Header Image (book)


Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Did Obama Threaten The Supreme Court? (With Addenda)

(Two posts today. Please scroll down for the other post)

I gasped yesterday when I heard Obama shoot off his mouth about the pending Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare. From the Guardian:
Obama warns 'unelected' supreme court not to strike down healthcare law

Barack Obama has said it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress.

The comments suggest the president may make an election issue of those described by Democrats as partisan judges if they throw out the Affordable Care Act...
I cannot recall ever hearing before a President violate the Constitution and its principles of the separation of powers by issuing such a statement about a pending decision from the highest court in the land.

In fact, ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, it has been the TASK of the United States Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of legislation!

As Epaminondas of Infidel Bloggers Alliance points out:
The Supreme Court Justices are as unelected today as they were in 1954 when they overturned precedent and the sense of the nation and insisted on integration in school.


PS the law was passed by SEVEN VOTES, 219-212 with 34 democrats joining every single republican. A vote recently taken in the Senate to REPEAL Obamacare failed by ONLY 4 votes.


There can be no doubt that the framers of the Constitution would be appalled that YOU PERSONALLY [BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA], and your entire faction have arrogated to yourselves the POWER to dictate what citizens buy, because YOU believe that is the best way to create the society YOU want...
In 2008, Obama formed his campaign around "Blame Bush!" If the Supreme Court of the United States rules against ObamaCare, this time around, the demagogue Obama will run against the Supreme Court of the United States.

In effect, if Obama takes the route of running against the Supreme Court, he will be running against the Constitution of the United States.

Apparently, destroying the Constitution of the United States has been his plan all along:

Addendum 1 (with thanks to Mustang, who emailed me the link): Obama Slams Supreme Court over Obamacare.

Addendum 2: YE, GODS!!!: "Newsweek Calls For Impeaching Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Obamacare."


  1. Told you so!
    History repeats itself unless you learn from the mistakes that had been made.

  2. I hope they burn this POS bill 7-2! 5-4 is more likely. Screw him and his dictator mentality!

  3. Obama is a product of the corrupt chicago democrat machine, and this is him bringing the Chicago Way national.

    I hope they wad up the whole unconstitutional ball off crap and jam it back in his face. This man has no class and no respect for anyone or anything other than his own grossly overinflated sense of self.

  4. The kind of representative republican government designed by the Founders was weakened and all but destroyed by Lincoln's War. That set a precedent that probably emboldened the Progressives from TR and his trust busting and unlawful acquisition of vast tracts of land to establish our system of National Parks through the outrageous conduct of Woodrow Wilson, the out-and-out Marxism of the New Deal, the colossal effrontery of the Warren Court, the Great Society and the fiasco we are dealing with today.

    Once you succumb to the notion that your "ends" are so fine and noble that any and all means of attaining them must be considered not only acceptable but desirable, you've taken a flying leap into the Abyss from which there can be no return.

    If the 2,700-page horror that has been visited upon us by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate is struck down by the Supreme Court it would be poetic justice for all the ruinous garbage they have foisted on the majority of American citizens for the past 58 years.

    I, personally, don't approve of an "Imperial" Supreme Court making -- or breaking -- law by judicial fiat. The nine Justices have, somehow, turned themselves into an OLIGARCHY that takes unto itself the power to ride roughshod over the activities of the other two branches of government.

    IF the Justices negate The Affordable Care Act it would not only best serve the interests of the great majority of American citizens, it would also be wonderful to see the Marxian Dictocrats get a BIG dose of their own bad medicine.

    Funny how The Law of Unintended Consequences eventually can cut both ways, isn't it?

    ~ FreeThinke

  5. A reminder from something that Obama said years ago (emphases mine):

    [T]he Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

    And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...

    Now that it appears that SCOTUS MIGHT rule against ObamaCare, Obama is basically threatening the Supreme Court and telling them that the justices and their rulings are irrelevant.

    If SCOTUS were to rule in favor of ObamaCare, Obama would brag all over the place about just how Constitutional ObamaCare is.

    By running his mouth yesterday, Obama jumped the shark:

    the moment in its evolution when a brand, design, or creative effort moves beyond the essential qualities that initially defined its success, beyond relevance or recovery

    He did the same with the birth control mandate and his statement about Trayvon Martin.

    Pity that it's not October -- because, at that point, American short memories would, of course, impact Obama at the ballot box.

