[Truth]

Well now Obama has threatened the United States Supreme Court by saying that an unelected body shouldn't be able to declare as unconstitutional a law passed by an elected congress and signed into law by an elected president. It is difficult to conclude whether he is more arrogant than ignorant or more ignorant than arrogant. Thus, it must be concluded that he is both.

Now some of you are going to post that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of constitutional law. After all, that is the popular spin. In reality, both are incorrect.

He was president of the law review, an elected office, and not editor, an academically earned position. It is much like asking whether one was voted most popular in the class or was he class valedictorian. Obviously much different in status and meaning.

And, as for the "professor" designation that he likes to use, that is another wild stretch of reality. He was merely a lecturer. Never a professor. Those with a knowledge of the academic heirarchy know that the lowest level on the totum pole is the lecturer. A lecturer is tatamount to being, at best, an instructor. Not an assistant professor. Not an associate professor. And certainly not a full professor. Just a beginning teacher of sorts.

Apparently, Obama, unlike any good high school political science student, is unaware of the celebrated case of Marbury v Madison. Knowledge of this case is basic to anyone who has studied political science and obviously to anyone who has attended law school.

Possibly Obama was out community organizing or demonstrating on the days his law professors covered this historic decision. He should have that decision explained to him before again attacking the supreme court. He just might in the future avoid being both arrogant and ignorant. But, that isn't likely. After all, that is what makes Obama Obama.

[Hoot Gibson]

I have a hard time believing that Obama is so thoroughly ignorant of constitutional law. His boundless arrogance simply allows him to view the American people as too stupid to see through his cynical lies. If he is right, then he will be reelected. If not, then he is he is destined to end up on the wrong side of a landslide repudiation.

[TheRealThing]

^ Maybe Obama is unaware there are three branches of the federal government. The Executive Branch, (Obama's funhouse), The Legislative Branch, which is at present gridlocked by bias and contempt, and finally The Judicial Branch, this is the part of our federal government which includes the Supreme Court and 9 Justices. They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution. They are the highest court in our country. The federal judicial system also has lower courts located in each state to hear cases involving federal issues. Now, if the Judicial Branch becomes the puppet of the Executive Branch by reciprocating to every law Obama's liberal loons dream up, we are at least two thirds of the way committed to becoming a MONARCHY. I'm sure King Obama is a title our president could get used to. FWIW, you can bet his majesty has invested enough effort to learn his health care law is in trouble with enough of those 9 justices to potentially strike down his signature achievement and he's totally upset about it.

[WideRight05]

I find it so hard to believe that someone could be THAT stupid. But, sadly, it's the truth (no pun intended).

Just so you know Truth - I have always wanted to create a username called "Lies" on here and debate your posts...but it wouldn't work because I agree with you on a lot haha.

[TheRealThing]

Well now Obama has threatened the United States Supreme Court by saying that an unelected body shouldn't be able to declare as unconstitutional a law passed by an elected congress and signed into law by an elected president. It is difficult to conclude whether he is more arrogant than ignorant or more ignorant than arrogant. Thus, it must be concluded that he is both.

Now some of you are going to post that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of constitutional law. After all, that is the popular spin. In reality, both are incorrect.

He was president of the law review, an elected office, and not editor, an academically earned position. It is much like asking whether one was voted most popular in the class or was he class valedictorian. Obviously much different in status and meaning.

And, as for the "professor" designation that he likes to use, that is another wild stretch of reality. He was merely a lecturer. Never a professor. Those with a knowledge of the academic heirarchy know that the lowest level on the totum pole is the lecturer. A lecturer is tatamount to being, at best, an instructor. Not an assistant professor. Not an associate professor. And certainly not a full professor. Just a beginning teacher of sorts.

Apparently, Obama, unlike any good high school political science student, is unaware of the celebrated case of Marbury v Madison. Knowledge of this case is basic to anyone who has studied political science and obviously to anyone who has attended law school.

Possibly Obama was out community organizing or demonstrating on the days his law professors covered this historic decision. He should have that decision explained to him before again attacking the supreme court. He just might in the future avoid being both arrogant and ignorant. But, that isn't likely. After all, that is what makes Obama Obama.

Thanks for posting this truth. I wasn't aware of the liberties he took in enhancing his resume. I'm not at all surprised though. Arrogance and ego are hallmarks of the small minded.

[jetpilot]

Glad to see these guys putting it back in his face:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/...on-health/

[Truth]

Al need to be aware that the liberal media has initiated a propaganda war on the United States Supreme Court. This effort is being led by the new York Times.

