Patterico's Pontifications

4/3/2012

Should I be outraged at Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court?

Filed under: General — Karl @ 9:54 am

[Posted by Karl]

I am having difficulty summoning outrage over Pres. Obama expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare or his suggestion that striking it down would be an unprecedented exercise in judicial activism.  Allahpundit is correct that Obama is being a little more dishonest than usual.  But not much more so than usual.

First, the general liberal hysteria following in the wake of last week’s oral arguments suggests that Obama (mostly) believes what he is saying.  By ideology and training, he is as inclined to be dismissive of the legal arguments against Obamacare as the typical Ivy League academic.

Second, as a matter of politics, Obama surely would not express a lack of confidence that Obamacare is constitutional.  The “judicial activism” trope is annoying for its sheer hypocrisy, but by no means unprecedented.  Partisan attacks on the Supreme Court date back to the Marshall Court.  Indeed, Marbury v. Madison was probably decided in the way it was — ruling the Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case while establishing the principle of judicial review in dicta — under fear of Marshall’s impeachment (and fear Madison would defy the Court if it ruled against him). 

In modern times, people are more likely to remember FDR’s court-packing scheme.  The “court reform” plan backfired on FDR politically.  Furthermore, while FDR’s attacks are often credited with influencing the Court to adopt a sweeping view of federal power that forms the backdrop of the current dispute over Obamacare, the history suggests otherwise.   In the present, if Justice Kennedy is influenced by anyone, it is more likely to be Obamacare shills like Linda Greenhouse; Obama bigfooting the issue is likely counter-productive.  The crtitique of judicial activism that gained steam with Richard Nixon was probably more effective because that activism likely moved blocs of voters into the GOP column — but conservatives have had at least their share of disappointments in this more recent period as well.  If Obamacare gets struck in whole or part, it might energize Democrats, but likely won’t move Indepenedents, let alone Republicans.  And it’s far from clear that it would even energize Dems all that much; the most recent precedent here is Obama attacking the Court to its face over Citzens United at the 2010 SOTU speech, to no noticable effect in the mideterm elections.

I can muster disdain for Obama’s comments, but outrage? I can save that energy for other things, like Obamacare itself.

–Karl

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: ObamaCare’s mandate is an unprecedented expansion in the federal government’s power. A decision striking it down would not be activism. If the issue is unprecedented it is not the fault of the Supreme Court, but of the two branches of government that passed this unprecedented monstrosity.

Don’t create an unprecedented problem and then complain that the correction of that problem is unprecedented.

Update 2 (Karl):  You know who did not care much for Obama’s comments?  The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:

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.

Via AOSHQ.

86 Responses to “Should I be outraged at Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court?”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (f07e38)

  2. When has Rama Lama Ding Dang ever done the right thing?

    nk (dec503)

  3. Unfocused individuals will strike-out aimlessly to ward off the evil that they believe bedevils them; even though the source of their trouble lies within them.
    Four and Out, can’t come soon enough!

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  4. Obama needs an enemy of the day, week or month to demonize. It’s been his strategy from Day One and very presidential, IMHO. For an alleged constitutional scholar, however, his explanation of why the SC shouldn’t overturn the law just makes him look like a complete idiot.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  5. He just wants to do what he wants to do. I’m always amused by the Living Document theory on the Left; they don’t feel that way when the Living Document leans Right.

    Which takes me back to the first sentence.

    I’m getting more and more curious about those academic transcripts. Especially when his campaign is all “where are Romney’s tax returns from the 80s?”

    It’s going to be an unpleasant election. I just hope—foolishly—that some journo is going to suddenly think, hey, if I start asking tough questions of the incumbent, I might get a Pulitzer!

    Simon Jester (ae4d92)

  6. I think his early demonization of the Supreme Court over Citizens United has gained great currency among the zealots and the marginally informed in the populace. It is not in the least surprising that O is adding a new act to that well received play. Perhaps I’m not at “outrage” level, but I am appalled at his unprofessionalism.

    elissa (974993)

  7. Lots of people are speculating that Kagan leaked to him and that is why he did this.

    I hope that is the case.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  8. Profoundly dishonest. Profoundly un-presidential. Profoundly stupid. Profoundly hypocritical. In short, typical Barcky.

