The American Spectator : Obama's Preemptive Strike on the Supreme Court

Text Size

Political Hay

Obama’s Preemptive Strike on the Supreme Court

By W. James Antle, III on 4.3.12 @ 6:11AM

What’s ahead if the president doesn’t get his way on the health care decision.

Harry Truman ran against the “Do Nothing” Congress in the 1948 presidential election. Will Barack Obama run against the Supreme Court this year? Answer: he will if the nation’s highest court repudiates his signature health care reform law as unconstitutional.

The president nearly gave away the game during his press conference yesterday. After a long soliloquy about the “human element” the justices would be letting down if they ruled against his administration, Obama slipped and almost said he expected the law to be overturned rather than upheld. (He corrected himself mid-sentence.)

“Ultimately I am 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,” Obama averred. Perhaps he meant “democratic” with a capital d. Only Democrats voted for the law and it passed the House by just seven votes despite a three-fifths Democratic majority in that chamber.

According to one careful estimate, the Supreme Court has struck down 53 federal statutes between 1981 and 2005. So in post-Marbury v. Madison America, it wouldn’t be exactly “unprecedented.” Didn’t Linda Greenhouse teach us that “unprecedented” was a word used by people whose legal arguments are without merit?

Obama chided conservative commentators who complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” when “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” He concluded: “Well, this is a pretty good example.”

Supporters of the president have been laying the groundwork for this reaction ever since it became clear that the Supreme Court wasn’t simply going to rubber stamp the adminstration’s request for untrammeled federal power. Greenhouse insisted the constitutional challenge was baseless but sighed “the justices will do what they will do.” Paul Krugman asserted “while most legal experts seem to think that the case for striking the law down is very weak, these days everything is political.”

This has nothing to do with the law, they chant. It is simply the “wingnuts” on the Supreme Court deciding to impose the Tea Party’s vision of the Constitution on America. (Yet if the law is upheld, the same people will celebrate the Court as a great and powerful body whose wise rulings should go unquestioned, with the “wingnut” who cast the deciding vote venerated as the preeminent jurist of modern times.)

What is at stake here isn’t the Tea Party’s Constitution. It is the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the American people. It is the idea that the federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed, consent given not merely every two to six years at the ballot box but when a large majority of the states and the people expressly delegate power to the central government.

Nowhere in the confident declarations of the health care law’s constitutionality do we see any evidence that the people who wrote or ratified the Constitution intended to give the federal government these powers. More than half the states in the country have joined in the constitutional challenge and plainly don’t want to delegate this police power to Washington.

What we see instead is the insistence that liberal policy preferences simply must be constitutional. “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” said Obama.

For all the talk of ideologically rigid conservative justices, it was always the four members of the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc who were viewed as locks to uphold Obamacare. The persuadable justices were John Roberts, the chief justice nominated by George W. Bush, and Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan. They tried in vain to get the solicitor general to establish some limiting principle for the power he ascribed to the federal government, to tie the mandate to something enumerated in the Constitution.

“The plaintiffs had no coherent constitutional theory on severability and on Medicaid,” writes American Enterprise Institute legal scholar Michael Greve. “For that reason they will lose on both issues, and all the partisanship on the Court, real and imagined, won’t help them.” Greve continued by noting “the justices gave the government every chance in the world to draw a constitutionally grounded enumerated powers line. It couldn’t, and so it will lose.”

Just as he did when he lectured the justices about Citizens United, Obama plans to demagogue any Supreme Court ruling that is unfavorable to his health care program. The same president who holds Roe v. Wade inviolate, a decision that invalidated the laws of all 50 states on an issue no one had previously imagined to be under federal jurisdiction, will inveigh against judicial activism.

But Obama’s cheering section also gives away the game when they lament that the Supreme Court has for the past 75 years allowed Congress, with the president’s permission, to act as a national problem-solving machine without the Constitution getting in the way. What changed in the last 75 years? The Constitution or the composition of the courts? Raw political power, indeed.

In fact, it was 75 years ago that FDR unveiled his “court packing” scheme to scare justices away from enforcing the enumerated powers doctrine when it interfered with his legislative agenda. It worked then. Will Obama’s version work now?

