted? I don’t think so.

            So you were not in Obama’s position and would not know what happened with grades.

            Like I said, it requires a complete suspension of reality to believe that a lifetime C student could magically gain entrance into Harvard Law and then graduate magna cum laude.

        • jrterrier

          The President’s demagoguery on the role of the Supreme Court is made worse — not better — by his standing as a Harvard Law School graduate and as the former editor of the Harvard Law Review.  He of all people should know better than to use the Supreme Court as a punching bag for his (or anyone else’s) own political aims. 

        • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd
          • Flop_Flipper

            Just finished reading this and, without a doubt, you nailed this. Bookmarked your blog and will be an avid reader.

        • FLDemFem

           That was the method for the year they got stuck with Obama. Now they have gone back to the previous method of choosing which involves merit and work product. And they instituted a new rule for the editor..the editor MUST publish during their tenure as editor. They never needed a rule like that before Obama because they had never had an editor who didn’t publish. Until Obama. Obama also left another legacy at Harvard Law. The Obama-meter. It measures how good you are at schmoozing the professors..ie, sucking up. He was a master at it, so good they named the meter after him. How’s that for an academic legacy??

    • win43

      Fixed grades for political purposes? LOL, okay.

      HLS uses blind grading. Professors grade exams and submit those grades all without knowing the identity of the students they are grading.

      Oh, but I’m sure you’re about to tell me that the conspiracy runs MUCH deeper than my puny mind can understand, and that the shadowy powers-that-be worked around that, because when Obama was in law school they were already grooming him as the Manchurian Candidate. Aren’t you?

      • sassysyl

        Hey genius, that would be a Machiavellian candidate not Manchurian.  Look it up, there is a big difference.

        But then on second thought, maybe all those years in Chicago listening to Ayers, Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger bashing the good old KKK of America brainwashed Obama into “becoming an assassin for the Communist Party”.  

        As his neighbor and fellow Woods Fund board member Billie Ayers recently said, ”I get up every morning thinking, today I’m gonna make a difference. Today I’m gonna end capitalism. Today I’m gonna make a revolution.”

        By the way an acceptance letter does not prove that one graduated from Harvard.  Most recent Harvard graduates are hard at work paying off their student loans and don’t have time to waste blogging all day.

        • win43

          Heh. You overestimate how difficult it is for me to bat shit down here. I can walk and chew gum at the same time — in fact this is somewhat easier than chewing gum.

          • sassysyl

            My son-in-law has had over 2000 BILLABLE hours every year since graduating from Georgetown Law.  He must not be as much of a genius as you Harvard graduates are, as he spends his days working on behalf of his clients.  Are you billing your clients for time spent blogging here?

            So you ARE saying that Obama is a covert agent for Communist Russia? Interesting?

          • win43

            sassy: billing 2000 means being at the office 2500. We’re not billing every single hour we’re here; lots of days (like today) there are gaps while waiting on others.

            In any event, no, taking 30 seconds here and there does not detract from my productivity. But thanks for your interest.

          • sassysyl

            Actually my son-in-law does not spend 2500 hours at the office in order to bill 2000.  Almost all of his work hours are billable. He is one of the fortunate 1% whose sacrifice and hard work are paying off.

          • win43

            His exceptional efficiency must be nice for him, then. Seriously, that’s cool, but very rare, to be productive for 8-10 hours solid, every day, 50 weeks a year.

      • elizabethrc

        How about you provide ME with names and accounts of your first hand ‘knowledge’ of how Obama was thought of at the HLR.  May we assume that you were a member of the Review?
        Fresh out of law school and you know it all, don’t you?  Or maybe not.
        Over the years I had more than one conversation with a Dean Emeritus at Harvard Business School, a man who has been a close friend since the late 50′s.  Among those conversations have been discussions about influence peddling, outside political pressures brought to bear and racial problems. 
        When my husband applied to HBS there was a strict adherence to anonymity regarding race among the applicants.  That’s a good thing, but if you really believe, in your infinte young wisdom, that the Percy Suttons of the world don’t wield influence in those hallowed halls, I do have a bridge to sell you.
        You do believe in quantum leaps, don’t you?  Manchurian candidate, indeed.

