The Left’s Frontal Assault on the Supreme Court


Pages: 1 2

Reverberations from President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court last Monday continue to be felt, as his allies on the left join the administration’s attempt to intimidate the justices by saying that if the Supreme Court overturns part or all of Obamacare, it will prove that the justices are hyperpartisan and engaging in “judicial activism.” But the federal courts fired a salvo of its own at the executive branch, as a three-judge appeals court in Texas, hearing arguments on another Obamacare suit, ordered the Department of Justice to craft a statement explaining the president’s attack and demanded that the executive branch confirm that the courts have the power to review the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

This extraordinary clash between two branches of government was precipitated because the President of the United States and his far-left allies are seeking to delegitimize any adverse decision made by the Supreme Court against what they consider Obama’s signature political achievement: the Affordable Care Act. There is nothing subtle about the assault. It is naked aggression against a co-equal branch of the federal government and the country has rarely seen anything like it.

The former constitutional law professor told reporters on Monday, “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,” adding:

I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years all we’ve heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here’s a good example.

That’s not a shot across the bow. That’s a full-bore broadside against the notion of an independent judiciary. Leaving aside the laughable notion that Obamacare was passed by a “strong majority” in Congress (219-215 in the House and 60-39 in the Senate without a single Republican vote in either chamber), what does it matter how many congressmen voted for it? The Supreme Court overturns congressional statutes all the time. Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel notes that “It is certainly not ‘unprecedented’ for the Court to overturn a law passed by ‘a democratically elected Congress.’ The Court has done so 165 times, as of 2010.”

And the question of the court engaging in “judicial activism” is equally bogus. How can anyone construe the legitimate function of the Supreme Court to review statutes and determine their constitutionality as “activism” of any kind?

Kopel avers that Obama has now “raised the stakes considerably” for the court:

At issue now is not just the issue of whether Congress can commandeer the People and compel them to purchase the products of a particular oligopoly. At issue is whether the Court will bow to a President who denies the[ir] very legitimacy of judicial review of congressional statutes–or at least those statutes which garnered the “strong” majority of 219 out of 435 Representatives.

The drama moved to Texas on Tuesday where the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing arguments on a related Obamacare case brought by physician-owned hospitals. Judge Jerry E. Smith asked the government attorney whether the Obama administration believed in judicial review of acts of Congress:

Judge Smith: 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?

Dana Lydia Kaersvang: Yes, your honor, of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but …

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect— and I’m sure you’ve heard about them — that it’s somehow for what he termed “unelected judges” to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he’s referring of course to Obamacare — to what he termed a “broad consensus” and majorities in both houses of Congress. That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter.

Smith wasn’t finished. He then ordered the Department of Justice to write a letter — three pages long and single spaced — “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.” He demanded that the letter “make specific reference to the president’s statement and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Ken

    The Left has been using judicial activism for years!! Now that there signature piece of legislation may be ruled unconstitutional, they are playing the victim card. What a steaming pile of excrement!!!

    • Ronald Johnston

      Actually, osama obama should be considered unelected! If the yellow-bellied representatives and senators had done their job, this terrorist would not have been planted in our highest office!!!!! Just the fact that his father was a Kenyon makes osama ineligible to be President. A natural born citizen is born of an American mother and an American father!!!! We need to get rid of him and all the incumbents!!!!

      • wsk

        No, the requirements are: born in the USA ( which includes embassies and military bases) and minumum age of 35. It doesn't matter where your parents were born.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          Any 'not forged' birth certificates that show where he was born?

        • mlcblog

          I think there's more to it. I think it is born in the USA or its territories, of an American mother and father. That is how I learned it in school before they went south.

          • guest

            I'm with you. A natural-born American was considered to be one born of an American father and an American father. Since he received aid in college for being foreign born, I wonder what birth certificate he used at that time.

          • guest

            Change second father to mother please.

    • RonCarnine

      Without a doubt the Supreme Court has a right to strike down laws that violate the Constitution of the United States. What they do not have the right to do is to legislate after they have struck down an unconstitutional law. Marbury v. Madison, a Supreme Court decision that is attacked by the right a whole bunch more than it should be, established that fact over 200 yrs. ago. The Supreme Courts function is set out clearly in our Constitution and it is the 3rd leg of our Founders checks and balances to protect it. Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote the opinion on Marbury v. Madison, was a Revolutionary War veteran and friend of George Washington, knew what the Founders intent for the Court was. Too bad Obama doesn't.