In an editorial in the NYT today by Maureen Dowd, the members of the supreme court are called "hacks dressed in black robes". The remainder of her editorial used equally derrogatory statements. Of course, we should realize that she is only referring to five of the justices. She has the highest respect for the four liberals on the court who are no more than rubber stamps for whatever position Obama or any similar liberal happens to support

Dowd is certainly not alone in attacking the five justices who are considered a threat to the health care bill. The plan of attack is to never mention the four liberals. After all, we are to believe that they, unlike the "hacks", have a firm grip on the "true" (ie: liberal) interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, they should never be questioned, doubted, or even named.

The usual suspects (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) have joined in the battle and the heat will be turned up daily so long as it is believed that the Court is still forming its decision. Don't be surprised if the justices receive a deluge of letters from school children (Does anyone smell the NEA?) and others begging the justices to refrain from depriving them of their health care. We'll hear about all the alleged people who were at death's door but were "saved" by Obama through his compassionate health care act.

We should be alarmed that these groups, led by the media, are trying to pressure the Court. Obama is distressed because the Court is made up of non-elected individuals. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that the framers intended it that way. The Court is to be beholden to no one. It's duty is to interpret and apply the U.S. Constitution. Nothing else. Emotion has no place in its deliberations.

This liberal attack is orchestrated, unprecedented and, above all, extremely dangerous to the future of a free society.

[TheRealThing]

Al need to be aware that the liberal media has initiated a propaganda war on the United States Supreme Court. This effort is being led by the new York Times.

In an editorial in the NYT today by Maureen Dowd, the members of the supreme court are called "hacks dressed in black robes". The remainder of her editorial used equally derrogatory statements. Of course, we should realize that she is only referring to five of the justices. She has the highest respect for the four liberals on the court who are no more than rubber stamps for whatever position Obama or any similar liberal happens to support

Dowd is certainly not alone in attacking the five justices who are considered a threat to the health care bill. The plan of attack is to never mention the four liberals. After all, we are to believe that they, unlike the "hacks", have a firm grip on the "true" (ie: liberal) interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, they should never be questioned, doubted, or even named.

The usual suspects (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) have joined in the battle and the heat will be turned up daily so long as it is believed that the Court is still forming its decision. Don't be surprised if the justices receive a deluge of letters from school children (Does anyone smell the NEA?) and others begging the justices to refrain from depriving them of their health care. We'll hear about all the alleged people who were at death's door but were "saved" by Obama through his compassionate health care act.

We should be alarmed that these groups, led by the media, are trying to pressure the Court. Obama is distressed because the Court is made up of non-elected individuals. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that the framers intended it that way. The Court is to be beholden to no one. It's duty is to interpret and apply the U.S. Constitution. Nothing else. Emotion has no place in its deliberations.

This liberal attack is orchestrated, unprecedented and, above all, extremely dangerous to the future of a free society.

Very well said truth. It is truly refreshing to see others post about this media catalyzed and characterized coup d'etat which, seeks to remold American public awareness in the image of their left wing liberal extremist ideology. As I have indicated before, to get the blind support needed to "fundamentally transform" this nation one would necessarily need to create enough bias among the folks to get them to turn a blind eye to the illegal machinations afoot as we speak and, of the type such as you have pointed out in your post. The 24/7 attack of the dems against the repubs for the past decade has had the desired effect. Contempt of the left for the right now rules, as the media continues to drive home the liberal agenda as the moral way of life.

America has 'moved' towards socialism but, the profound thing about all this is the simple truth that in one sweeping election cycle, sanity could once more gain equal footing with the "transformers" by voting out the liberal in tha same manner as in the 2008 elections when, the the House was taken over by republicans. Here's hoping (and praying) that will happen again and Obama will be sent packing.

On a note of irony, the left has sold the American public on the notion that the right wing conservatives are the "extremists" while, to demostrate the point, Obama refuses to allow the Canadian pipeline to go forward. This foot dragging is based on the left wing extremist view that CO2 emissions are creating a greenhouse gas critical mass which will result in another catastrophic ice age. In other words the liberal is trying to force America to accept the green agendas' vision for personal and national self sacrifice in the name of mother earth. If people would just let some of this stuff soak in, perhaps they're eyes would be opened to the hippie spawned "the sky is falling" absurdity of that position.