      • Hokma

        Do you read anything except left wing blogs?

        It requires a complete suspension of reality to believe that a lifetime “C” student (according to Mrs. Obama) gets into Harvard Law and then achieves Magna Cum Laude.

        You are right. He is a manchurian candidate.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Not to mention the missing Indonesian passport and the foreign student status question for him getting into Occidental.

      Keep asking yourself why all of his records are sealed and/or missing. 

  • KenoshaMarge

    Dumb  is forever. And smart doesn’t need to be heralded constantly.

     JFK was a very smart President, IMO, and yet no one was constantly telling us so. The quality of his writings, his books made his intellect obvious.

    Obama is simply trying out different scurrilous campaign strategies. Some of them are so badly crafted that he spends most of his time walking them back. After all, “Dumb is forever.”

    What ever else he does, he attacks, smears and blames others. Not very presidential but an Obama constant.

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

      …like that fake ‘presidential’ seal at the podium, during the 2008 primary campaign…

      • KenoshaMarge

        Exactly!

      • foxyladi14

         LOL the possomus

        • FLDemFem

           Vero Possomus, in fact. I translate it as “true rodent”.

    • jrterrier

      I don’t think Pres Obama is ignorant of Marbury v Madison.  He just decided to politicize the issue.  It’s sad.  He’s not thinking about the country.   He’s thinking he’s going to lose the decision and wants to make it appear that it’s because the Supremes are politically motivated so he can rile up his base.

      No matter what the SCt decides, a large number of people will be disappointed.  This country is divided on ideological grounds.  Nearly half of us think we need to rein in spending and live within our means; the other half thinks we need to keep on spending and creating entitlement programs. 

      The President is just adding oil to that fire.  It’s like fanning a forest fire.  It will burn us all.

      • elizabethrc

        Yesterday I heard Rush saying Obama was now using another case (I believe it was Locke vs) to bolster his argument. 
        Rush is of the opinion that Obama is downright stupid when it comes to Constitutional law.  He pointed out that Locke vs was a STATE statute, not a Federal one.  Apples and oranges, but Obama apparently was incapable of understanding the difference.
        I do wish people would stop calling him a professor.  He was merely a lecturer, a far cry from professor.

  • EllenD818

    OK – I was fine with this until I read this part:
    “a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday ”
    Not just an answer but it has to be 3 pages and single spaced.
    This type of pettiness nullifies the point they are trying to make and remind me of every teacher I ever hated.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      I don’t think so.  It clarifies what the court expects from Holder and Obama.  It is an order, by the way.

      • KenoshaMarge

        I don’t think so either. If Obama is going to go out and make such statements then it is up to the Obama DOJ and lapdog Holder to make their case or refute it. 

        The  judge also obviously knows that any 1/2 way competetent lawyer can use up the first page, single spaced just saying Dear Judge Smith.

        • EllenD818

          I’m not disputing the request, but the specificity.
          Everybody has good points however you have made a point that I was  making but you did it better.

          3 pages of single page crap is still crap. They could order 10 pages and it would still be crap.

          And I see a judge’s  order the same as a teacher’s  order.

          • wylrae

            Kind of somewhat agree but think it would have been far better had Obama been ordered to appear in front of the court for an oral exam!

        • jrterrier

          this is the best comment of the day.  can we start a new trend.  can we vote on the best comment per column?

          • KenoshaMarge

            Only if you all vote for me. What do I win?

            Seriously, thank you.

    • Flop_Flipper

      You do realize that Obama intentionally went on national TV to scorn the court? I find their response entirely appropriate considering Obama’s clear misunderstanding of our Constitution.

    • jrterrier

      courts have rules about the length of pleadings and they often tell litigants what they want in terms of length of their papers.

      i think the judge was trying to avoid a letter that had one case on it — marbury v madison.  he wanted analysis to go along with it.  the case is probably bound to the sup court and this is DOJ arguing the case, not a local lawyer.   

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/XEDHO55LWYQG4LL5WIPYHHMDSI miriam

    I didn’t hear his clarification, but I did hear his initial statement.  And my immediate first reaction was that I must have heard it incorrectly.  Anyone who ever took a college course in American Constitutional History knew that Marbury vs Madison would show up somewhere on the final exam  (maybe Harvard doesn’t
     give final exams?) .  I recall re-studying that damn case for several hours right before the final because it was bound to be there.  (It was.)   