  • oldtimer

    The O's comment about the unelected SC was probably the most hypocritical statement he ever made. How many unelected czars does he have in his administation? How dare they or anyone disagree with him…

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      The dear one sounds upset.

      Dictators hate opposition while they're still consolidating power.

    • Fred Dawes

      will obama send out the camp guard to attack the Supreme monkeys in washington?

    • guest

      Look at the unelected muslims he put in the CIA, and Homeland security, including the one with access from home, reporting to all our enemies. How 'bout the one in there reporting Israels' defense strategies?

      This is the pot calling the kettle.

      The purpose of O' care is to bankrupt the USA

    • Asher

      Please know your rights and stand up for the Constitution. The President is trying to deligitimize the supreme court, and we do not want Sharia Law instead of the Constitution.

  • jacob

    I apologize for my ignorance but is OBAMA's brain connected to his mouth, hand or elsewhere ???
    On account of what does he call the Supreme Court Justices "UNELECTED" ????

    Aren't the justices PROPOSED by Presidents and practically DISECTED by CONGRESS ????

    Didn't he appoint 2 new Justices to the Supreme Court, the last one a true activist to HIS cause ?

    I can only say :GOD HELP THE UNITED STATES IF THIS MAN IS REELECTED…! ! ! ! !

    • Amused

      uh …,.Jacob , the Supreme Court Justices are APPOINTED , not elected . I lovr you so-called "patriots " who dont even know the workings of your own government , or the Constitutrion that you so "valiantly " claim to uphold .

  • StephenD

    He's treating them as "less than" when in fact they are an EQUAL Branch of Government. How dare he speak like that to them? We should have known from the day he spoke to John McCain and told him "John, the fact is, I won…." In other words, it is all about him rather than them both; all of them, are to be about the peoples’ business. You all are in your position to protect OUR best interest and not your own. As soon as this attitude of condescension reared its ugly head, we should have known where his concerns lay and it isn't with us.

    • johnnywoods

      Hey StephenD, Some of us knew this guy was going to be a disaster from the start but had to watch as all those fools bought the "Hope and Change"crap and put a "commie" in the White House. When he addressed McCain as you mentioned it should have surprised no one.He lectures all of us as if we were children.and he is the wise professor, when in fact he is arrogant ass who believes his own press releases.

    • mlcblog

      You are right. He is very condescending.

  • MethanP

    It worked for FDR. SCOTUS passed all of his proposals after the court packing try. Thats what gave us Social Security.

    • Amused

      And whats wrong with Social Security ,aside from the politicos in Washington borrowing on its funds and funding to the tune of $1 TRILLION dollars ?

      • reader

        What's wrong with the Ponzi scheme? The only difference is that the original Ponzi scheme did not have a fancy title for a disguise.

        • Fred Dawes

          THANK YOU

      • Fred Dawes

        iTS MORE LIKE 600 TRILLION YOU FORGOT THE WORLD BANKERS FUNDS

        • Amused

          Just like two little parrots , one of your idiot demagogues spits the word pnzi scheme and the parrots follow .Typical teabbagger position . Tell you what dimbulbs ,and I dont care if it involves teabaggers republican democrats independents or liberals just try messing with it and see where it gets you .
          The world bankers fund has nothing to do with Social Security so stuff your red herring . And dont go handing me any of your other conservative drivel about a andout or welfare , Social Security is bought and paid for by the American worker , just as is Medicare and it works for everyone . If Medicare is having problems it's because the Wall Street driven healthcare system in this country is broken . The actuaries and statisticians who helped draw up the Social Security System were light years ahead of the morons in government today , who borrowed from it and mismanaged it .And thats right , there's $1 Trillion in IOU's due SS . I love it how you suckers bite hook line and sinker on the bullsheet you are spoon fed . But that's typical repocon tradition .

          • reader

            Milton Friedman said it. So, unhinged "amused" here unloads on Milton Friedman with all his saliva from his foul mouth. Does it make Milton Friedman wrong? No, it does not.