    JD (7a7e60)

  9. From my Twitter feed, it seems that Obama’s speech today is much more offensive. So there’s that.

    Karl (f07e38)

  10. Why does not Obama show the same deference to the Defense of Marriage Act?

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  11. The human nervous system typically has a component of not measuring an absolute value, but a difference in value. At the children’s science museum in Toledo, Ohio (which is very good), there is an exhibit of parallel copper tubes with different temps. When you put your arm down on it it feels like you are being burned, even though none of the tubes are anywhere near hot enough to burn.

    The other pertinent anecdote is cooking a frog or lobster, put it in cool water and slowly heat and it doesn’t realize it’s getting cooked (at least so I’m told).

    So- should one be outraged? In one way yes, but as the question suggests, he has been outrageous on so many fronts, including getting elected in the first place, it is hard to know how and when to be outraged in a manner that will get traction. After all, when rightfully called a liar, it was the congressman who caught grief.

    I think video of him talking about the need to have high gasoline prices immediately juxtaposed against blaming Bush for high prices, then apologizing himself for high gas prices, then saying he can not do anything about gas prices.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  12. Outrage wasn’t the feeling. More like scorn and disgust, and puzzlement about what he expected to gain from odd remarks about (nonexistent) “strong majorities” and constitutionality.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  13. MD: I think that should be the template for the election…

    “…I think video of him talking about the need to have high gasoline prices immediately juxtaposed against blaming Bush for high prices, then apologizing himself for high gas prices, then saying he can not do anything about gas prices….”

    Then superimpose a waffle and a voiceover intones: “He talks about other people ‘waffling’ on issues. But the real question is what won’t he say, and who won’t he blame? To borrow a phrase, vote for change in 2012.”

    Simon Jester (ae4d92)

  14. Karl – link to today’s speech?

    JD (7a7e60)

  15. __________________________________________

    he has been outrageous on so many fronts, including getting elected in the first place,

    He has desensitized the populace towards just how symbolically and technically marginal — and flaky — a sitting US president can be. Again, from a purely symbolic standpoint, I think of the moments he purposefully bowed in front of the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan. Or his sticking his big yap into the middle of the controversy involving Henry Louis Gates’s run-in with a cop, and, far more recently, proclaiming that if he had a son, that kid would look like Treyvor Martin.

    Van Jones said yesterday that even if Obama came out and proclaimed he was gay, he’d still get most of the black vote. In a similar vein, if Obama dismantled the Supreme Court and, at the same time, the economy were booming, he’d get the support of many other voters too.

    Welcome to Argentina North.

    Mark (31bbb6)

  16. The irony, of course, is that if Obamacare is struck down the only candidate who will have to defend the individual mandate is Romney.

    foxbat (690364)

  17. desensitized

    thanks, mark. exactly the point I didn’t make as clear as I wanted to.

    I agree that probably 1/3 of the vote will go to him no matter what, as well as probably at least 1/3 that are ABO. It’s getting 1/6 +1 to vote against him we need.

    Over on PowerLine they have a lot of interesting things on how the Obama campaign continues to enable illegal contributions through using a credit card, complete with examples discussed and screen shots of accepted donations.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  18. These speeches are all about politicizing Americans’ views of the institution. The president has already set the stage with Citizens United, and Sandra Fluke and the odious War on Women theme. Surely others besides me see that a major Obama campaign objective has been a plan to use this to further instill fear of future Supreme Courts. (Because, the left will claim, under a Republican president there will be even more Conservative Justices named and Roe V. Wade will be overturned. They’ll be throwing women in jail!!!!!)

    I am not at all puzzled why Obama is saying what he’s saying.

    elissa (974993)

  19. According to Obama, conservative judicial philosophy means a judge sits there and does nothing.

    As a con law prof, didn’t Obama hear about Marbury v. Madison?