    This is scary business.  How could he have graduated from law school without understanding the  concept of judicial review?  But has one single media source commented on it?    

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

       ”And my immediate reaction was that I must have heard it incorrectly.”

      That’s how I felt when I was in the cab and heard on the radio that President Obama won the Nobel Prize.

      And so many times since.

  • HARP2

     For those that find it to difficult to follow along.

    • KenoshaMarge

      Quick, send that to the White House! They need to know.

    • Roger Elder

      The constitution remains a formality. Replace a few more justices and we can effectively become more like Venezuela.

  • AnitaFinlay

    But why wouldn;t he say these things?  His experience, ever since the beginning of his candidacy, was that the majority of mainstream media would provide ample cover for his remarks, pretend “there’s nothing to see here, folks,” and help him to believe he could move mountains simple because he existed — as Captain Picard used to say, “Make it so.”

    Sometimes it is as though he is daring someone to call him on his questionable comments, but it does not come to pass.  And as we know, if the questioning doesn’t come from the NYT, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo, NBC, etc.  — it did not happen.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Well, I guess a panel of judges in the 5th Circuit finally DID take him to task.

      Of course, Holder and his high-ness will be too busy and important to comply with the order.  

      • TeakWoodKite

        I bet that DOJ response that is to be not less than 3 pages single as per the judge, will be appealed to the SCOTUS by Obama. LOL

    • Flop_Flipper

      This is the episode where Captain Barack Picard becomes a Borg.

      • KenoshaMarge

        He is about to discover that resistance is not futile

        • Flop_Flipper

           Love it. As I continue to chuckle under my breath.

    • DianaLC

      Lately, since I can find nothing on t.v. to watch when I try to relax, I’ve been watching hours of reruns of Star Trek and Star Trek: the Next Generation—shows I can proudly say I watched religiously when they were new.

      There’s a newer show–The Big Bang Theory–that I love.  In one episode, the main character was asked a trivia question about which actors had been voted the sexiest men alive.  He, being a nerd, answered without hesitation that they had to be William Shatner and Patrick Stewart.  (I enjoy so much the occasional appearance of Will Wheaton–a.k.a. Wesley Crusher–on that show.)

      The suggestion that Obama thinks he could be a Captain Picard toallly makes my blood boil.

      Now I dislike O even more.  Love your analysis.

      • Flop_Flipper

        One of the best shows on TV is Being Human. It’s about a Vampire, Werewolf and a Ghost sharing a house, trying to be “normal.”

    • HoosierinDixie

      Agree Anita. Yesterday he even instructed the media how to report his positions after getting his ass kissed by the chief of Associated Press in an introduction. I wonder if there is any of those so called “journalist” that may have a shred of objectivity left and thought WTF??? Sooner or later they will have to decide if they want to be the watchdogs of the public or continue to be lapdogs for Obama. I’m not holding my breath.

      • KenoshaMarge

        No longer “watchdogs” just obama “lapdogs.”

    • KenoshaMarge

      He’s like a spoiled little brat who tries to see what he can get away with. A brat that knows he can push the boundaries without fear of the submission and permissive media taking him to task.

      Talk about the dumbing down of America! A media that ignore the truth because of their bias is enabling a dishonest discourse and ignoring facts.

      They have evidently abandoned who, what, when, where and why for genuflecting in Obama’s direction periodically. For the most part the MSM are a bunch of useless, dishonest bastards.

  • HELENK2

    every time  backtrack opens his mouth he shows how little he knows about America. The government, the law, the people and we know he does not know the geography or the history.
    It might be because of his ignorance that he has such contempt for America and every thing about her.
    Education might overcome ignorance, but it will never overcome his arrogance

     

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      And I’m not so sure about the education part in his case.

  • PPAA

    The game of “gotcha” by Larry Johnson. However, your “gottcha” is kind of BS.

    It would very much be unprecendent for the SCOTUS to overturn a law voted on by the majority in Congress which at the same time breaks the SCOTUS own Commerce Clause precedents.  That would clearly be a case of judicial activism, something the the GOP has been complaining about for years.