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (329) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

spike59| 4.3.12 @ 7:16AM

I'm constantly amazed that there are actual adults who continue to refer to ObaMao as a 'Constitutional professor'...the fool has OBVIOUSLY never heard of "marbury v. madison"

Jack in Wi.| 4.3.12 @ 7:41AM

It's a good stategy. He is trying to scare Kennedy into caving, just like he did in Casey case back in the early 1990's. Kennedy is one weak link that nobody knows where his blackmail point is. Roe could have been overturned if Kennedy had voted right on Casey. He was supposed to have changed his mind suddenly on the subject. To me, that hints at blackmail. I have seen some comments on the subject by other people who also believe that.

Teaghan| 4.3.12 @ 8:32AM

Has anyone here ever heard a sitting president threaten the supreme court before? No, didn't think so. He's a mentally ill, self centered, narsassistic, dangerous man with a personality disorder. He astounds daily.

Jack in Wi.| 4.3.12 @ 8:36AM

Jackson said. " They made their decisions let them enforce it. " He openly defied the Court. Lincoln refused to follow the Surpreme Court on the issue of Habeous Corpus and wanted to arrest the Chief Justice. FDR attacked the Court and wanted to pack it. Jefferson never believed the Court should have that kind of power and said so.

oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 8:48AM

Exactly right Jack, it has happened three times before, where it is become public knowledge. I am sure there were 'several' instances of behind the curtin threats.
Frankly I think the Pretender in Charge looks to Lincoln as a role model of how far you can push the system and a President who made war on it's citizens and got away with it.
We are past March so Beware the Ides of June.

Pete| 4.3.12 @ 9:56PM

All the supreme court has to do is accept the case of Obama's qualifications to be president in the first place, and unless he can handle a coup, is done.

steve in mass| 4.3.12 @ 11:17AM

Hey Jack if the supreme court strikes down this unconstitutional abortion and he tries to enforce it what do you imagine will happen? Real Americans will not comply with anything this kenyan dictator orders

OLD SCHOOL| 4.3.12 @ 12:27PM

"this kenyan dictator " is a duly elected president of United States. Stick to policy disagreements and respect the Office of the Presidency.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 12:45PM

When The One starts respecting US, I'll start respecting him.
Till then, I like "Kenyan dictator".
It's far more polite than most of what was said about GWB.

glassfinger| 4.3.12 @ 8:00PM

Correct. Weren't there two films about assassinating Bush? No hand wriging from the left over those. What about the sainted and oh-so-funy Alec Baldwin's foaming at the mouth diatribe against the life of the special prosecutor & his family during Clinton's intern problem? That was late night entertainment, right? Respect the Office? Clinton scandalized it, getting bj's in the Oval Office. The kenyan (no caps, please) is at least a marxist, at worst a communist. The list of clear violations he has done to his oath of office is too long to print here. Respect? Seriously? He has none for the most powerful position in the free world. It used to be that. Ain't no more. Respect the office, sure-respect the one with the title? hardly-you have to earn that one. This is America, for God's sake, not a 3rd world dictatorship. Novermber 2012 is coming.

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:10AM

He's not your president is he skippy?

Controse| 4.3.12 @ 2:15PM

You see OLD SCHOOL, the only way the rule of law works if for it to apply to every citizen without regard to position in government. Every since he put forth a fake birth certificate ( short form ) he has been breaking the law. He was not "duly elected." That is the problem. Books have been written detailing all the laws he has broken since becoming President. Other books have been written detailing all the laws he broke to become President. Who has shown more disrespect for the Office of the Presidency than Obama, or whoever he is, by his crass disregard for that office's limits as detailed in the Constitution?