  6. FT,
    The nine Justices have, somehow, turned themselves into an OLIGARCHY that takes unto itself the power to ride roughshod over the activities of the other two branches of government.

    Way back when, upon the founding of our nation, some of the Founders warned against the possible misuse of the powers of the Supreme Court. If I recall correctly. I cannot recall which man or men issued those warnings.

    Anyway, "what goes around, comes around."

    Obama's statement yesterday is going to influence one or more of the justices to rule against ObamaCare. He challenged their authority. Being men in power, the justices will likely seek to protect their own power.

    Obama is a demagogue. Period. And now that he's so desperate to win the election in November, he's showing what he is really made of.

  7. Can you believe our would be dictator was allowed to teach constitutional law? I'm not impressed with the Harvard Law School if Obama is an example of what they teach.

  8. All the president's men (and women) he hired, placed in positions including his czars, were never elected, vetted by congress or anything. Pot meet kettle. No wait, the three branches of government are the way we do business here in America, apparently Obama doesn't like it.

    Right Truth

  9. Will,
    Told you so!

    Yes, you did.

    I thought what you said was farfetched. I don't think so anymore.

  10. Conservatives On Fire,
    Obama did a lot of learning somewhere else besides Harvard.

  11. Intimidating a Federal Judge regarding a court case is a felony.

  12. RG,
    Intimidating a Federal Judge regarding a court case is a felony.

    You are absolutely correct.

    In my view, Obama did just that -- threaten the justices -- but he did try to backtrack as he blabbed on.

    In the process, he told more than one lie.

  13. Aristotle really said it all three-hundred-years before Christ:

    "That judges of important causes should hold office for life is not a good thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body."

    "Democracies are most commonly corrupted by the insolence of demagogues."

    ~ Aristotle (382- 322 B. C.)

    Submitted by

    ~ FreeThinke

  14. FT,
    Take a look at THIS. Excerpt:

    ...Want to know what is “unprecedented,” Mr. President? Congress forcing free Americans into private contracts and penalizing those who disobey. That’s unprecedented. Want to know what else is “unprecedented,” Mr. President? A sitting president of the United States calling out the Justices of the United States Supreme Court during a State of the Union address. That, too, is unprecedented; I can only pray to God that, come Election Day, you have been enjoined from having the chance to do so again.

    At this point, Mr. President, just give up. Please. Every time you denigrate the Court and its Justices, who have more legal knowledge in their smallest toenail than you have in your entire body, you look more and more like the dullard that you apparently truly are. No wonder you don’t want to release your school transcripts — any undergraduate student who fails to understand the most basic concept of Separation of Powers and any law student that fails to understand the settled doctrine of judicial review probably did not have marks worthy of tacking on the refrigerator door....

    I think that you'll enjoy reading the above: "An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional Scholar."

  15. He sure called them out and rightly so. The SCOTUS would rather side with corporate America that helping average Americans.

  16. I watched a little of THE FIVE today...to watch Bob Beckel try to backpedal what Obama did to the SCOTUS is almost laughable.
    He was screeching about how Republicans argue that the Court's been activist against them, blahblahblah........ya, that's been true, but it's REPUBLICANS, not THE PRESIDENT acting like he's spanking or threatening our justices. Not one of the conservatives on the panel mentioned that...and I think that's the huge thing here.
    A President insulting and threatening the justices is a lot different than Republicans upset at a little activism. Obama is desperate...or what man of dignity and class would EVER say what he did? man

  17. Mr. Schreiber's "open letter" is good, AOW, but of course you understand it affirms and supports the idea that an "Imperial" Supreme Court really does have more power than the other two branches of government combined –– something that has distressed us Conservatives since the day Earl Warren came out of the closet as a Dictator -- not in support of The Law -- but of HIS idea of what is RIGHT and PROPER.

    I don't know enough to be able to discuss Marbury v. Madison or the Dred Scott Decision, but I sure as hell can see where Judicial Activism on the high court has taken us since Cultural Marxists took over the schools of Law and Journalism and most courses in History, Political Science and Literature in most of our "elite" universities.

    I'm also pretty sure that nobody can have it both ways -- loving judicial activism when it works for THEIR point if view -- roundly condemning it when it when it serves the OTHER guy's agenda.

    Double standard are rotten -- even if they appear to work FOR what you want.

    ~ FreeThinke

  18. OUCH!

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

    The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices...