    As Obama clarified:

    “Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be “unprecedented” in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress’ power to REGULATE AN ECONOMIC ISSUE like health care.”

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       LFMAO!!  Except he didn’t say what you claim he said.  Thanks for playing.

      • PPAA

        The clarification is right in the article you reference.

        In his initial statement he was obvious was talking about the healthcare bill.

        Obama is correct. It would be unprecedented for the SCOTUS to strike the healthcare bills down.

        You and another activist federal appeals court judge in the federal appeals court are just being ridiculous and political.

        Didn’t Bush fire a number of Federal judges for not being activist enough in terms of favoring Republican priorities?

        • DianaLC

          You’re right, the “tu quoque” argument is always valid.

    • Hokma

      The contented prose of ignorance.

    • Flop_Flipper

      Ah, I see. The Santorum defense.

    • jrterrier

      in the last two decades they invalidated the violence against women act (US v Morrison) on commerce clause grounds and a guns-within-schoolyard laws on commerce clause grounds (US v Lopez).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez 

      United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

      seriously, if you went to law school, you need to get your money back.  this is exactly, why i think the president’s statement is so pernicious.  because it will allow people like PPAA, who are ignorant of the law and the supreme court, to believe that garbage.

      again, even wikipedia gets it right.

      • win43

        Morrison and Lopez are different than this case — in those cases, it was found that the actions Congress sought to regulate weren’t actually commercial, and thus the Commerce power did not come into play.

        Here, nobody dispute that healthcare and health insurance involve interstate commerce. And since the New Deal, the Court has never held that Congress lacks authority to regulate an issue that is in fact economic. 

        Nice try, though.

        • jrterrier

          actually, one of the questions at the heart of the law suit is whether the govt can mandate that a person purchase a service or health insurance and then turn around and say that the govt can regulate the very purchase it mandated.

          every case is different from each other.  the key is whether the differences or similarities make its resolution bound by precedent.  and while the doctrine of stare decisis is alive and well, sometimes the Supreme Court trails out new paths, otherwise we would still have separate but equal for one. 

          • win43

            Your response is confusing, which makes sense because you don’t really understand the subject matter. Let’s try to be systematic. Are you saying that there are precedents governing this case, or not?

            If the answer is yes, what precedents? Why are Lopez and Morrison more applicable than, say, Wickard (or Comstock, but that’s going off in another direction)?

            If the answer is no, then we in fact agree: if the Court strikes down the ACA, it will be, literally, without precedent.

            (Hint: if you want to talk about Lopez and Morrison, you need to start with the three Lopez categories).

        • TeakWoodKite

          Can I purchase healthcare across state lines?

      • DianaLC

        If he did go to law school, he did it on government grants and loans–but we who pay the taxes will never get our money back.

        • win43

          What are you talking about?

          The Obamas both paid for law school the same way everybody else does — by borrowing a big pile of money. Which they finished repaying out of the proceeds of Obama’s book deals, after 10 years of making payments just like everybody else. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/26/obama-woos-young-voters-with-student-loan-program/

          You have a strange obsession with trying to paint a picture of the Obamas as blood-sucking products of affirmative action and government programs. Problem is, it’s not really true.

          • Flop_Flipper

            I agree with you. They paid their loans back.

          • PPAA

            DianaLC lives in the bubble of getting all her information from wacky websites like NQ. She never actually supports anything she says with actual facts.

          • PPAA

            DianaLC lives in the bubble of getting all her information from wacky websites like NQ. She never actually supports anything she says with actual facts.

          • DianaLC

            I guess I should say that they may have paid their loans, but we will never get our money back for the way they have used their positions now to play golf, take expensive vacations, fly all over campaigning while pretending to be on government business, and generally wasting any tax money spent on them.

            So, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. 

            But I hold firmly to the belief that these loans, though technically paid back, have cost us tax payers dearly.

            I never once took out a load to attend my college programs, by the way, so didn’t have to pay anything back.  I did receive an academic scholarship that helped, but I also worked a 20-25 hour work week while taking 18 quarter hours (in those days) of classes and maintaining at least the required B+/A- grade point average necessary to keep my scholarship.

            Problem is that I never had or wanted family “influence” to help we gain a position to feed off public funds and then look down on the rest of the country that helped me get where I was.