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  20. “The irony, of course, is that if Obamacare is struck down the only candidate who will have to defend the individual mandate is Romney.”

    foxbat – Actually nobody will have to defend it on a federal level.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. AZB, he slept through that lecture.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  22. daleyrocks: “Actually nobody will have to defend it on a federal level.”

    A distinction that will matter to just you and me come debate time.

    The press will carry Obama’s water on this and Romney had better come up with less lame ways of addressing it. Or, gee, how about this — a nominee that doesn’t require so much hemming and hawing….

    foxbat (690364)

  23. AZB, he slept through that lecture.

    – He voted “present”

    Icy (148f26)

  24. If you’re a conservative,
    Obamacare is unconstitutional.
    Roe-v-Wade, Lawrence and extending rights to terrorists held outside the US are examples of judicial activism.
    Citizen’s United and Heller were proper decisions.

    And if you’re a liberal, reverse the above.

    BOTH sides claim to be defenders of the Constitution… and BOTH sides claim that the other side is determined to weaken the protections the Constitution provides… and BOTH sides are sincere in their views. Of course, it is much easier and emotionally gratifying to argue that you and your side alone have the proper view of just what the Constitution means… and to impugn the morals and intelligence of people on the other side of any given issue before the Court.

    The fact is the meaning of the Constitution depends… on who is doing the defining… and by what their view on the proper role of government in American society should be.

    So, outraged? Not even close. Obama is doing what anyone who believes in Obamacare would be doing… expressing his confidence (hope?) that the justices (at least five of them) will see things the same way he does.

    steve (254463)

  25. Demonizing the Court is yet another example of the Administration’s fundamental flaw: a tactical approach to all problems.

    Obama is a tactician; he has no strategy and never will have a strategy. Community organizing is about tactics. Everything is short-term to Obama, and his staff’s advice to the contrary falls on deaf ears. So, attacking the institutions that he will need to govern if re-elected doesn’t cause him concern. All he cares about is today’s problem and like any community organizer, he knows who to call and what to say to get attention RIGHT NOW.

    The good thing is that this is why he will lose.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  26. Steve – that is nonsense.

    Today’s partial walk-back was almost as bad as the day before.

    JD (47826f)

  27. Kevin M: in what way does Obama attacking the Supreme Court hurt him in a theoretical second term? Since he’s got four justices in hand, are you suggesting that one of the ‘conservative’ justices will rule against Obama strictly out of spite?

    That wouldn’t be something a real conservative would applaud, would it?

    steve (254463)

  28. Just wait until the VRWC starts airing the “Putin sell-out” ads….some of which will get down right vicious.
    Can’t wait to hear how The Won is going to claim how he was just stringin’ those Rooskies along.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  29. steve: “The fact is the meaning of the Constitution depends… on who is doing the defining”

    Your stance is predicated on the view that the effort put forth in 1787 was pretty much a pointless exercise.

    It’s certainly a viewpoint, but have the honesty to acknowledge that it’s confined to the far Left.

    foxbat (690364)

  30. The fact is the meaning of the Constitution depends… on who is doing the defining

    – Or “re-defining”, as it were.

    Icy (148f26)

  31. Outraged? No. In the greater scheme of things there are much more important Obama-derived fiascos about which to be outraged. That Obamacare at present is the law of the land is Exh. A.

    Bemused? Yeah. It’s interesting in the same ways in which train wrecks are interesting to observe airheaded leftists melting down in advance over a decision that hasn’t even yet been announced.

    Speaking of which, can you fathom the reaction by the left-wing mass media if Bush 43 in advance of the annoucement of the Hamdan decision had pulled a similar stunt? Candlelight vigils. High dudgeon mode.

    What makes Obama’s preemptive attack on the SCOTUS all the more ironic and all the more perplexing is the fact that if the statute is thrown out in its entirety it won’t negatively affect Obama one iota and in fact could help him. The talking zombies and walking corpses who’ll be voting for Obama will in any event still vote for Obama, in lock step. Whereas if the entire statute is jettisoned a lot of people on the right and the putative right will view it as an excuse not to bother participating in the election. If Obamacare is no more, the thinking or lack thereof will go, there’s no reason to “sully” one’s self by voting for the establishment RINO, or whatever.