          • Amused

            LOLOL….gimme a break reader ! Milton "right wing " Freidman ? Nixon's man ? I still dont know where you pulled that 600 trillion from , nor would the now dead Freidman , who soughtbto abolish Medicare AND Social Security …..lol…a Reeeeeeal conservative . And if he was so damn smart ….what were the economic results of the Admins he served under ?
            And FYI there is no $600 trillion figure involved in any economic scenario or narrative in any description or prediction in the American Economy . It's non-existent and the only claim that comes close is some estimates floating around ,is about Banks exposures to derivitives , ranging from 100 to 440 trillion , and THAT depending on a sharp rise in interest rates . All in all the figure real or imagined has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security .

          • reader

            Friedman set up the pension scheme in Chile which – unlike FDR's Ponzi scheme – is still splvent, even despite tweaking from more socialist-minded successive governments. So, the proof is in the putting. That's one thing. Here's another: its' the Democrats who destroyed SS by constantly raiding the proverbial and non-existent "lock-box" of a non-existent trust fund, which FDR sold it on as a true used car salesman. It's Obama who is destroying Medicare with his Obamacare. The demagoguery of the left is as staggering as their destructiveness.

          • Amused

            Oh great example – Chile ! go back to school reader , and then maybe you can render a coherent rebuttal or refute . BTW how did the democrats raid a non-existent fund ???? In addition to being utterly in error , you contradict yourself to boot . Poor partisan parrot , dont know what or why you're saying things …just repeat it and you get another cracker .

          • Ted G

            Calm down Amused, I can almost see the spittle coming from your mouth.

            At least on the issue of SS. The so called trust fund has approximately $2 trillion in IOU's that have been raided ( I say stolen) by congress over these last decades. Both parties are guilty of that.
            Now considering that that money is gone, spent. We the people have been saddled with this debt on top of all the rest. It is also not inaccurate to refer to SS as a ponzi scheme. For that is essentially what it is, a socialist ponzi scheme.

            But consider this for a moment. If the SS remained in a "Locked Box Trust fund" as it was originally intended and BTW that's how it passed originally. Then the "trust fund" would be solvent for many years as it would be gaining interest etc.

            Though there may be a sliver of truth behind your comment that it has been bought and paid for by the American worker, how do you feel about having to buy and pay for it all over again? Because that's what we are doing now. That "trust fund" Is empty nada, zilch and all because of corrupt and dishonest politicians of all stripes.

            We've got lots of problems amused, mainly because of an out of control government, continuing to divide us as you constantly do doesn't help.

          • reader

            Yes, Chile's pension system is a great example. It is solvent, precisely because it works as a legitimate wealth growing system and not as a Ponzi scheme, which all socialist ideas are essentially made of.

            " BTW how did the democrats raid a non-existent fund ????"

            This is how: they declare SS a trust fund and they treat it as general fund to raid. It's usual looters' modus operandi. Your question is either an indication of your cosmic stupidity, or fake indignation. Take a pick.

          • wsk

            Mucking foron!

          • Amused

            Funny , mirrors my thoughts on you f____ing moron .

          • fiddler

            Let's count them:

            - Parrots
            - Idiot demagogues
            - "teabbagger"
            - dimbulbs
            - suckers
            - repocon

            Yep, Amused labeling people he doesn't know.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Dictators always beat down their perceived opposition no matter how lawful they are and in this instance
    it is blatant hypocracy by Hussein Obama and a falsity in statement that should alert the almost brain
    dead to his duplicity. Why we do not hear impeachment coming out of the Congress is very hard to
    understand but then again the govenment has been slack to moribund on all issues not dealing with
    spreading money to friends and constituents or rolling the tax payer again and again.
    William

    • Amused

      Oh you mean like the Republicans have been doing since Obama won the election ? ……even before he actiually took office ? Phony hypocrit !

      • Fred Dawes

        Both political parties need to be removed, both are BS Both do the same evil acts against freedom and laws both are BS.

        • Stephen_Brady

          Exactly how do you do that, Fred, since the two parties would be voting on your proposal?

          • Amused

            yea Fred , only the Repocons are lily white and right . lol…..brady's brainwashed delusion .

