OBAMA: CONSTITUIONAL IGNORAMOUS...

[Whirlaway]

From Powerlineblog

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-ignoramus.php

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.
I have a copy of one of his final exams. It is a long hypothetical involving civil rights, which begins thus:

In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited economic means at the disposal of the black community. It is also well documented, however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.

So you can see what kind of “narrative” this exam question promotes, and hence the kind of answers likely to get an A from Professor Obama. One of the questions students are asked is, “What is the likelihood that the city will be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of blacks under the Equal Protection Clause. . .” There’s a second hypothetical involving potential gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
A law student in Professor Obama’s class would learn virtually nothing about the constitutionalism of the Founding, or even of John Marshall or Joseph Story.

Now, clearly Obama is hoping to intimidate the Court in the same way FDR did in 1937 with his court-packing scheme. Some time later I’ll discuss FDR’s extraordinary rhetoric attacking the Court that year, but suffice it to say for now that Obama already showed his hand with his inaccurate attack on the Citizens United decision in the State of the Union speech two years ago. As John Steele Gordon put it well, “It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda.”

Notwithstanding the fact that Justice Alito could be seen mouthing the words, “Not true,” the Supreme Court by its traditions does not hit back at the President or Congress in these kind of brawls. But thanks goodness for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which today rather tartly demanded that the Justice Department please explain, in at least three pages, within 48 hours, its understanding of judicial review. This should be interesting. Here’s a copy of the follow-up letter from the court:

[Af-Freakin]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

From Powerlineblog

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-ignoramus.php

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.
I have a copy of one of his final exams. It is a long hypothetical involving civil rights, which begins thus:

In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited economic means at the disposal of the black community. It is also well documented, however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.

So you can see what kind of “narrative” this exam question promotes, and hence the kind of answers likely to get an A from Professor Obama. One of the questions students are asked is, “What is the likelihood that the city will be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of blacks under the Equal Protection Clause. . .” There’s a second hypothetical involving potential gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
A law student in Professor Obama’s class would learn virtually nothing about the constitutionalism of the Founding, or even of John Marshall or Joseph Story.

Now, clearly Obama is hoping to intimidate the Court in the same way FDR did in 1937 with his court-packing scheme. Some time later I’ll discuss FDR’s extraordinary rhetoric attacking the Court that year, but suffice it to say for now that Obama already showed his hand with his inaccurate attack on the Citizens United decision in the State of the Union speech two years ago. As John Steele Gordon put it well, “It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda.”

Notwithstanding the fact that Justice Alito could be seen mouthing the words, “Not true,” the Supreme Court by its traditions does not hit back at the President or Congress in these kind of brawls. But thanks goodness for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which today rather tartly demanded that the Justice Department please explain, in at least three pages, within 48 hours, its understanding of judicial review. This should be interesting. Here’s a copy of the follow-up letter from the court:

u conservatard crackers always scream activist court when u dont agree with it & wrap ur azzez in the constitution when u agree. hypocrisy.

[Jackie S]

Sooner or later the Left in this Country will also start to see the dangers that the President is starting to exibit in his diatribe against the Court. They are not concerned at this time because he is not attacking things that are dear to them.

But, sooner or later, he will, and the Progressives will all stand up and say, "now wait a minute".

I think this is going to get very interesting. We have one Branch of the Government dictating to another Branch what it is supposed to do.

The big problem is that the Constitution offers limited solutions. As I stated in a previous thread, aside from The Electorate choosing to vote a President out of office, or the House bringing Articles of Impeachment, there is not much that can be done.

Since The President has turned into the "panderer in chief", and now has over 50 percent of the Country feeding off of the Federal Tit, he knows he is pretty safe with the voters.

And even if the House brings Articles of Impeachment, the trial is in the Senate. Since the majority would get down on their knees and suck Obama's dick, and even give him a middle finger reach around, he knows he is safe there as well.

We are getting ready to see just how much power the Supreme Court really has, when faced with a Executive Branch that simply says "fuck you".

[Whirlaway]

In the case of Obamacare the court has alot of power; just don't know if they are going to exercise it.