skip| 4.3.12 @ 2:41PM

Respect for the office held by
the white black stupidly acting prickly dithering nattering idiot liar in chief of downgrade and really pathetic and despicable speeches
with a silver bullet for economic stimulus
and a silver bullet for shovel ready jobs
and a silver bullet for digging us out of the ditch provided in bipartisan cooperation the conservatives just shut up
and a silver bullet for the rich paying their fair share
and a silver bullet for 17 tax cuts and counting for small business job creation
and a silver bullet for the deficit being halved during the first presidential 4 year term alone
and a silver bullet promise Gauntanamo will be closed no later than January 2010
and a silver bullet for improved healthcare for all at reduced costs
and a silver bullet for affordable green energy
and a silver bullet for the preference for higher gas prices on purpose
and a silver bullet for saving the equivalent of the oil supply lost by all the record drilling occuring by the proper inflation of air in automobile tires
and a silver bullet for world peace
and a silver bullet for eating peas
and a silver bullet for global cooling
and silver bullet for receding ocean levels
and a silver bullet for our intercontinental rail system within our own borders
and a silver bullet for all 57 of the 58 states visited to date
and a silver bullet for the Austrian language speaking peoples
and a silver bullet for military corpsmen
and a silver bullet for those military dead who sacrificed their lives for the nation who are in attendence at ceremonies
and a silver bullet for his self-professed muslim faith self-professed multiple times on national television
and a silver bullet for the fundamentally flawed Constitution
and a silver bullet for hope and change
and other silver bullets too numerous to respectfully respect duly?

Purp| 4.3.12 @ 3:00PM

You're sick Skippy.

skip| 4.3.12 @ 3:39PM

In the emotional prattle devoid of reason and experience nowhere is there any counterpoint to the description of the white black stupidly acting prickly dithering nattering idiot liar in chief of downgrade and really pathetic and despicable speeches with silver bullets for everything - other than the aforementioned emotional prattle devoid of reason and experience.

Of course the emotional prattler devoid of reason and experience likely does not possess the mental capacity to discern the difference between regular posters 'Skippy' and 'Skip' much less 'skip' - so the target of the emotional prattle devoid of reason and experience is speculative only.

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:12AM

Off your meds again skip?

skip| 4.5.12 @ 3:39PM

In your comment that is nothing more than emotional prattle,

you failed to refute the description based on reason and experience of the individual occupying the oval office,

the description of the oval office occupier as 'white black' in reference to the Trayvon Martin insanity,

as 'stupidly acting' in reference to oval office occupier's behavior in the Henry Gates insanity, from among many other examples,

as 'prickly' in reference to the oval office occupier's perpetual irritable touchy petulant demeanor,

as 'dithering' in reference to the oval office occupier's 16 hour overnight amount of time needed after location to approve the termination of Obama Sin Laden, and in reference to the 3 plus years and counting amount of time needed to approve the Keystone pipeline, and in reference to the 3 plus years and counting amount of time needed to provide a plan for the promised halving of the deficit in the first term that can garner a bipartisan vote from even a democrat, from among many other examples,

as 'nattering' in reference the oval office occupier's incessant perpetual prolonged amount of insanely delusional prattle uttered irritably and petulantly on a daily basis,

as 'idiot' in reference to the oval office occupier's unintelligence and dishonesty and incompetence and lack of integrity,

as 'liar' in reference to the oval office occupier's primary activity,

as 'chief of downgrade' in reference to the oval office occupier's primary accomplishment,

as 'chief of really pathetic and despicable speeches' in reference to the oval office occupier's daily pathetic and despicable irritable and petulant speeches,

as 'chief with silver bullets for everything' in reference to all the solutions the oval office occupier has lied about on a daily basis in the oval office occupier's daily irritable and petulant pathetic and despicable speeches,

in noting your failure to refute the description of the oval office occupier based on reason and experience, just like the pathetic and despicable lying idiot 'Purp' did before you.

Idiot.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 5:53PM

Thanks.
The Doctor told me I'd get better, but I'd never get well.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 3:01PM

I could learn to be a pretty good shot with all that ammo.

Jake| 4.3.12 @ 3:32PM

I have NO respect for Obumma. Stick it.

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:14AM

And yet he somehow attained an office that deserves our respect. Perhaps we should reserve our disrespect for the idiots and fools who voted for this guy without knowing anything about him.

Teaghan| 4.3.12 @ 3:53PM

He doesn't deserve our respect because he shows none to us.

Slacker| 4.3.12 @ 5:03PM

In essence, your demand that others “respect the office of the presidency” is simply an alternative way of saying “shut up”. If that’s the way you feel, just say it.

Your premise is wrong anyway. Free people don’t beautify their leaders. We don’t respect offices. Americans have a long history of hating our presidents and it is a wonderful tradition.

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:20AM

I think that you mean to say 'beatify' rather than "beautify" and respecting the office is very different than respecting the person. The difference is one that you ought to learn about since it's misunderstanding by the politicians who have attained it is at the root of it's loss of reputation.