[TheRealVille]

[Image: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hph...5764_n.jpg]

[Wildcatk23]

[Image: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hph...5764_n.jpg]

Your picture makes obama look amazing. Seeing the rate that job loss was increasing under bush and how quickly obama turned it around.

[Hoot Gibson]

[Image: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hph...5764_n.jpg]

What's up with the spamming, RV? Is there so little good news from Obama's White House that you feel you must saturate the threads with the same post?

[Bob Seger]

Your picture makes obama look amazing. Seeing the rate that job loss was increasing under bush and how quickly obama turned it around.

You clueless "lil boys" aint seen nothin yet, till you see what's acomin to the coal fields. You're about to see how he's "turned things around" 'round here..

[Hoot Gibson]

More evidence of just how stupid Obama believes American voters are. Obama is not a "law professor" and he never was. He taught law but was roughly one pay grade above a graduate assistant. He was lecturer not a tenured professor but the truth does not matter to these propagandists. Either Obama is the most ignorant law school graduate to ever be elected to public office or he believed that nobody would notice if he told just one more whopper.
[INDENT]

Carney: Obama Not Understood Because He Spoke In "Shorthand" Since He Is A Law Professor

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in "shorthand" since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

[/INDENT]

[Bob Seger]

More evidence of just how stupid Obama believes American voters are. Obama is not a "law professor" and he never was. He taught law but was roughly one pay grade above a graduate assistant. He was lecturer not a tenured professor but the truth does not matter to these propagandists. Either Obama is the most ignorant law school graduate to ever be elected to public office or he believed that nobody would notice if he told just one more whopper.
[INDENT][/INDENT]

Heck Hoot, he's done a pretty good job of proving how stupid some of them really are. Just look at the morons in this thread alone that support him. There is not a doubt in my mind that right here within the borders of the United States live some of the dumbest people that inhabit the planet Earth. They're even right here amongst us on this very forum.

[Hoot Gibson]

Heck Hoot, he's done a pretty good job of proving how stupid some of them really are. Just look at the morons in this thread alone that support him. There is not a doubt in my mind that the United States has some of the dumbest people that infest this planet. They're right here amongst us on this very forum.

I agree, Bob. One can forgive the people who voted for Obama just because they wanted to feel like a part of history for helping elect the nation's first black president - but there is no excuse for people being willing to repeat the mistake after four years of Obama failures.

[Bob Seger]

I agree, Bob. One can forgive the people who voted for Obama just because they wanted to feel like a part of history for helping elect the nation's first black president - but there is no excuse for people being willing to repeat the mistake after four years of Obama failures.

Do you think they helped elect the first "half black" or the first "half white" president? Either way, I cant forgive anyone who voted for him whichever half it was they were trying to help elect. One thing you are correct on though. History was certainly made. They did help elect what has proven to be the worst president in this nation's "history".


The sad thing Hoot is that there are some people out there that will buy this bunch of hogwash from Jay Carney. Some people in this country are actually that dumb.

[TheRealVille]

What's up with the spamming, RV? Is there so little good news from Obama's White House that you feel you must saturate the threads with the same post?

I posted on the one thread, then found the thread it should be on. The picture says a thousand words, nonetheless. It exposes the conservative lies.

[TheRealVille]

I agree, Bob. One can forgive the people who voted for Obama just because they wanted to feel like a part of history for helping elect the nation's first black president - but there is no excuse for people being willing to repeat the mistake after four years of Obama failures.

You've just convinced me. I'll be voting for Obama, when I had all intentions of voting for the other democrat, Romney.

[TheRealVille]

Do you think they helped elect the first "half black" or the first "half white" president? Either way, I cant forgive anyone who voted for him whichever half it was they were trying to help elect. One thing you are correct on though. History was certainly made. They did help elect what has proven to be the worst president in this nation's "history".


The sad thing Hoot is that there are some people out there that will buy this bunch of hogwash from Jay Carney. Some people in this country are actually that dumb.

I don't think anybody is asking for your forgiveness. I know I'm not.

[Bob Seger]

I don't think anybody is asking for your forgiveness. I know I'm not.

Then I guess "not caring" is a mutual emotion tonight?:biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

You've just convinced me. I'll be voting for Obama, when I had all intentions of voting for the other democrat, Romney.

You are an Obama mouthpiece, RV and you have just as much credibility as your ruler does.

[TheRealVille]

Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, described the judiciary as “the least dangerous branch” of government. It is also, apparently, the “most delicate.”