    The final irony inherent in this latest kerfuffle is that not surprisingly among the most vocal supporters of Obamacare are that of young liberal students and recent graduates. Were Obamacare to remain in force, however, the job prospects for that demographic will remain not only subdued but downright catastrophic. Obamacare will increase compliance costs for small and mid-sized businesses and it further will break the budgets of state and local governments and agencies. Under Obamacare the young denizens of Gen. Y even are less marketable and are less employable. That they would not be able even to grasp the irony adds yet another ironic layer to this erstwhile debate.

    Tsar Nicholas II (cb2d5b)

  32. The fact is the meaning of the Constitution depends… on who is doing the defining

    – Or “re-defining”, as it were.

    - or making shlt up, as it were. ;-)

    JD (47826f)

  33. Obamacare is but a symptom of this managerial mandarins

    narciso (5b14a6)

  34. mandarins…
    well, if you want to be France, it helps to turn everything over to an amorphous group of unaccountable elites….the Mandarins of the Intelligentsia/Bureaucracy.

    But, don’t be shocked when the peasantry storms the Bastille, and sets up the tools of accountability in the Place de la Concorde.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  35. Comment by narciso — 4/3/2012 @ 1:45 pm

    I suppose the Community Organizer in Chief forgot a basic rule of the street:
    Don’t let your mouth write a check your a$$ can’t cash!

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  36. IANAL thank gawd, but I cannot recall the Courts ever throwing down the gauntlet like that before. Is that common?

    JD (47826f)

  37. Updated.

    Karl (f07e38)

  38. JD (14),

    Today’s Obama speech.

    Karl (f07e38)

  39. Thanks, Karl. Good thing he was talking to his buddies and allies.

    JD (47826f)

  40. Given that the Court met last Friday to do the preliminary vote on this case, I’d say this attack at this time means the secret feedback the President has wasn’t very promising. If the vote was in his favor it wouldn’t make much sense for him to go on the attack. That he went so far into the deep end with the attack with such distorted facts implies his signature bill is on the chopping block with a full kill likely.

    tld (6b5ba0)

  41. I am having difficulty summoning outrage over Pres. Obama expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare or his suggestion that striking it down would be an unprecedented exercise in judicial activism.
    – Unfortunately, we tend to become numb to predictable behavior, regardless of how outrageous it truly is. Same bs, different day.

    Allahpundit is correct that Obama is being a little more dishonest than usual.  But not much more so than usual.
    – It’s kinda like Sloe Joe’s gaffes: when you KNOW it’s coming getting outraged about it could make it look like you are overreacting.

    First, the general liberal hysteria following in the wake of last week’s oral arguments suggests that Obama (mostly) believes what he is saying.
    – Don’t undersell the qualifier “mostly”, for there is absolutely an air of ‘throwing it against the wall and seeing what sticks’ to this issue. He did what he could to ‘pack the court’ and now he’s crossing his fingers that it’ll be enough in this case, BECAUSE he has to display solidarity with the liberal hysteria in order to retain strong support from his base. This IS, for him, about his re-election.

    By ideology and training, he is as inclined to be dismissive of the legal arguments against Obamacare as the typical Ivy League academic.
    – Call it a ‘code-word for “uppity”‘ all you want; the man is arrogant. He believes that he IS better because he KNOWS better.

    The “judicial activism” trope is annoying for its sheer hypocrisy, but by no means unprecedented.
    – It’s a transferable trope, depending on which side of a particular issue you support. But the annoying thing here is that it is being completely misapplied in this case! The “judicial activism” trope refers to ‘legislating from the bench’ ie. judges determining what the law IS (in effect, making the law). That isn’t the case here. In this case the supremes are ACTUALLY DOING WHAT THEY ARE THERE TO DO — determine whether a piece of legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by the president is constitutional. They’re not going to rewrite the law; they’re going to decide if the law, as written, is legal.