If we were to seek and elect presidents more like Washington and less like Nixon or Carter there would be no need for this discussion.

JohnD| 4.3.12 @ 7:46PM

Hey Old School, where I come from, respect has to be earned. This Marxist fool has done nothing to earn my respect. In fact he has tarnished the Office of the President. Keep drinking Obama's Kool-Aid.

Pete| 4.3.12 @ 9:57PM

The entire Congress and the media has disrespected the Office, by not vetting this man.

BackToBasics| 4.4.12 @ 2:56AM

Old School - When he respects the office of the presidency himself and our constitution, then I will respect him.

OsamasPajamas| 4.4.12 @ 5:18PM

If "respecting the office" also means having to respect the piece-of-trash squatter who currently occupies it, then SCCCRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the office of the president and drop a frkn piano on it.

Iron Sights| 4.4.12 @ 9:01PM

Respect for the office doesn't mean we have to lie to ourselves. Lets call a spade a spade. Obama is a narcissistic, elitist, Kenyan born, Moslem sympathizing, Marxist. His healthcare mess isn't about healthcare at all, it's about control and the theft of more personal liberty. I could give a rats ass if he was "duly elected", he is killing our country and he has to go.

Caroline| 4.5.12 @ 8:52PM

I don't think that means respecting an African born, Indonesian who lied about his birthplace to get elected. I can assure you with all of his lies, the one honest or should I say two honest statements to come out of his mouth, are not "I was born in Hawaii, and I'm a Christian."

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." ~Lenin

We are the ones who respect the office. You can't respect the office and respect this man. What respect has he shown our Constitution? Does it also require us to respect the man who calls Bill Ayers and the Weathermen friends?

Does respecting the office, also require us to respect the person, who is responsible for the deaths of over 300 people in Fast and Furious, that included two Federal Agents?

Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at the very idea.

Obama deserves no respect. He is not a legitimate CIC.

Hitler on the Big Lie from Mein Kampf
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

JP| 4.3.12 @ 8:54AM

Justice O'Conner twisted his arm. She also allowed him to insert much of his own ideas into the majority opinion. There is no Jusice O'Conner in this case. O'Conner played to Kennedy's vanity by pointing out that they (O'Conner and Kennedy) held the power on the high court. Niether the Progressives or Conservatives could get a majority without first satisfying them. O'Conner was replaced by Alito. And I don't think that either Breyer or Gingsberg hold much influence over Kennedy.

Kennedy ultimately is a libertarian when it comes to personal freedom and federal controls over that freedom. If you steer clear of the social issues (gays and abortion), he usually sides with the Conservatives.

keith| 4.3.12 @ 7:56PM

BINGO !

Theilmann| 4.3.12 @ 9:34AM

Are you kidding me? "Roe could have been overturned if Kennedy had voted right on Casey."
How pretentious does one have to be to think that one knows better than a Justice of the Supreme Court? Or perhaps one does not have to be pretentious at all, perhaps one merely needs to be a religious nutter.
For anyone to believe that anyone other than the impregnated woman should hold any rights over the fate of the fetus is ridiculous and smacks of a mindset akin to Sharia. But then again a religious nutter is a religious nutter no matter which imaginary friend they have!

Scotty V| 4.3.12 @ 10:39AM

How pretentious does one have to be to think that killing an unborn human is okay as long as it's the unborn human's mother that makes that decision? Or, perhaps one does not have to be pretentious at all, perhaps one merely needs to be a moral relativist nutter, worshipping at the altar of 'self'.

Purp| 4.3.12 @ 3:40PM

Let us know when you have a baby, Sir.

Teaghan| 4.3.12 @ 4:17PM

Men have rights to their children too Purp. And when will you on the left get it through your heads that abortion isn't about "a woman's right to choose"? It couldn't be any clearer than now, obamacare, "free birth control" and urging college aged girls to be sterilized. No, this is about culling the herd. I still can't figure out how they will convince or "mandate" that the muslims can only have 1 child.....when they typically have 8-10.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 5:55PM

I had three, but they all grew up.

JP| 4.3.12 @ 10:40AM

Perhaps you should read the Casey opinion with an eye towards the Constitution, and not your obsession with abortion rights.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 12:47PM

I'll support Roe as soon as the father has equal say.