          • Stephen_Brady

            I didn't say tha Republicans are lily white. Indeed, I somwehat agree with you conclusion (concerning fred's proposal) that you would need the votes of both parties to remove them, and that's not going to happen.

            Think, before your knee jerks …

    • fiddler

      "Why we do not hear impeachment coming out of the Congress is very hard to
      understand but then again the govenment has been slack to moribund on all issues not dealing with
      spreading money to friends and constituents or rolling the tax payer again and again"

      The "media" have too much power. They can say anything and it's protected.

      Even say half-truths as in Zimmernann's conversation with the dispatcher. To them 1/2 truth is still truth.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        The MSM is the victim of long time control of Journalism in Universities leftist hacks producing
        ideologues with stunted and stilted abilities. The lack of ethics and moral intent within their
        common malaise, distortion rather than truth in reporting has made for a grand subversion
        of popular understanding. The fact that on line the truth can be discerned makes for a good
        chance that what we know of the MSM will fade as time goes on, as it is today it is a tool of
        the Leftist Democratic Party and Socialist Administration……………………….Regards……William

  • sharpsrifle

    For Pete's sake, Moran, hussein was NOT a professor! He was a "senior lecturer," which is basically a part-time dilletante who "teaches" while pursuing other avenues of interest…in hussein's case, politics and societal destruction. Quit elevating this cretin to a level he never earned, nor warranted.

    • Fred Dawes

      thank you! I knew that i can't understand why others keep calling that monkey something he is not?

    • Larry

      He was a university lecturer, that makes him a professor. It's just that some of them end up with it as a title as well as a job description.

      • sharpsrifle

        A professor is a scholar. A professor is tenure tracked. A lecturer is not tenure tracked, and thus is NOT a professor. That's why they aren't called "professors." A lecturer is just that: Someone who lectures. By all accounts, he didn't even write the syllabi to his own classes…that was done for him. Thus, hussein was barely even a dilletante "teaching" a class. He was merely an AA hire attempting to indoctrinate law school students while he pursued his personal political ambitions. If his blitherings today are indicative of his level of knowledge of the Constitution and the law, then his former students should sue him for gross educational malpractice. It also speaks ill of Harvard Law School, because either he got no education there, or they just passed this demagogic simpleton along and graduated him for the sake of appearing "diverse" and "minority friendly". Either way, the University of Chicago and Harvard both look like idiots because of hussein's moronic and thuggish comments. One for "educating" him, the other for hiring such an obvious buffoon as an Affirmative Action seat-moistener.

  • Amused

    Who are you people trying to kid ? After following the arguments on Obamacare and listening to comments like those by Justice Scalia , it seems that the Supreme Court is just as politically polarized as the bums we have in Congress .
    LOL….and I guess everyone cares to forget what OLE' NEWT said about the 9th District Court , you know the part about judges being brought before Congress to explain " unpopular decisions " . Man what a SORRY BUNCH OF HYPOCRITS !!!!

    • Fred Dawes

      The fix Is In! 2 of the main monkeys on that monkey court worked on obamacare, Is that telling people something?

    • wsk

      Go away, you repugnent troll!

      • Amused

        GFY dunce /.

  • Dispozadaburka

    Maybe Obama will move to Saudi Arabia and live as an "abeed."

    Obamacare is a "dhimmi tax."

    • Asher

      Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the taxing of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence and as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam. It is strictly Sharia Muslim Diktat in the United States.

  • effemall

    It would be nice if we could get impeachment for contempt of court. I have a sense that this time our rogue impostor in the White House has cooked his goose.

    • tagalog

      Contempt of court in most jurisdictions is punishable by a term in jail. That makes it criminal. Is contempt of court a "high crime or misdemeanor?' Maybe. But Obama is just about impeachment-proof.

      • Amused

        yea impeachment-proof , when that charge of contempt is just as phony as the rest of the bullsheet you repocons have been expectorating since last election day .

        • tagalog

          Agreed as to substance, although not as to form.

          • Amused

            fair enough

  • tagalog

    It's very disturbing and unseemly for the judiciary and the executive to be fighting this battle. It suggests that the federal judiciary is to a significant degree politicized, and it's further confirmation (as if we needed that) that this executive is an idiot.