Obama's bully pulpit is very limited when it comes to the SCOTUS with life time appointments.....

The House however, they will do nothing; their 2 year election cycle makes them impotent in standing up against a bully president.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

From Powerlineblog

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-ignoramus.php

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.
I have a copy of one of his final exams. It is a long hypothetical involving civil rights, which begins thus:

In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited economic means at the disposal of the black community. It is also well documented, however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.

So you can see what kind of “narrative” this exam question promotes, and hence the kind of answers likely to get an A from Professor Obama. One of the questions students are asked is, “What is the likelihood that the city will be held liable for violating the constitutional rights of blacks under the Equal Protection Clause. . .” There’s a second hypothetical involving potential gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
A law student in Professor Obama’s class would learn virtually nothing about the constitutionalism of the Founding, or even of John Marshall or Joseph Story.

Now, clearly Obama is hoping to intimidate the Court in the same way FDR did in 1937 with his court-packing scheme. Some time later I’ll discuss FDR’s extraordinary rhetoric attacking the Court that year, but suffice it to say for now that Obama already showed his hand with his inaccurate attack on the Citizens United decision in the State of the Union speech two years ago. As John Steele Gordon put it well, “It seems there is simply no lie President Obama will not tell in pursuit of his agenda.”

Notwithstanding the fact that Justice Alito could be seen mouthing the words, “Not true,” the Supreme Court by its traditions does not hit back at the President or Congress in these kind of brawls. But thanks goodness for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which today rather tartly demanded that the Justice Department please explain, in at least three pages, within 48 hours, its understanding of judicial review. This should be interesting. Here’s a copy of the follow-up letter from the court:

I think comparing Obama's attack on SCOTUS to FDR's attack on the court in 1937 is right on the money. Initially when FDR tryed to push through his New Deal programs, the court ruled against him, since they were clearly unconstitutional. Then FDR threatened to pack the court and SCOTUS caved; as a consequence we got 70 years of creeping socialism that has brought us to near bankruptsy.

Obama's questioning of the court's authority may be an example of his ignorance, but I think it's more likely to be saber rattling in an attempt to increase the power of the Executive and Legislative branches over the Judicial. Decreasing the power of SCOTUS to reign in the growth of the federal government to constitutional limits will allow Congress and the President to convert the system to democratic socialism with out any impediment.

The Constitution does not actually define who is the final decision maker on the constitutionality of legislation. Since Marbury v Madison in 1803, the first case of judicial review, it's become tradition that SCOTUS has that power.

It may be that removing the traditional power of judicial review from SCOTUS is part of Obama's promise to fundamentally transform the country. If we are forced to trust the Legislative and Executive branches to operate within the Constitution with no power to overule their abuses, the Constitution will be rendered void.

[JD Barleycorn]

You know AF, you don't have a leg to stand on and drop the phony ebonics. Be proud to be lily white.


I don't know what else to expect from this constitutional scholar except maybe a lecture of keeping our bodily fluids pure. So we shall have to wait and see what President "Col. Ripper" Obama says next and we always remember the people who voted for this obvious fraud.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You know AF, you don't have a leg to stand on and drop the phony ebonics. Be proud to be lily white.


I don't know what else to expect from this constitutional scholar except maybe a lecture of keeping our bodily fluids pure. So we shall have to wait and see what President "Col. Ripper" Obama says next and we always remember the people who voted for this obvious fraud.

I like the Strangelove reference. The origin of that line was supposed to be the John Birch Society's paranoia about flouride in the water.

My favorite line from the movie was "You can't fight in here. This is the war room."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeqVGP-GPM

[timpage]

I dunno that what Obama said qualifies as a "diatribe" and it certainly isn't anywhere near the same as FDR's efforts to pack the court.

But, I'm not comfortable with it. Attacking the judiciary has usually been left to the repukes and I'd just asoon leave it that way. Let the crazies continue to take the low road, just like they always have. If the Supremes overturn the law, I'll disagree, but respect the decision. It has to be that way.