Jack in Wi.| 4.3.12 @ 1:05PM

The Constution is silent on abortion. The states and Federal government with their elected majorities had restrictions on this horrible practice. The Surpreme Court stole this power from the people and states and declared this practice as a constitutional right. It was a dictatorial decision in total violation of the history and constitutional scholarship on this issue. Kennedy was the deciding vote on if this abomination would be overturned. By the way I had a drink with Casey at a right to life dinner some years after this. He was the liberal Democrat governor of Penn, when he took on Roe.

Pete| 4.3.12 @ 10:00PM

Its called equal treatment under the law. Having a law that exempts unborn humans from being protected from murder is unconstitutional.

Controse| 4.3.12 @ 2:28PM

I find your "religious nutter" argument very persuasive as to who gets to commit murder in the event the victim finds itself in a womb. The issue here larger than murder is the Constitution. Our country does not exist distinct from other countries unless we follow the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about in-utero murder otherwise known as abortion. It doesn't permit it, it doesn't forbid it. The Supreme Court never should have taken the case. The voters should decide not the Supreme Court.

Peggy Rios| 4.3.12 @ 3:20PM

This is the 21st Century my friend, there are a dozen different ways for a woman, who is in charge of her reproductive health, to keep from getting pregnant. Any woman who wants to vote for the current President and his party in November on the basis that they are "friendly" to womens needs are playing right into their hands and you will rue the day you did - think things are tough now, just wait ladies. There are literally DOZENS and DOZENS of more critically important things going on OR NOT going on in this country for the topic of women's reproductive health let you get so distracted and I feel sorry for any woman who puts her family in the hands of the worst set of elected officials in American History on that basis! Women - you want to take care of your reproductive health? Then DO it! Men want to have a say in it? Take responsibilty for YOUR part in the whole pregnancy choice discussion - get a condom!

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:29AM

First question - Do you really believe after reading her decisions and speeches that Ginsburg is a reasonable intelligent individual?

Second question - What of the rights of the father? I know that this question runs against the current politically correct grain since it assumes that the woman knows who the father is and that both the he and she decided to avoid contraception. That is, it assumes some basic intelligence on the part of both the man and woman involved.

Third question - Has the prospective child no influence on the decision even though it's life is at the crux of the matter?

Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 12:59PM

Is it the plaintiffs or the defendents who have no constitutional leg to stand on? I think it's the defendents. Or am I wrong?

Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 1:33PM

Twarn't me ... dang it ... somebody stealing my moniker ... wonder if that's a compliment?

rjh| 4.3.12 @ 10:29AM

I am sure that you already know this, but obama was never a professor.

brome1| 4.3.12 @ 4:44PM

That is correct. Obama was only a guest lecturer. He never earned the title Professor.

Anthony| 4.3.12 @ 11:52AM

No, but I suspect he has read Koramatsu, the Supreme Court case upholding the internment of Japanese-Americans under the beloved leftist, FDR.
Martial law is an option Obozo will not hesitate to institute if things look to go downhill for him.

Controse| 4.3.12 @ 2:32PM

I don't think the Supreme Court will uphold internment this time, not that it would matter to Obama, or whoever he is. But I find it hard to believe our reserve military would enforce it.

TrueBlue | 4.3.12 @ 7:23PM

Since all he has to do is get the OWS crowds, La Raza, and the NAACP to start riots (which he can do pretty easily) I wouldn't rule that occurence out. Really hope it doesn't happen though, it'll cause more damage to the country than he has managed in his entire term.

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:38AM

Based on recent develpments in his use of executive orders it seems that you may well be correct regarding his plans for some form of martial law.

Glenn Beck has been touting the "bottom up, top down, inside out" view of the Obama/Ayers strategy for several years now. Judging by the civil unrest being called for by the leftist anarchists, the unions and the race hustlers it seem that he could be on to something. When we add Obama's determination to push America toward bankruptcy we see parallels to the PIIGS situations in our future and martial law has been their standard response.

Purp| 4.3.12 @ 3:45PM

Precedent - yes, it's a marvelous thing... now if only this Activist Court will follow precedent and the tradition of not overturning what ELECTED branches of government have created (since human rights are not involved here), it will be left to Congress and the President to make any changes, as it should be.