            And prey tell, why don’t you ever answer us either about the cut and paste accusations?  It always seems strange to us that you are here always any time of day and always ready with cut and paste comments no matter the topic.  Could it be we are correct in our assessment of you as a basement dwelling paid for by the O organization troll?

          • Hokma

            “Obamas as blood-sucking products of affirmative action and government programs.”

            I would leave out the “blood-sucking” and keep the rest. Michelle I don’t know, but Barack definitely was. That is just a statemenbt of fact. And at the time it was necessary. 

          • Retired_from_SPOnaj

            In the cited article, Mr. Obama said, ““We were able to land good jobs with a steady income. “  What, specifically, were those good jobs with a steady income that allowed them to pay off their student loans?

  • http://twitter.com/LHN_UK Liverpool Hotels Now

    Listen to the speech President Obama gave to the AP today … listen with an open mind and seriously tell me where he’s wrong: 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49-tKE-Ka2Y

    The man is right on every single point he makes. The GOP is running on a Medicare killing budget that would skew our already skewed economy even further towards the 1%… Come on people! Wake up! President Obama is on our side. The Republicans are not.

    • HARP2

      All they are supposed to rule on ……..Is the law following the Constitution and not on the effects of such a law.

      • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

        True.  And Obama’s little display came off like a temper tantrum because he’s afraid he won’t get his way.
        The half hearted attempt to recognize his overreach was like a kid saying “sorry” in order to get to go to lunch with the rest of the kids.

    • stodghie

      seriously he’s wrong. there you go!

    • bigscreen

      …”The GOP is runningon a Medicare killing budget…”,  Who was it that took 500Billion out of Medicare? That’s a 1/2 Trillion your guy directed out of Medicare

    • Hokma

      Keep drinking the cult kool-aid. The man is ignorant and a psychopathic liar. And you are a moron for believing it on face value.

    • jrterrier

      if we continue on the present path, by 2027, medicare, SS and paying interest on the debt will take up 100% of the economy.

  • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

    Obama’s rhetoric further emboldens those that believe he doesn’t love America or Americans.  The damage is already done for many voters.  
    His minions are running out of bluffs and excuses.  

    The most he has done in three years is blame, insult, and ignore Congress, the American people (possibly the favored 12% excluded), and now the Supreme Court.

    In any other business setting – he would have been out the door long ago.

    • jrterrier

      i’m more concerned about how it affects a lot of people, who have less understanding of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the co-equal branches.  That’s why it’s such a wrong-headed and short-sighted comment.  He’s the president, and a former editor of the Harvard Law Review.  A lot of his supporters believe he knows what he is talking about. 

      • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

        True.  Like the few faux intellectuals who post as Obama supporters.  

  • TeakWoodKite

    When Obama hears the word Marbury, he thinks can I smoke a Camel?

    • FLDemFem

       He can’t smoke Camels, might offend some person from the Middle East. Some over there do own and race them, you know.

  • TeakWoodKite

    The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang…. poor lady. Probably just a DOJ line attorney who had no idea when she left for work how really side ways her day would go, even though the thought of having to defend the Obamacare was a career killer out of the gate…. didn’t help.

    • HoosierinDixie

      I wonder if they will comply with the court order or face being held in contempt. Either way this story is not going away anytime soon. I think it should show up as a political ad with Obama writing 1000 times on a black board “I will not disrespect the court.”

      • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

        I hope it’s just another thing that haunts his campaign along with the hot mic, two failed budgets that even the house dems won’t vote for, the crap economy, the job losses, fast and furious, Michelle’s vacations, the missing records, the deficit…

        etc, etc, etc

      • Flop_Flipper

        I wonder if the opinion, if delivered, will be made public.

        • jrterrier

          i’m sure that it will be filed in the public court records. 

      • jrterrier

        they’ve got a case pending review before the 5th Circuit where a group of doctors are challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, so I would think DOJ  would answer since it goes to the heart of the law suit.  

    • jrterrier

      from the article i read, the DOJ lawyer immediately conceded the power of the court to review and overrule, citing Marbury v Madison. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

    Larry,  are you forgetting that hiznibs is a LINO?