The level of hypocrisy being exhibited by the repukes on this one is pretty astonishing however. They've been quacking about judicial "activism" for decades now and suddenly it's perfectly fine to overturn the most significant piece of legislation passed by the elected representatives of the United States in 50 years.

[Jackie S]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe

Timpage, this is going to put the Liberal left in a rather awkward position. The President is railing against one of the very things that they chrerish, an active Judicial System.

What both Parties seem to miss is the Supreme Court is performing it's madate, (or at least as they see it), that being ruling on whether a law is Constitutional, or not.

The hypocrysy of both shows through. The Republicans want an active Court when it benefits them, the Democrats want an active Court when it benefits them.

[Munchmasterman]

Boring.

When the court rules, the winning side thinks they are great and the losing side complains.
Regardless of which side is which.
The Daily Show had a great selection of clips from both parties.

As far as there being anyone on this board qualified to decide anyone's judicial qualifications......that's a good one.

I "Faith Hill" in your general direction.

[Jackie S]

My qualifications? I am a citizen of the United States.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

I dunno that what Obama said qualifies as a "diatribe" and it certainly isn't anywhere near the same as FDR's efforts to pack the court.

But, I'm not comfortable with it. Attacking the judiciary has usually been left to the repukes and I'd just asoon leave it that way. Let the crazies continue to take the low road, just like they always have. If the Supremes overturn the law, I'll disagree, but respect the decision. It has to be that way.

The level of hypocrisy being exhibited by the repukes on this one is pretty astonishing however. They've been quacking about judicial "activism" for decades now and suddenly it's perfectly fine to overturn the most significant piece of legislation passed by the elected representatives of the United States in 50 years.

Never mind that it is unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with it.

[Juan Pablo de Marco]

Scalia Believes Innocent People Can Be Executed, So He's Not Going to Care About People Dying From Not Having Health Insurance



Submitted by mark karlin on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 12:31pm.

• EditorBlog

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH ON TRUTHOUT
In 2000, most legal pundits said that Bush v. Gore would never make it the Supreme Court, because voting was a states' right issue. Boy, were they wrong.
In fact, many legal analysts and scholars prognosticate about Supreme Court behavior as if it were of a single mind looking at the Constitution and the law in a serious, scholarly way.
But that perspective of considering the law conscientiously in terms of precedent and the nation's founding legal document forgets one thing: four of the Supreme Court justices are total partisan hacks. Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts are activist right wing judges who decide many major cases for political reasons first - and then find twisted legal justifications for their decisions. Kennedy usually joins with them in major 5-4 decisions that have political impact.
Scalia appears to be the major enforcer of political allegiance to the Federalist Society and the Koch brothers. The man is so dangerously ideological that he even declared, in a dissenting opinion, that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent an innocent person from being executed. He argued that, "this Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is actually innocent."
So why would anyone think that the four judges (with their fifth amigo, Kennedy, on major rulings) would suddenly respect precedent, including their own, and rule that healthcare reform is not a violation of the Constitution? If Scalia thinks it is legally justified for the state to kill an innocent person, then why would he give a whit about people dying from lack of health insurance?
Scalia even scornfully noted that it would be presumptuous for anyone to suggest that he, the other judges, or their law clerks should actually read the Affordable Healthcare Act as passed by Congress. In essence, Scalia is arguing, you don't have to read a law to rule on its validity.
When stopping the Florida recount, Scalia wrote that it was necessary not to count all the votes again because it might in "my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." So don't allow election judges to determine who actually won the election, because Scalia had already determined that it was Bush - and if Gore won that might harm Bush's reputation. Say what?
This is an election year. The healthcare reform act has been the leading political target of the Republican Party. Does one think that hard-right Republicans on the bench are going to respect the sanctity of legal decision making - or the interests of their party?
Their past votes have been clear: the law is to be used to achieve the electoral goals of the GOP.
Remember the Citizens United decision? Remember anointing a president in 2000 despite strong indications that he was actually the loser.
If you have health insurance now, hold on to it for dear life.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Never mind that it is unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with it.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't render it unconstitutional.

[Grifter]

Juan thank you for posting that amazingly slanted pile of shit.