    Icy (148f26)

  42. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year.  But prosperity sure didn’t trickle down. 

    Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century.  And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.

    I see what he did there.

    JD (47826f)

  43. Steve (#27)

    Obama relies on the Courts as much as he dislikes their power when it works against him. There are many things that he can accomplish that the Court will enable. He just has to take a broader view than he usually does.

    But when he games Problem A and concludes that trashing the Court will help him there, with no reference to how this hurts with B or C, or some others he doesn’t see as yet, he falls into the tactical trap that has been his hallmark. This was most obviously seen by the way he burnt a year, all his political capital, and 60% majorities in both houses of Congress to pass a cluster*uck of a medical reform. The tactical nature of that mistake is exacerbated by the lack of concern about constitutionality, which he’s attempting to solve with more of the same.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  44. Good Allah, Karl. His asshattery knows no bounds.

    JD (47826f)

  45. That wasn’t a nightstick, that was a pair of nunchuks, the appeals court struck with;

    narciso (5b14a6)

  46. There’s probably no real strong opurpose to Obama’s argumentys, beyond strengthening the coherance of his supporters. It’s designed to make it easier to say that the Supreme Court was wrong if it overturns it. (if he says now that it’s unprecedented, the poutrage – and hopefully the voter turbnouyt and enthusiasm – wiull be greater)

    As usual, in trying to make a plausible sounding simple argument, he gets himself into saying something palpably false.

    You can make some arguments it’s unprecedented – or at least unusual – in some way. You can’t say it passed by a strong majority. You can’t say the Supreme Court never overturned big laws, because it did in the 1930s.

    And back in 20120 Obama complained abouyt teh Supreme Court overturning a law in his Staate of the Union address.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  47. In 2010, about Citizens’s Union, where he claimed that a hundred years of constututional law had been overtgurned (Not so, although a campaighn conmtributuon law that was not overturned, forbidding campoaign conmtributuions from the Treasury of a corporation, was passed in 1907)

    Obama actually though does have only a superficial knowledge of the history opf constitutional law.

    The Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” column by Jamwes Taranto has today (published at 4:43 PM)

    At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday’s comments: “Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?”

    Obama’s answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and “as a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.” He went on to talk at some length about the “human element”–that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend “a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.”

    But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, in which he tried to walk back, or at least clarify, his statement from yesterday. He spoke slowly, with long pauses, giving the sense that he was speaking with great thought and precision: “Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

    In fact, Lochner–about which more in a moment–was decided in 1905. Thirty years later, after the New Deal had begun, the high court unanimously struck down one of its main components, the National Industrial Recovery Act, as exceeding Congress’s authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The case was A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935).

    Lochner was about overturning state laws using the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. The New Deal legislation overturned federal laws on the grounds that it wasn’t interstate commerce.

    This left nobody able to pass certain kinds of economic laws. In 1937, after winning re-election, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, attempted to pack the court by increasing its membership, proposing a law that involved age. (The court had had some extra justices added to it in the 1860s, but this was more justices and kind of would not let the next president do it so easily)

    While thid was defeated (it was not by the way unconstitutional) the Suporeme Court began to reverse its decisions and justices bnegan to retire. This may have been sort of a political decision, and wickard and also the political question doctrine of Felix Frankfurter, should be seen in taht context.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  48. ==45.Good Allah, Karl. His asshattery knows no bounds==

    Says you, JD. But Valerie thought it sounded good.

    elissa (974993)

  49. Kevin #44: you make the mistake of looking at it from your perspective. Obama doesn’t see it that way (a somewhat obvious statement, as otherwise he would act differently).

    He doesn’t think he wasted political capital. He used it doing what he wanted to, reshaping health insurance (and not in a good way). What else was he going to want to do with the votes he had?

    And so it ‘cost’ him the majority in the House and a filibuster proof Senate? Big deal. He likely figured he had gotten most of what he wanted, he didn’t lose his seat in 2010, he will use executive power to accomplish his goals and he still has a better than average chance of being re-elected… and a decent chance of the Democrats regaining the House.