From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.3.12 @ 5:55PM

Pierre-Femme Pansy-Putz Maddow-Pelosi,

Stop discrediting us.

Unless you Penelope are referring to precedent set between 1789 and 1973.

- MM staff

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 5:56PM

If the Supremes chuck the whole thing, will you have an aneurism?

George True| 4.3.12 @ 9:01PM

Again, Purp, as was pointed out to you yesterday, the constitution set the the three branches of government to be CO-EQUAL. Matters not one whit, nor is it relevant to the discussion that the justices are appointed versus elected.

And finally, the proper role of the supreme court is to rule on whether or not something is constitutional, NOT on whether it conforms to your definition of "tradition".

Also, as was pointed out to you yesterday, this is hardly an "activist" court. If they do anything other than overturn Obamacare, then THAT would be judicial activism. You are using the term "activism" as the opposite of what it actually means.

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:42AM

Actually the constitution specifies life long appointments for the justices in order to insulate them from popular opinion. It has been the appointment process that has brought us politically oriented appointees many of whom have actively sought public approval.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.3.12 @ 7:48AM

The greatest impediment to the Democratic Party has always been the U.S. Constitution:
http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....n-is-weird
When Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell told Delaware voters that the Constitution, rather than her personal views, would guide her votes in the Senate, one might have expected a variety of responses from the Left — perhaps a huge sigh of relief that we've all been saved from a federal law banning masturbation.

But the response was actually far stranger, and tells us far more about the state of contemporary liberalism. Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick summed up the reaction, writing that she found it "weird" that O'Donnell would consider the constitutionality of legislation. If we have to consider constitutionality at all, Lithwick mused, that certainly isn't the job of Congress. They should just pass whatever they want and let the courts worry about it later.

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have adopted a view of virtually unlimited government power that is clearly contrary to the Founders' vision of a constitutionally limited government. In their vision, government roams the countryside fixing problems — any problems. Having trouble paying your mortgage? Don't worry, the federal government will help you. Your local school not doing a good job? The federal government will be there to help. Don't have health insurance? The federal government will make you buy it.

drudge ette obama| 4.3.12 @ 8:03AM

He has stepped over the line and is now in violation of his oath of office to defend the Constitution.

Undermining the Supreme Court's authority to strike down a piece of legislation by claiming the jurists weren't elected - they are appointed and for good reason - is evil when it comes from a President. Soon, the Gore decision will be bandied about in conjunction with ObamaCare's demise.

Also, add to the verbiage that clues you in on someone who has a bad legal argument is the use of the word Clear. Obama uses it nonstop. He's clearless.

Gary B| 4.3.12 @ 8:44AM

Violating one's oath of office is a pre-requisite for conducting any business in DC. To every criminal who populates the place, it's an archaic formality... kind of a cute photo opportunity. To the Tea Party, it's acknowledgement and confirmation of the founding principles of our republic. In other words they double over in laughter when ever we bring it up.

Purp| 4.3.12 @ 3:48PM

The Tea Party reads the Constitution the same way Evangelicals read the Bible - they cherry pick what suits them, extend what they wish and ignore what they don't like.

One if by land...| 4.3.12 @ 5:26PM

You really are a moron Purp.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 5:58PM

We REALLY like the 2nd Amendment.
With it, we can "Treyvon" the purps anong us.

Nick| 4.3.12 @ 6:40PM

"[...] they cherry pick what suits them, extend what they wish and ignore what they don't like."

You're projecting again, Purp.
That is what you stinking libs do.

Like when you completely ignore the Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. You bleeding hearts like to pretend that Americans have no right to keep and bear arms. That is called cherry picking, since you don't seem to understand the term very well.

Leftists HATE the Constitution, and, therefore, the United States of America.

Controse| 4.3.12 @ 2:35PM

If only we had a Republican who would relentlessly call the Democrat's out on this point?

Gary B| 4.3.12 @ 3:08PM

My kingdom for a real conservative candidate.

K.Hunter| 4.5.12 @ 11:44AM

Learn about the Wilson administration.

Lawrence Boccardi| 4.3.12 @ 8:04AM

A liberal justice leaked the verdict to the disgrace. She should be impeached.