    The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals....


    So today, in his appearance before the Associated Press–the ultimate friendly audience–Obama tried to walk back yesterday’s blunder...


    This is, of course, entirely different from what Obama said yesterday, but it comes no nearer the truth....

    Go HERE to read the whole thing!

    Obama stepped in it with his first statement and now has stepped in it with his ignorance or lies about SCOTUS rulings.


  19. Another must read: "Obama: Constitutional Ignoramus." Excerpt:

    I’m grateful for the favor Obama did for us yesterday of exposing his extreme constitutional ignorance, with his comments on how it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to strike down a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. (As if a House margin of seven votes is a “strong” majority.) True, he walked back the comment today, but surely because his statement was not merely indefensible but outright embarrassing to his media defenders.

    I’ve been growing weary of hearing people mention that he’s a “constitutional scholar,” since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But hey—he taught constitutional law, didn’t he?

    Not really.

    His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—the favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself....

    More at the above link in this comment.

  20. FT,
    Make no mistake: I don't love judicial activism. Neither do I approve of it.

    But judicial activism has been in place for a long time. I don't see it going away.

    So, now we have a situation with Obama threatening the tyrannical courts. Those justices likely will not allow Obama to dictate to them. And dictate to them is exactly what he was doing with his statement the other day.

    Obama often spouts off untruths -- as do many politicians. When, from the bully pulpit, Obama lied (or misspoke, if one wants to be generous) about the power of SCOTUS to overturn laws and basically told SCOTUS what they can and cannot do, however, he should have expected blowback. Obviously, he didn't -- for a variety of reasons that I'm sure you're familiar with. But he's getting blowback now. In fact, he may have made such a mistake that it will cost him the election in November.

  21. Z,
    I think that Obama is not only desperate but also so taken with himself that he thinks that he can get away with saying anything -- even when his statements are outside the bounds of the Constitution or blatant lies. Never forget that he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder -- as does every demagogue since the dawn of time.

  22. I don't follow Rush Limbaugh but find that LIMBAUGH'S ANALYSIS of Obama's warning to SCOTUS quite interesting and revealing. Long, but worth your time.

  23. From an Obama-supporting columnist at the WaPo; she also supports ObamaCare:

    ...To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.


    And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

    Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”

    But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.

    I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok....

    The above also appeared in yesterday's print edition.

  24. OUCH, AGAIN! The audio at the end of that article is something else!

  25. YE, GODS!!!: "Newsweek Calls For Impeaching Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Obamacare."


    Regarding Newsweek's call for the impeachment of SCOTUS should they make the "wrong" decision:

    Apparently, everything is up for grabs to those with the busiest hands, the strongest arms and the loudest voices.

    I never knew Oliver Wendell Holmes was one of history's greatest villains before, did you?

    More and more we see that mere assertion of a feeling is treated as though it deserves to be treated as an established fact.

    Romney's "win" in Wisconsin, which I believe was manipulated into being by the Establishment, probably sealed the doom of any genuine conservative initiatives for the foreseeable future.

    "The People" want to be TAKEN CARE OF by a government acting in loco parentis. They don't realize that in so doing they give up their freedom.

    Funny though! I've said for years that SCOTUS was much too powerful and had taken too much upon itself. Now that it might just work to support my idea of what's right and good, the enemedia decides SCOTUS should have its wings clipped.

    I guess I should consider myself part of a "disaffected minority," eh? ;-)

    ~ FreeThinke

  27. Rush Limbaugh's style may be bombastic and shamelessly egotistical, but in matters that truly count I have never known his analysis to be wrong.

    Whatever his motives may be, his message is dead on target.

    I, personally, don't care whether he is perfectly sincere and ideologically pure or not. He says what NEEDS to be said.

    There would never have been a Conservative Renaissance had it not been for Rush Limbaugh.

    Unfortunately, his best days are behind him. Lately, he seems to have reduced himself to a formula and just spouts self-generated shibboleths. His broadcasts, Alas! have become boring.

    Michael Savage is The One, even though he talks in the harsh, abrasive accents of one of New York's first-generations removed from immigration.

    ~ FreeThinke

  28. FT,
    I've never been much into talk radio -- perhaps because my mother listened to talk radio all the time and was forever phoning in.

    Anyway, I believe that you are absolutely correct with the following statement you made:

    There would never have been a Conservative Renaissance had it not been for Rush Limbaugh.