    He doesn’t see a downside to trashing the court, as he figures that not a single justice will change their ruling on a single case in response to his rantings (the liberals won’t for sure, and the conservatives are too honorable to resort to such pettiness).

    He can go off-mike to the Russians and play both sides with Afghanistan and not lose a single vote (those not liking his foreign policy are already voting against him).

    You don’t have to agree with him but you’re making a mistake if you look at it solely from the viewpoint of a conservative*. You and I wouldn’t have done what he did, but we’re not from his side.

    * And if you’re JD, you just hit the auto-insult button on your browser. No need to bother actually thinking about what has been written, no need to actually formulate a response, just fire off the insult and chuckle at how clever you think you are.

    steve (254463)

  50. Wow. I would’ve paid a large amount of money to be present in the oral argument courtroom during that exchange with Judge Smith.

    When a client is going to the press to trash-talk the judges before whom his case is pending, most lawyers will tell the client to STFU (or some slightly more polite variant of that instruction that’s to the same substantive effect).

    But nobody can tell Barack Obama anything. He knows it all.

    Beldar (8fdc17)

  51. SCOTUS isnt going to invalidate the law. My hope is that they geta strong majority (which ever way it goes, but again I doubt stike down). At least 7:1 and I hope 9:0. The reputation of the SCOTUS is at a low and getting worse. a split decision on this case would divide the country and hurt the court.

    Jason (2125df)

  52. you make the mistake of looking at it from your perspective.

    That’s where my eyes are.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  53. In any event, Steve, if I looked at it from the perspective of, say, LBJ, I’d say the same thing.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  54. At my blog, I have a link to the audio from the Fifth Circuit and my own transcript, including of the thoughts running through the mind of the poor woman representing the U.S. in this. You can read it, here.

    Yeah, i said a transcript of her thoughts. because i think we all know what she was thinking when she was asked about judicial review: WTf. Which stands of course for “Win the Future!”

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  55. Sorry if this point has been made already – I skimmed all the prior comments but might have missed it.

    I for one WAS outraged. A president, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution (and even ‘pushing’ Obamacare could be excused as misinterpretation, although the oft-pushed-by-the-LSM “Constitutional law professor” should have known there was at least some question about the mandate), has publicly declared the highest authority of one third of the federal government is somehow *invalid*, and has preemptively stated that they should not be permitted to any finding other than the one he wants because they are “not elected”. Not only is that infuriatingly, openly dismissive of the whole concept of checks and balances…it’s also massively f***ing hypocritical.

    OK, so you’re saying a group of justices, selected by the administration branch (maybe not yours, but that’s beside the point, each admin gets its opportunities), and confirmed by Congress, is invalid and should not be able to overrule a “majority” (ignore the modifier as hyperbole, and recognize EVERY F***ING LAW EVER is passed by a “majority”) of the legislative branch and the signature of the chief executive.

    BUT….cabinet members in the administration, who are selected by the administration and confirmed by congress, such as the secretary of HHS, CAN be permitted to write vast swaths of ‘regulations’ which fulfill the rather general ‘outlines’ defined by a “majority” in congress, such as the contraception mandate, etc. etc. etc.

    AND it gets better. The same petulant narcissist, if he thinks that congress will NOT bless his selections, wastes no time with recess appointments for czar upon czar, creating authoritative roles for policy making out of “un-elected” (and not even “confirmed”) officials and for that matter entirely new organizations.

    He not only has done a complete 180 deg on his campaign rhetoric about ‘signing statements’ but has gone so far in some of his own to effectively claiming a line item veto. “I’ll sign this law but I disagree with this clause and will instruct the administration to completely disregard, will not enforce” sort of wording.

    Frankly I’ve always thought all the Machiavellian “community organizer as secret communist, out to destroy the country” memes as total paranoid Manchurian Candidate sort of babble. Or I did, until his little act the last few days, and the LSM’s sucking it up and pandering it for ratings, not ONE of the bas-turds having the balls to call it for what it is:

    A complete and blatant abrogation of his oath of office, that if the rest of the government had any honor whatsoever would immediately consider as such, and call it out openly. The POLITICS shouldn’t matter. Where you stand on health care shouldn’t matter.