Gary B| 4.3.12 @ 8:47AM

I believe you're right about that. Obama and his ilk are making a mockery of everything we hold dear. I wonder if anyone out there, acorss the land, has noticed. When I hear about poll results showing Obama popular among women, I have to wonder.

Harley2002| 4.3.12 @ 9:57AM

Women are willing to sell out for free birth control pills. Cheap sell out for sure.

thomas coughlan| 4.3.12 @ 10:53AM

When you drill down on the women poll you find that 42% were declared dems and 24% were repubs.
I'm surprized the gap wasn't 2-1. Now that should worry libs!

cvrgrl| 4.3.12 @ 11:28AM

not cheap birth control, taxpayer paid birth control (except when its advantageous to get on WIC and the EBT parade)

Do not worry though, just one baby per male sperm donor, as that is all men are (in order to maximize money from garnishment)

oh boy, my federal government does all that for me,

and then free brain washing at pre school
mmmm, mmmmmm, mmmm

Purp| 4.3.12 @ 3:49PM

spoken from a true woman - oh, you're not. So shut up, you know nothing about it.

sonofagunny| 4.3.12 @ 5:52PM

Are you a woman? If not shut up, you know nothing about it. PS-that's not really true, I think men do know something about birth conrtol and contraceptives...idiot.

SUBVET| 4.3.12 @ 11:24AM

The polls are made up to push an agenda........wake-up.

Timothy L. Pennell| 4.3.12 @ 8:48AM

What am I missing? "Passed by a strong Majority of Elected Officials"? As I recall, it was RAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS on a Party Line Vote, with the help of "BRIBED" Elected Officials, of whom, some have already been thrown out by the people they professed to Represent, while the Mary Landrieu's of this world, can only sit and hope that the people have grown stupid, since 2010. Hope that the people's eyes have glazed over as they look at the price of Gas, and Food, and Home Heating Fuel on their way to pick up their Unemployment Check. Or the Race Mobs gathered in Sanford, Fla. at the behest of their The 1st Black President: "Never let a Major Crisis go to waste."

All of the Muslim's "Buddies" are there. Sharpton/Farrakhan/The New N*ggers With Attitudes (Black Panthers).

"Men shall know you by the company you keep."

Indeed.

This idea that Precedence is the Holy Grail, is laughable. Separate but Equal WAS Precedence. Segregation was Precedence. Lots of things were Pecedent, right up to the second they were overturned.

Perhaps these former Laws that were "Passed by a Strong Majority of Elected Officials" at that time, should be Re-Visited?

Right, Purp?

"The Justices gave the government every chance in the world to draw a Constitutionally Grounded enumerated powers line. It couldn't, and so it will lose."

I wish I shared in your optimism. I'm still trying to locate the Abortion Right that they found, in 73. It's been 39 YEARS, and still, nobody can point the "RIGHT" to murder your Unborn Child, to me. Perhaps Purp knows where it is? Or vtwin? Or aware. Maybe aware is aware of where that RIGHT is written?

They did, however, manage to spin Straw in to Gold, and turn a Sows Ear in to a Silk Purse. They just couldn't make this Pig Fly.

If I'm on the Side of the Supreme Court Bench that isn't waving the "GO BARRY" Pennants, every time there's a Case brought before them, I REMEMBER the B*tch Slap that this America Hating MFer gave me at that State of the Union Speech. This is my chance to return the favour and give this little Marxist/Muslim PUNK, an even bigger B*tch Slap right across his Arrogant, Lying, Smug little Face.

The Constitution is the Line in the Sand of Freedom and Liberty. Politicians, drunk with Power, and Intoxicated by the sound of their own Voice, have continued to try and Blur that line. They have sought to Re-make this Gift from God, in their own image. The Supreme Court is the only thing that stands between the Freedom to choose our own Paths, our own Dreams, and our own Desires, and a life straight out of an Orwellian Horror Movie.

Everyone assumes that 1984 would be our Fate. I disagree.

GATTICA. If you haven't seen it? Rent it. And grab Logan's Run, while you're at it. And, Soylent Green.

Life truly does Imitate Art.

That's what we're looking at, and this All Encompassing Health Care Omnibus Decree from on high, is the 1st step, in a Journey that will undoubtedly lead to one certain end: With the Emperor's thumb UP. Or with it DOWN.