    As for Michael Savage, I did watch him when he was on television. On MSNBC, of all channels! I liked him because he didn't hold back.

  29. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1805, but not convicted by the Senate. According to the link I just put into this comment:

    The acquittal of Chase — by lopsided margins on several counts — set an unofficial precedent that many historians say helped ensure the independence of the judiciary. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal. Furthermore, federal judges became much more cautious by avoiding the appearance of political partisanship. All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance.

    According to THIS:

    A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

    Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

    Of course, the Left doesn't care about those precedents and rules. Anyone -- including SCOTUS -- who stands in the way of the Left's agenda must go. That is the way the Left thinks and proceeds.

  30. The last paragraph of that Newsweek essay is a doozie:

    We can argue about whether President Jefferson was right to try to impeach Justice Chase. But there’s no question that he was right to say that impeachment is an option for justices who undermine constitutional values. There are other options, as well. We might amend the Constitution to establish judicial term limits. Or we might increase the number of justices to dilute the influence of its current members (though FDR could tell you how that turned out). In the end, however, it is the duty of the people to protect the Constitution from the court. Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.

    The Left and the Right view "constitutional values" completely differently!

    And that last sentence! Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.

    Every utopian, every eugenicist, every tyrant -- all of these freedom-robbing and deadly followers of freedom-robbing and deadly ideologies believe that they are creating the path of social progress!

    And every one of those ideologies should have ended forever on the garbage heap. Obviously, they have not ended up in the trash.

    If our nation proceeds along the way of "social progress," we'll be zombies controlled by the whim of whoever is governing.

  31. AOW, he owns the media and, when you own the media, you know you can say anything you want and get away with it (witness that video I blogged by a journalist in DENMARK who showed him say the same ridiculous "you're our close ally" to every country's rep he's had sit next to him, etc.)..
    you're right..and it's all EGO.

    But to try to intimidate SCOTUS? WOW...and I think he went SO far that the media couldn't cover that up. But, he'll win.

    Remember, Fast and FUrious is GONE, the Peter King Muslim hearings which were so good, are GONE...everything disappears when Obama doesn't like it...

  32. Good grief!

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also stepped in it:

    It’s the reverse of intimidation. He’s simply making an observation about precedent and the fact that he expects the Court to adhere to that precedent. It’s obviously, as he made clear yesterday, up to the Court to make its determination...

    Full-out damage control now.

  33. Z,
    BHO may not win in November.

    He's stepping in it all over the place. Full-out damage control has been employed several times in that last few weeks.

    If this were October, I'm quite sure that Obama would lose.

    Unfortunately, Americans have short memories.

  34. Funny how the right always screams about 'activist judges' except when it favors their narrow viewpoints.

    Bush did too:

  35. So it's ok with the loony right that the SCOTUS ruling allow strip-searches for ANY arrest?


    And of course, it was the wingnuts on the bench who rammed this through.

    So how about that loser Thomas who should recuse himself in the HCR hearings since his wife makes hundreds of thousands lobbying for the tea party against it?

    Get real, guys.

  36. Liberalmann,
    Get a clue.

    Because of the proliferation of drugs and certain types of weapons being smuggled into the general population of jails even after arrests for minor infractions, strip searches may well be necessary -- particularly for chronic, repeat offenders.

    And you might want to read the article to which you linked. Note this section:

    The federal appeals courts had been split on the question...

    So, it wasn't just "the wingnuts" on SCOUTUS who considered ruling in favor of strip searches.

    And also note this:

    Justice Kennedy said one person arrested for disorderly conduct in Washington State “managed to hide a lighter, tobacco, tattoo needles and other prohibited items in his rectal cavity.” Officials in San Francisco, he added, “have discovered contraband hidden in body cavities of people arrested for trespassing, public nuisance and shoplifting.”

    Do I like the idea of strip searches done at the discretion of the police? Nope. The potential for abuse of the power to strip search those arrested is great. Very great.

    But if you read the justices' statements about strip searches, you'll get a better idea as to the rationale behind the ruling.

    A new cottage industry of attorneys, many pro bono, will, no doubt, spring up to make sure that potential abuse of strip search is curbed.

  37. Good Lord! What next -- TNTampons?

    DIEpers for the sacrifical inants?

    It's a Madd Madd Madd World!

    ~ FT


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.