    My fear – and here’s where I join the “nut-jobs” I guess – is that this is the first clear and open salvo in the dissolution of the United States. God help us if he wins another 4 years, because there is no longer any question in my mind he will pursue the same sort of conversion of government we’ve seen happen in S. and Central America all too many times now….and “4″ itself will change meaning somewhere along the way.

    rtrski (b052c5)

  56. narciso- thank you for so often citing noteworthy links. I am referring to the one at #34. (I looked at #56 but I don’t follow case references very well).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  57. Narciso, thanks. That explains some of the oddities in his remarks I hadn’t been able to figure out.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  58. Lochner was a rather extreme decision, the antipode of Commerce Clause juggernaut like Obamacare,

    narciso (5b14a6)

  59. You’re welcome, now it’s time for Justified;

    narciso (5b14a6)

  60. Hinderaker’s summation statement on the topic:

    One could be charitable and say that Barack Obama is a bullshitter who makes stuff up whenever he is in a tough spot, or one could say that he is a habitual liar. Take your pick.

    This question has been raised many times in many forms on this blog, and not on April Fools Day (unfortunately). The current consensus opinion, if I recall correctly, is “Yes”.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  61. * And if you’re JD, you just hit the auto-insult button on your browser. No need to bother actually thinking about what has been written, no need to actually formulate a response, just fire off the insult and chuckle at how clever you think you are.

    Nah. I just figured that I was tired of your a pox on both your houses nonsense, and that if you in any way thought there was some accurate comparison to complaining about the judiciary creating law and rights out of thin air and penumbras as opposed to people that are complaining that a law is being weighed against the Constitution … Well, the seriousness of my response was in direct proportion to the weight of your position.

    JD (318f81)

  62. Does the constitutional scholar in chief ever actually quote the laws accurately? As noted at Volokh, Teh One really has problems with citing Lochner in the past, and is clearly skewed on the facts this time as well. Harvard law review produced someone ghat doesn’t know the decade or jurisdiction of Lochner, nor the applicability of Marbury. And then cites strong majorities of one party in the legislature as proof of constitutionality. Good Allah, we are screwed.

    JD (318f81)

  63. He is the ‘Bart Simpson,’ of constitutional jurisprudence and not in a good way, I don’t know if we owe this particular circumstance to Bell (likely) Ogletree, or Tribe, almost certainly.

    narciso (5b14a6)

  64. The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money — it won’t be on our books — is because we’ve shifted it to seniors. They’ll bear more of the costs themselves.

    Obama on the idea of giving people on Medicare “premium support” to buy a health insurance policy (He argues some plans will charge less, but only because of patient selection, and many seniors will pay to get what we have now for free.)

    And the individual mandate of Obamacare doesn’t shift a lot of costs to non-seniors? They won’t all go on Medicaid. What does he imagine is the political problem with it? It’s premium non-support.

    Sammy Finkelman (324ec1)

  65. But not much more so than usual.

    Not a particularly high bar you’re setting there, sirrah.

    Kind of like saying, “I grant you, he’s not as bad as Goebbels….”

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d)

  66. Jug-Eared Dog will really have a fit when the Senate tries him.

    Prolly will refuse to appear or give depositions on National Security and Equal Branches grounds.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  67. narc

    if you haven’t looked at my post on the subject… you should.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  68. ‘”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,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance.’–CBS News

    Unprecedented?

    According to the GPO, the SCOTUS has overturned unconstitutional acts (or provisions of acts) of Congress 158 times in the history of this country.

