The Supreme Court or a Hole in the Ground

[Deleted Account 5,203]

President Obama can't tell the difference.

 

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/02/obama-slams-activist-supreme-court-calls-them-unelected-group-people

 

"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."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Let's parse this, shall we?

 

1. Unprecedented means "without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled", according to http://www.dictionary.reference.com. Apparently, President Obama, a Constitutional law professor, has never heard of a little gem called Marbury v. Madison, which only ESTABLISHES THE RIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS OF CONGRESS, and you're not gonna believe this, but it overturns an unconstitutional law. It's, like, the biggest Supreme Court case ever. If you're looking for an example, in 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down portions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for being, you guessed it, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Since this happened on Obama's watch, you'd think he'd remember it.

 

2. Extraordinary means "beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established", according to http://www.dictionary.reference.com. Let's quote Article III of the U.S. Constitution, shall we? "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction..." How many cases do you see in the news where ambassadors and consuls have been sued? How about where states are parties to claims? If you're keeping count at home, this has happened exactly TWICE in the last decade (the immortal Maryland v. Virginia in 2003 and New Jersey v. Delaware in 2008). Everything else is dedicated to appellate jurisdiction to determine constitutionality of laws. "Extraordinary", Mr. President?!?!

 

It's impossible to justify voting for this man again after he says crap like this.

It's worse than Bush saying "we will put food on your families".

[bucfan64 309]

This is "strong arming" or could even be considered a subtle threat on behalf of the President, he has no respect for our system, he completely ignores our checks and balances by "bypassing congress," and he is constantly hampered by that pesky little thing called THE CONSTITUTION. Now, he wants to suggest that the Supreme Court would be legislating from the bench if they overturn the individual mandate, this man is, in my opinion, an embarrasment and a discredit to the office!

[Deleted Account 5,203]

This is "strong arming" or could even be considered a subtle threat on behalf of the President, he has no respect for our system, he completely ignores our checks and balances by "bypassing congress," and he is constantly hampered by that pesky little thing called THE CONSTITUTION. Now, he wants to suggest that the Supreme Court would be legislating from the bench if they overturn the individual mandate, this man is, in my opinion, an embarrasment and a discredit to the office!

 

What saddens me is how Congress has allowed themselves to be bypassed.

Now, we have loads of authority authorizing unilateral executive action never intended under the Constitution.

 

Never in the history of government has a body neutered itself like Congress has.

[Hacker 82]

Congress long ago abdicated its role as an equal partner in government. Combine this with the rise of "party over country" thinking has led to a dysfunctional body that is increasingly irrelevant.