    I also find it disturbing in that there is no way the American people can win whatever the outcome of this battle. One of the two branches will come out of this contest with more power. The more power the government has, the less power the people have. And I'm extremely unhappy with the idea that unelected justices on the Supreme Court may come out of this with more power. We conservatives, who have at least had the integrity to raise legitimate questions about federal judicial review, are now in the position of endorsing Marbury v. Madison unconditionally. That's bad.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    This is the sort of thing that too many presidents have not had the courage to undertake – confronting the federal courts. Obama, though clumsy and inept – ham handed in fact – is doing what George W. Bush SHOULD have done regarding Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld amongst many other examples. There is a balance of power in the federal "triumvirate" amongst the executive, judicial, and legislative branches.

    The Judiciary has no policing authority to enforce their rulings, and must consequently rely on the Executive for such chores. The Executive, for his part, can merely IGNORE the Judiciary and refuse to enforce their rulings – or continue to implement laws that have been struck down. The Judiciary has no POWER here. The only thing that keeps the Executive in check is the ability of the Legislative branch to IMPEACH – either executives or judges. The federal Judiciary has long needed a spanking. It's just too bad that it is Obama who has risen to the fore.

  • Fred Dawes

    Its all for the show, the boys on the Supreme BS Court have said yes to obamacare you will know that as a fact in 8 weeks.

    • Harvey

      Fred Dawes iam afraid your right.The American people have been asleep for the last 70 years and have decided they dont need to go vote and Obama is the result .This fight with the Supreme Court is show just like the games they played when they passed obamacare wanting the voters to think they were aganist Obamacare,especially the republicans.They promised repeal and forgot about it after the elections,they are all crooks and their is not one true Patriot among them.

  • Supreme_Galooty

    Oh, and as an aside: Even though the Legislative branch can impeach (and convict) a president, it does not have the military (policing) power to physically remove him from office should he choose to be obstinate. THAT power resides with the "well regulated militia" should things ever deteriorate to such an extent. Before that ever came to pass, the various policing agencies under the Executive would probably refuse his orders.

  • Amused

    No Dawes , it's actually a dilemna for the SCOTUS and ..lol…..pure torture for repocons . Parts of Obamacare are already in effect and NO ONE'S COMPLAINING …..so now the SCOTUS will have to rollback what they have already seen as legislated into law . The fact that REPOCONS don't like it , doesn't make it a Constitutional violation . The SCOTUS will have that overiding fact on their minds while they make a decision .

    • Stephen_Brady

      The Supreme Court will decide if part of it, or any of it, is Constitutional. And you should be reminded that Justice Kennedy … the swing vote on the Court … has already said that the most "restrained" act that the Court could take is to declare the entire law un-Constitutional. The law depends on the mandate, and if the mandate goes, the law becomes a hollow shell. No teeth.

      Let it go. It will save the nation the repeal battle, next January …

    • Fred Dawes

      Why do you hate the rule of Law? is it you hate justice and the American way? but much love and have a great day! we all Love you keep it coming, its a great read.

    • Fred Dawes

      Its all BS OUR GOVERNMENT IS A TOTAL Criminal system its not really American for many reason but when you have 60 percent of the political monkeys RUNNING This government and many state governments from other counties and are the big time black/brown and yellow Racists who would rape anyone just to see what its like!! you get a debased nation under the rule of foreign born monkeys, get my point?

      By the way we are all monkeys looking for reason, I am a great Gray Back king of all monkeys!

  • Amused

    So all in all , the familiar "game ' with you guys is ….if SCOTUS rules on somethings you like , then that's legitimate and acceptable for EVERYONE , but if the rulings dont go in your favor then everone on the bench are " a bunch of monkeys " .
    What bloody hypocrites !

    • pagegl

      Nope, it all depends on the Constitutionality of whatever law is before the Court.

      • Amused

        So your willing to live by their decision , wherever the chips may fall ? Then bravo , a true American !

        • fiddler

          The word is "you're". Those who refuse to live by the rule of law are anarchists.

          We all have had to live by the "law" of Roe v. Wade, which was seized on by a "right" to privacy. This has resulted in 50 million babies of all races dying.