    Naturally, I’m not outraged, because I expect nitwits to spew nonsense.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  69. It’s very good Aaron, the Bart Simpson notion had occurred to me, and Judge Smith, might be Principal Skinner,

    narciso (5b14a6)

  70. Don’t worry. The President will explain how you should describe his positions.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/03/obama_instructs_journalists_on_how_to_report_his_positions.html

    Simon Jester (ae4d92)

  71. Keep it up, Mr. golf games and vacations on the taxpayers’ billions President. The only thing you have accomplished is eliminating DADT. I agree. It was way ******* stupid to begin with. You know, there’s a lot of things about you I like. Like that you’re no Bill Clinton or Martin Luther King, you know how to be faithful to your wife and a good father to your children. But, darnit, can’t you do a little bit more? Like being President?

    nk (dec503)

  72. I take some of that back. The Clintons were are good parents to Chelsea.

    nk (dec503)

  73. Well Obama says it’s “unprecdented” for the Supreme Court to overturn a statute passed by Congress. Not hardly.

    And Obama has been caught out once again attempting to bamboozle the public with braggadocio and flat out lies. Unprecedented? Not hardly.

    Mike Myers (dc4fc0)

  74. Ahhhh remember the good ol days. WACO Burning, Janet Reno skating, Sandy Burger stuffing documents down his pants, Clinton stuffing Monica Lewinsky down his pants, lying before grand juries, missing Rose Law firm records, Vince Foster GETTING DEAD,

    Obama is a SOCIOPATH. He isn’t merely dishonest, he has NO RESPECT for anything except his own lust for POWER. Look at what Obama has said in the last 2 days alone. Then imagine he NEVER HAS TO RUN AGAIN.

    Gus (694db4)

  75. Obama has no lust for power. There’s been no lazier president than him. He has a lust for welfare and foodstamps, and the Presidential pension.

    nk (dec503)

  76. rtrski, long time no comment. What up?

    Icy (6c3bce)

  77. The unions and occupunks, are ready to rumble, are the republicans?

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  78. 80. ‘Sconnies lead by Ryan appear tuned. Likely just on behalf of Walker. State looks lost to DC GOP.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  79. Icy: Work busy. Been reading still, not much to offer comment-wise until recent events really (really!) raised my ire.

    I’m rapidly approaching “racist!” (in the joking way everyone throws any criticizer of O. under the bus here) status myself. No longer just “not a fan”.

    rtrski (c69273)

  80. That wouldn’t be something a real conservative would applaud, would it?

    No, steve, it’s not, but they ARE human beings, and if they’re sitting on the fence, the best(worst) thing you can do to get them off the fence is to shoot stupid spitballs at them.

    I doubt any of them will make a decision based on President Downgrade’s attacks, but it may make them more determined to seriously ask hard questions on something he supports, which may make his position less tenable than it might be if he was giving the Court and its Justices their due respect — something all previous PotUSes have had the brains to do.

    As the man said, “If you’re walking on eggs… don’t hop

    IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d)

  81. DOJ’s letter to the 5th Circuit should be considered a double edged sword. The Administration is likely use the opportunity to gain ground against the federal bench. Any ambiguity or presumption should be examined in detail and rejected if it even slightly cracks open doors for later usurpation of the court’s prerogatives.

    ropelight (265977)

  82. This would be so nice in campaign spot for the Republican candidate, if and when Obamacare is overturned:

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

    “Barack Obama claims to be an expert on the Constitution, and he was ‘confident’ that forcing people to buy health insurance was legal. He was wrong. He was confident that he could deal with the economy. He was confident that he could create millions of jobs. He was confident that ‘green technology’ would solve all our energy problems. He was confident that he’d get the deficit under control. Wrong again. Now he’s confident that he can successfully negotiate with Iran and North Korea and Russia and China. He’s confident that Israel won’t be attacked. He’s confident that he can handle any new crisis that pops up. Are you confident that he knows what he’s doing?”

    Murgatroyd (e0d30c)

  83. Icy: Work busy. Been reading still, not much to offer comment-wise until recent events really (really!) raised my ire.
    I’m rapidly approaching “racist!” (in the joking way everyone throws any criticizer of O. under the bus here) status myself. No longer just “not a fan”.
    Comment by rtrski — 4/4/2012 @ 9:28 am

    – Ya gotta comment at work, when the boss ain’t a-lookin’.

    Icy (4e88b4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6794 secs.