It is not only acceptable, but essential, for presidents to tell us what they think about the role of judges and the meaning of the Constitution, writes Jeff Shesol., Pete Souza / The White House

If you thought the justices of the Supreme Court, in their marble fortress, were pretty well protected from what politicians, even presidents, say about them, you were wrong. We know this because President Obama’s comments this week about judicial restraint (he is for it) got a lot of commentators, across the political spectrum, upset on the Court’s behalf.


Obama’s words, few and mild though they were, are being described as an “assault,” an “unprecedented” attack. Harvard Law School’s Laurence Tribe, a supporter of the president, worries that Obama is fueling “public cynicism.” Rush Limbaugh (not a supporter) called Obama a “thug” for “threatening” the Court. Other conservatives have accused Obama of launching a “judicial witch-hunt,” as if he had stepped up to the podium with pitchfork in hand, whispering strange tales of animals that grew deformed after contact with Justice Alito. We have heard this line of attack before: in 2010, when President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, had the audacity to mention the Citizens United ruling in the presence of the people who decided the case. Then, he was criticized for speaking up after the opinion had been issued, when the gentlemanly thing to do was just to accept the result. Now, he is being rebuked for addressing the issue in advance.

The right’s indignation, plainly, has less to do with solicitude for the justices than with hostility toward the president and his purposes. It reflects a determination to shut or shout down the president any time he dares speak of the Court. Conservatives have long dominated the national discussion about the courts and Constitution, and do not intend to yield the floor. It is therefore encouraging that President Obama has refused to back down. At a press luncheon Tuesday, he again expressed his confidence that the justices will “abide by well-established” precedents.

Let’s hope President Obama has more to say on the subject—whatever the Court decides on the Affordable Care Act. It is not only acceptable, but essential, for presidents to tell us what they think about the role of judges and the meaning of the Constitution. Presidents don’t get the last word, but they must get their say. And historically, they have.

Despite conservatives’ claims that they “can’t recall anything like this,” Obama is not breaking new ground. Franklin Roosevelt’s battle with the Court over the fate of the New Deal is only the most well-known example: in 1935, after a unanimous Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act—the centerpiece of the New Deal’s economic policy—FDR dissected the Court’s opinion for nearly an hour and a half in an Oval Office press conference. “The big issue is this,” he told reporters. “Does this decision mean that the United States government has no control over any national economic problem?” Yes, he continued, that was just what it meant, adding that the Court had created “a perfectly ridiculous and impossible situation”—one he tried to remedy, two years later, with his plan to pack the Court.

We need to know what Obama’s views are, because they count more than ours do; presidents actually get to appoint judges who agree with them.
Ronald Reagan, for his part, remade the federal judiciary the old-fashioned way: by filling the bench with appointees who shared his philosophy. Toward that end he spoke forcefully, and often, about that philosophy, including the need for judges “who don’t confuse the criminals with the victims; judges who don’t invent new or fanciful constitutional rights for those criminals; judges who believe the courts should interpret the law, not make it; judges, in short, who understand the principle of judicial restraint.” In words echoed by Obama this week, Reagan reminded Americans that “in our democracy, it is the elected representatives of the people, not unelected judges, who make laws.” And Reagan warned what would happen if justices ignored that civics lesson: “If that happens,” he said, “the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite.” Sharper words, certainly, than we heard from Obama this week.

This is not to suggest that anything goes, rhetorically speaking, with respect to the Court. There is a line somewhere between plain-spokenness and demagoguery, probably a bright one, and presidents should be careful not to cross it. Obama, by historical standards, has not come close. He deserves more latitude than his critics (and some concerned supporters) are giving him. He deserves this not out of deference to his office but because the public needs to hear more, not less, about what he really thinks. Presidents, like the rest of us, have views about what a judge’s role should or shouldn’t be, what the Constitution does or doesn’t permit, what concepts like “liberty” mean. We need to know what Obama’s views are, because they count more than ours do; presidents actually get to appoint judges who agree with them.

What’s relevant, then, about Roosevelt’s example, and to a lesser extent Reagan’s, is not his willingness to talk tough about the Court; it’s his eagerness to engage in an extended discussion about the Constitution. FDR wasn’t expecting to influence the Court, at least not directly. He was trying, in the main, to educate the public. In Roosevelt’s view, the Constitution was not the sole province of black-robed judges; it belonged to us all. It was, he said frequently, “a layman’s document, not a lawyer’s contract.” And so he spoke on many occasions—at length and in detail and without apology, when big New Deal cases were on the Court’s docket and when they were not—about what he saw as the “original broad concept of the Constitution” and the authority it granted the government to apply national solutions to national problems, the power it conveyed to make the American experiment succeed.