          Amused 2/3rds of the people were against the "Affordable" care act before it was voted on. There was bribery and arm-twisting to get the votes. Elena Kagan, with an OBVIOUS conflict of interest wouldn't dare recuse herself. Why no! She is a reliable vote. Why she was GIDDY when there were enough votes for it. She would not abandon the cause now. Judicial integrity? Move over for judicial expediency! We have an agenda to drive!

          "Anyone who practice sin also practive lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness".

  • husseiNO

    What would be a "leader' be called when whose ambition is to grab the legistative and judicial power into it's own hand?

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Fidel Castro???………………………………William

  • Stephen_Brady

    The Courts of this nation have had the right to review laws and declare them unconstitutional since Marbury vs. Madison, 1803. The Supreme Court justices are appointed by en elected official and confirmed by the Senate, elected officials all.

    I think that Obama … this astounding "Constitutional scholar" … must know something that everyone else in America doesn't know, or he's a complete idiot.

    • wsk

      Originally, Senators were appointed by the state governors. Appointee appointers.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Right, and can you guess why the DEMs don't want to go back to that system??

        • Amused

          LOL…two dunces ….now they're appointed …er.. uh … elected by big money like the Koch Bros .

          • Stephen_Brady

            Like "Dirty Dickie" Durbin, in Illinois?

          • WilliamJamesWard

            It is amazing how Illinois is so completely illstarred………On higher ground have a
            great Easter-Passover…………………………Regards…………….William

          • Stephen_Brady

            You have a great Easter, my friend!

          • Nick Shaw

            Steve, I hope your e-mail alert is on. Go to my avi and see where I've been (other than FPM).
            You might like it.

          • Nick Shaw

            William, I hope your e-mail alert is on. Go to my avi and see where I've been (other than FPM).
            You might like it.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Off to work, later………..W

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Obama is just jerking us around and will get into further disinformation the closer November looms
      on the horizon. Our resident cockalorum will be raving and raging right up to the fall of the one bat
      rastid that is the biggest disgrace America has ever known…………….William

  • mrbean

    Obama is not much of a constitutional scholar when he uses the term "unprecedented" because the Supreme Court has declared and overturned legislation as unconstitutional 159 times previously. Go Go Go and make Obamacare number 160!

  • Dispozadaburka

    If you take his face
    and make his skintone just a little bit greener,
    change the hair a bit,
    and put the smoke stains back on his teeth.
    He is beginning to resemble, The Grinch that Stole Christmas.

  • Amused

    Oh what intellect !!!!

  • Schlomotion

    I would think that an "attack on the Supreme Court" would mean something like a drive-by shooting, or jumping out of a car and beating them with bats rolled in broken glass. What Obama did was bluff in the media. Really, a whole lot of bluffing in the media gets called an "attack." Muslims attacking the United States? Largely a bluff. The Attack of Sharia Imams against US laws? A bluff. Al Sharpton's "attack" on white people? A bluff. Criticism is not and attack, folks. Announcing your engagement to someone who hates you is not an attack. It's a bluff. Trusting loudly that the Supreme Court will not find you unconstitutional is a bluff, not an attack.

    • Guest

      "El Presidente" sounding like he was threatening the Supreme Court members and considering his very well known connection to the mob, I think protection details should be provided for the justices. There are quite a few philosophies in this life – the one that seems to match "El presidente" is THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. I would put nothing pass this creature.

  • Ken

    Everyone ignore Amused!! The anti-Semite is the typical uber-Lefty. It can't/won't debate you in a civilized manner, so it resorts to the typical Lefty name-calling. So very predictable!! And, just so I know the expected blowback is coming, yeah, I called it a name. But, I call it as I see it. And there is PLENTY of past commentary evidence to support the label given.

    • Amused

      Ken you're a shiithead , I am a jew you moron And PLEASE by all means go ramble through any past [post I ever put upo on these threads that would indicate in ANY way that I am an ANTI-SEMITE .

      You 'call it as you see it " ??? That's pretty funny Ken , how can you see anything with your head stuck up your assss ? Pretty dark up there aint it Ken boy ?

      YOU KEN ARE A L-I-A-R . Plain and simple . By all means you may copy and paste , your "evidence " so that you may defend your name .