    (Lawyer In Name Only)

    He may have passed a Bar exam, but he has NEVER had a client and appeared in court.

     Biden never wanted to be a Mayor because “you have to produce.”  Likewise, hiznibs NEVER wanted to go before a judge because that would make hiz arrogance appear  s u b s e r v i e n t to the law.

    • TeakWoodKite

      but he has NEVER had a client and appeared in court.

      He actually did appear in court to defend Rezko. Rezko was accused of not supplying heat to the people living in Rezko tenaments he managed.
      Obama got him off with a fine of 100 dollars. Rezko’s apartment dwellers froze.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MCA6QIPPR3EXRQRYL3MVYJSKLQ Joe

        Thanks for correcting the record; your knowledge of hiz case history is truly remarkable…

        especially when you consider that so much of his past has been scrubbed from the public record and is hidden from ever seeing the light of day.

        Are you sure those court records weren’t forged?

        ; – )

        • TeakWoodKite

          I read that report from Lynn Sweet at the Sun Times? In 2007 she did an good bit of writing on the BO.

        • Wisewoman2

          Here is another case although he might not have been the leading attorney.  One could argue that he set the wheels in motion that caused the housing meltdown that destroyed this country’s economic prosperity.  I believe if this information is talked about in the upcomming campaign, it will sink Obama.

          http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112

      • KenoshaMarge

        Now wonder we don’t hear much about his “Perry Mason” moment. He can hardly claim to be the champion of all the poor folks while defending a slum lord.

        Well actually he can because the media will “spin” it in his favor til they look like a bunch of helicopters.

      • FLDemFem

         Not only did he defend Rezko, but he, as a state senator, was instrumental in Rezko’s getting grant(taxpayer’s) money to build the housing in the first place. $100 million in building grants. Then Rezko claimed that he didn’t have enough left over for regular maintenance, like furnaces and such. No accounting of the funds was ever produced. While Obama was a state senator he had a salaried job at the law firm that represented Rezko. They paid him $8000 a month to come in occasionally and put his feet up on the desk. This was a salary, not based on any work or billed hours as is usual in a law office. And Michelle had that nice job at the hospital..still only making $193,000 and change a year. After he got in the Senate and sent a million dollar earmark their way, she got a raise of about $100,000/yr.

        And they were still in financial trouble, maxed out, with that enormous income. This is the guy who thinks he can fix the economy. Couldn’t even keep his own check book balanced.

        • TeakWoodKite

          During that time Obama claimed he didn’t know those constituents in his state senate district were freezing their asses of in a Chicago winter.
          He lied then and he lies now. His indifference is second only to his lack of intelligence.

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

       …that, and teleprompters are not allowed in the courtroom…

      • Flop_Flipper

         Now that tickled my fancy.

    • foxyladi14

       oh yes he did;he defended Acorn and won.

  • Justine00

    Obummer got so worked up about the Supreme Court yesterday, one would imagine there had been a leak about how it’ll decide on Obummercare.  First time in history, eh?

    [Not too smart to fight the Court before the actual decision.]
    .

  • jrterrier

    i guess the Pres was just present (but not paying attention) when they discussed marbury v madison in his constitutional law class. 

    even wikipedia knows about it:

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it “unconstitutional”.[1][2] The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

  • jrterrier

    passed by a “strong majority”?  really?  what vote is he talking about?

    • KenoshaMarge

      The one that happened in his head.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

    Oh, the Obama Brain Dead Left will buy whatever fantasy he sells because they are all, to a person, even more ridiculous and incompetent than Obama is. They’ll just keep guzzling the Kool Aid & drool over how kewl & super smart he is. 

    And BTW — if there is a strong majority who wants a law that the SCOTUS declares unconstitutional then the remedy is amending the Constitution not trying to get rid of the judicial branch. You’d think Obama would know that, but again, he must have missed high school civics. 

    • stodghie

      i can’t speak to what obama truly understands though i’d say from watching what he says and does it is limited to a lower level than a high school student. he has never held a position where he actually worked and accomplished anything except street organizer. the rest probably bored him because he didn’t understand it and furthermore held distain for all as he learned at mom’s knee.

      when you apply stupid, nothing get fixed or done. as larry said stupid is forever. we all make mistakes and most often learn from it however if you think you are perfect, there is nothing to learn except continue to apply stupid to critical life/death situations for this country.