President Obama, more a reluctant than a happy warrior, has been conscripted into what FDR called the “unending struggle” against those who “cry ‘unconstitutional’ at every effort to better the condition of our people.” That struggle will continue whether the Court upholds or upends the health-care law, because it is one of the defining conflicts in our national life. The bully pulpit awaits.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...views.html

[TheRealVille]

You are an Obama mouthpiece, RV and you have just as much credibility as your ruler does.

That means a lot, coming from you.

[BillyB]

Republicans defending the courts? My, things have changed.

The federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has overstepped its authority under the Constitution. It has usurped the right of citizen legislators and popularly elected executives to make law by declaring duly enacted laws to be “unconstitutional” through the misapplication of the principle of judicial review. Any other role for the judiciary, especially when personal preferences masquerade as interpreting the law, is fundamentally at odds with our system of government in which the people and their representatives decide issues great and small.

[Hoot Gibson]

Republicans defending the courts? My, things have changed.

Republicans have never believed that Congress has the constitutional authority to require Americans to buy any product. That has not changed.

[tvtimeout]

Republicans have never believed that Congress has the constitutional authority to require Americans to buy any product. That has not changed.

No but they did help nationalize banks

[BillyB]

Republicans have never believed that Congress has the constitutional authority to require Americans to buy any product. That has not changed.

Except, George HW Bush, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, the Heritage Foundation, . . . well, nevermind.

[vector]

if the supreme court overturns obama care then i don't want to pay

no federal,state,social secruity,medicare,property,city,sales tax's

anymore

[TheRealThing]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...views.html

QUOTE---
Ronald Reagan, for his part, remade the federal judiciary the old-fashioned way: by filling the bench with appointees who shared his philosophy. Toward that end he spoke forcefully, and often, about that philosophy, including the need for judges “who don’t confuse the criminals with the victims; judges who don’t invent new or fanciful constitutional rights for those criminals; judges who believe the courts should interpret the law, not make it; judges, in short, who understand the principle of judicial restraint.” In words echoed by Obama this week, Reagan reminded Americans that “in our democracy, it is the elected representatives of the people, not unelected judges, who make laws.” And Reagan warned what would happen if justices ignored that civics lesson: “If that happens,” he said, “the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite.” Sharper words, certainly, than we heard from Obama this week.
END QUOTE----



LOL, trying to justify Barack Hussein Obama's attack on the Supreme Court by likening him to Ronald Reagan is like saying Jimmy Carter was like JFK. Although I do agree in principle with what Shesol is saying here it is another example of misapplying the meaning of the RR quote. Reagan was speaking of judges who legislated from the bench, he wasn't stepping on them for doing their job which, in the case of the Supreme Court is to decide the constitutionality of a proposed law. Shesol goes on to cite a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling during the FDR era in which the court struck down part of his National Industrial Recovery Act. One of the historical judgments about the Supreme Court striking down many of FDR’s early New Deal measures—especially the National Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (in an opinion written by a Justice named Roberts!)—is that these Court rulings actually helped FDR because it gave him a quick escape hatch from semi-socialist economic policies that had no hope of working. At the time the Court struck down the NRA in 1934, James MacGregor Burns noted in The Lion and the Fox, the NRA “was near administrative and political collapse” because of its “insuperable problems.” Kinda sounds like Obamacare, doesn’t it?

The National Recovery Act essentially tried to cartelize the economy, with government-administered price codes and production controls to keep wages and prices up. The Schechter case that brought down the NRA showed the full absurdity of the NRA with its peculiar facts that produced open laughter in the Supreme Court during oral argument. To prevent wholesalers of chickens from having to discount smaller chickens, the NRA codes prohibited people from selecting which chickens they wanted to buy; instead, if you wanted 10 chickens, you had to take ten more or less randomly grouped chickens in a coop. This was known as “straight-killing.” The endless litany of micro managing style rediculous regulations coming down from an oversized federal government is not a new idea, and chicken regulations is an example of how silly notions of social justice really are.

Not to be outdone by FDR, Mr Obama takes yet another run-and-go at turning the USA into a liberal zombieland, with his version of the NRA, ObamaCare. We are not a socialist country and we certainly don't need to experiment with a political machine that has worked to perfection, repeatedly returning us back to the chosen constitutional path time after time, over the course of lo, these past 236 years.