      • fiddler

        I count 4 that time. Don't you have a little dignity?

        Since you are a Jew, do you support the Nation of Israel?

    • Fred Dawes

      No he is fun!

    • mlcblog

      If you shun them, they eventually go away. It is just a matter of time. They can't take it.

      • Amused

        Not quite dimbulb , I'll stay , and wait to see Ken redeem himself from the tag of LIAR . You can hang around and watch if you choose to .
        BTW you people are great entertainment , and a testament to the stupidity that pervades your ideological lot . I'll stay …it's too much fun to miss .

  • Amused

    Of course he is Fred , just like you .Yoiu are both amusing entertainment .

  • Mary

    What President Obama is really attacking is the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution which is the standard by which the Supreme Court measures laws.

    Here is a national Petition to impeach President Obama for his traitorous actions and because he is not eligible to be President per the U.S. Constitution:
    http://www.impeachpresidentobama.weebly.com or http://www.petition2congress.com/6519/impeach-mr-

    We need a governmental reset to route out enforcement of Sharia law.

    At the very least, expose President's actions before the election.

  • Flowerknife_us

    Bonded servitude to the State is supposed to be Constitutional???

    If the State can require you to buy something then the right to prevent you from buying something comes with it.

    Good by to the free market and the nicer things in life.

  • Ancient Pollyanna

    Wow, what an idiotic group on this site! Buh-bye.

  • Texasron

    Obama's recent comments to the Supreme Court essentially said:

    I, who have been elected by the people, know better than YOU, who were not elected, that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. However, since YOU, obviously are not needed, I will in the future make all rulings. Or, in other words, "The Constitution be damned". Obama learned well from Jeremiah Wright.

  • Ellman

    It is difficult to perceive what is real and what is illusion and deception since Obama invaded the White House. Obama makes a statement that the Supreme Court would be guilty of activism if it found Obamacare unconstitutional. A judge in the 5th Circuit demands clarification from DOJ about the administration's position on judicial review of constitutional issues. Suddenly Obama backs off and Holder issues a statement obviously intended to ameliorate Judge Smith's concerns. Is this a false encounter? Has this been staged with Judge Smith's complicity? Why Holder's submissive response and Obama's clarification coming so quickly on the judge's remarks? This affair looks and sounds remarkably familiar to the eligibility contest in Georgia which seemed to go against Obama initially only to turn into a complete rout by Obama and an inexplicable about face by the presiding (Muslim) judge. I've heard for years that Chicago politics in the most corrupt in the nation, but what's astonishing is that it's become mainstream in Washington DC in less than 4 years!

  • Dave Lee

    You may need "Obamacare" after you are less than delecately strip searched (body cavity anyone?) for running a stop sign courtesy of the 4+1 republican justices.

  • Amused

    UH ….haven't heard anything from you Ken ….where's your proof ? You remain with the tag around your neck of LIAR .

  • Amused

    BTW , Obama compared to what the Republicans have been doing for the past 30 years , is mild . But I guess Newt' s remarks regarding judicial review goes down the memory hole eh ? Somehow I think sending U.S. Marshalls to round up judges and bring them before Congress regarding some of their rulings , is just a bit more radical than what Obama has said .
    But …again …more PHONY HYPOCRIOSY from the right . Oh and BTW , more than 50% of Americans had far more critical re,marks about SCOTUS ' ruling that "corporations are people too " . If free speech applies to the aforementioned , then uh …yeah …it applies to the President too .

  • Amused

    LOL..,..and your poster-boy Rush , more than proves my point , by claiming " We're a team ….in defeating Obamacare " ….that team clearly including the allegedly impartial SCOTUS . Haven't heard anything criticizing that . Hypocrites -ALL !

  • Eric G

    The hypocrisy of the left is staggering, that after 40 years of defending the decisions of an unelected group of justices in Roe v Wade, now suddenly with ObamaCare there's a problem.

  • Amused

    It's the typical bluster-bullsheet hypocrisy that permeates the primitive conservative mentality . Perpetual victims of everything democratic , and if it means co-opting someone else as a victim ….it's all in the game . Obama broke no law , nor wagered any attack . These are brainwashed idiots who make such suppositions .