  • HARP2

    After complaining that the Supreme Court is unelected, he turns this same bill over to unelected officials to administer.

    What a brilliant Constitutional mind.

    So much for our first affirmative action President.

    With some serious training he MIGHT be able to substitute for Vanna White.

    • jrterrier

      this is just such dangerous rhetoric.  for his own petty political gain, he is ready and willing to undermine one of the pillars of our democracy, the rule of law and a co-equal constitutional branch.  

      • KenoshaMarge

        It is dangerous rhetoric but that will not, does not bother Obami the Great.

         He’s such a petty little man and such a liar that character and truth and concern for the country that allowed him to rise to the pinnacle of his trade (politician) are not consistant with his goals.

        Here’s just one more example of what a petty POS he is:

         Obama the Petty mocks Romney for using the word “marvelous”
        http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/03/obama-mocks-romney-word-marvelous/

        • FLDemFem

           No, he is mad because Romney didn’t call him marvelous!! After all isn’t he the one who made the oceans stop rising and all that stuff?? I am sure Obama thinks he should be called marvelous, not a bunch of paper with a budget on it. Especially since the ones he sends to Congress are called anything but marvelous.

      • FLDemFem

         jr, he doesn’t believe in separate branches of government. He thinks there should be one branch…his. And with no equals who can contradict him. He doesn’t like that, apparently.

  • Flop_Flipper

    Obama believes that the power of his persuasion is able to bamboozle the public into believing that the Supreme Court’s decision may be unconstitutional. Expect all the Dems to bobble head in the affirmative.

    The Asshole and Thief really believes that whatever he says goes. He has no respect for the Constitution, has no respect for the patriot founders and doesn’t give a shit what people that disagree with his imperialistic fantasies believe.

    I am beginning to adopt the opinion that citizens should be required to at least read our Constitution before they are eligible to vote.

    • wylrae

      Does Obama’s thinking (or lack thereof) apply only to federally passed laws or would it be considered “judicial activism” at the state level also?  Correct me if I am wrong but seems to me I read somewhere that a ballot issue (I think in either N.Y. or Calif., but might be off on this) was passed outlawing gay marriage but that that state’s Supreme Court (I think it was the state Supreme Court) ruled that that law was unconstitutional.  So, was that ruling “judicial activism”?

  • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

    Obama’s comments yesterday revealed a serious personality flaw.  He has boundary problems.  He engages in derisive thought and speech then, in turn, endangers his own position.  That behavior leads one to believe that he has a difficult time discerning between his fantasy life and reality.

    • http://twitter.com/LHN_UK Liverpool Hotels Now

      FDR ran against the Supreme Court in the 1930s… if this crazed right wing Supreme Court really kills health care reform then Obama would be right to do the same in the 2010s!

      • bigscreen

        My favorite part of the “vote” was Speaker Nancy telling The House, ‘If you want to know what’s in the bill you’ll have to vote for it first.”  Defend that why don’t you.

        • Flop_Flipper

          This is such great fodder for political ads that it pretty much writes itself.

        • mumphrey

          ¿Link?

          • bigscreen

            zzzzzzzzz….. oh come on, she was on every tv stration in the County saying  that

      • KenoshaMarge

        The only thing crazed is your hyperbolic remark.

      • Roger Elder

        This poster is just seeding links to his twitter account in the name. This isn’t even about the comment it’s about search engines. 

      • FLDemFem

         FDR did not “run against the Supreme Court in the 1930′s”. He tried to get Congress to add more justices so he could pack the court. Big difference. Do read up on your history before commenting on it, otherwise you look like the fool you are.

        • Hokma

          And the reason FDR was trying to pack the Supreme Court was because he was trying to enact legislation that at times was grossly unconstitutional and was based on policies his advisors first saw in the USSR.

          FDR was a failed businessman before getting into politics. Because of that he did not trust private enterprise and viewed government as the only engine to the economy. 

          The only difference between Obama and FDR is that Obama never had a real job or managed anything.  Otherwise both viewed government as the only solution to the economy and both created the longest periods of a sustained struggling economy in modern history.