Hail Caesar!

Death to America!

CrazyHungarian| 4.3.12 @ 9:32AM

I totally agree with this post (except maybe some of the adjectives), but the big danger is that the next election could give this arrogant president the opportunity to change the relatively balanced "unelected" Supreme Court and appoint some more totally undeserving political hacks to stack the body against constitutionality for the next generation. Could we stand another Wise Latino Woman or a Solicitor General that won't recuse herself when deciding upon the very law that her department was in charge of initiating the defense planning, fully expecting for this awful law to reach the Supreme Court?

Dmac | 4.3.12 @ 10:04AM

look for all hell to break losse and rightfully so if Obama is re-elected. And a warning to the Republicans if they win the election. The bullshit going on in Washington stops one way or the other the day after the election. We the People have had enough.
Democrats know this, you're being watched and whatever crap you THINK you're going to pull betrween Novemeber and January we suggest you re-think it. It might be best to not even re-convene Congress until after the new President is sworn in.

albert constantine jr.| 4.3.12 @ 11:46AM

"look for all hell to break losse and rightfully so if Obama is re-elected"

I suppose currently, only half of hell has broken loose. Even more so, look for it if he is not re-elected, and I am not referring to any lame duck attempts, either.

Dmac | 4.3.12 @ 6:04PM

Nothing has broke loose yet. Just a dictator wannabe. We can fix what he's done so far, but given another 4 years and there will be no return to what we once had.
Politicians from both parties should understand that "We the People" have had enough of being shit on.
Our armed forces and those that command them should be ready to obey the Constitution and sit this one out when it happens.

steve in mass| 4.3.12 @ 11:25AM

great post!

fmm| 4.3.12 @ 12:55PM

And read the book "The Giver". No better outline of the world the progressives want to implement.

One if by land...| 4.3.12 @ 5:31PM

Great book! Good addition

Tim H| 4.3.12 @ 2:20PM

You have to parse his words carefully Mr. Pennell. His exact words were, "a democratically elected majority." He has, in his mind, dismissed those evil Republicans that voted nay as being 'un-democratically' elected.

Purp| 4.3.12 @ 3:57PM

It's not the first step. If you cared, you'd be ranting about warrantless wiretaps and the like in the interest of security. The Constitution was raped under the Bush administration and you worry NOW about the rape of the Constitution to keep us healthy? Go away...

Timothy L. Pennell| 4.3.12 @ 5:36PM

You're MESSIAH, is still doing the Wiretaps/Renditions/Gitmo, as we speak, you lying MFer POS.

And you know it!

One if by land...| 4.3.12 @ 5:39PM

Bush wasn't a conservative moron and he(Pennell) hasn't, that I've read, shown glowing praise for GB in any post. You are stupid and that is the one fact here. People present you with facts and you write more opinion, like a true lefty. Now, you please go away and stop voting. Place morals and money behind everyone of the things you want from the Gov't and see if they are "affordable". Purp, if you really took the time to read the Constitution, Federalist Papers and anything written by Jefferson regarding Gov't and Liberty you would find you are in the wrong about almost all that you say. You will never be able to explain how our REPUBLIC was created witht he idea of an immense federal gov't.

Warrior | 4.3.12 @ 5:57PM

Jackass, tell me how mandating someone to buy insurance makes that person healthier.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:06PM

I like warrantless wiretaps, especially when they piss-off liberals.
Or inconvenience Muslims.

JP| 4.3.12 @ 8:56AM

Good luck in getting Reid to do that.

loulou| 4.3.12 @ 12:29PM

I bet it was that Fred Flintstone Kagan. Yabba dabba doo!

darcy| 4.3.12 @ 1:59PM

Are you speculating? Or do you have evidence that one of the female justices leaked the vote? I think we can infer, from Obama's outrageous comments yesterday, that the decision was leaked. But do we actually know for sure?

W| 4.3.12 @ 3:06PM

Unless either the leaker or leakee confess, which I doubt, you will not know for sure.

But if we connect the dots: dot 1 that Kagan was the Solicitor General when Obamacare was passed and then left for the Supremes, dot 2 that she sent an email praising Obamacare, dot 3 that the Solictor General's office that argued the case is staffed by Kagan's appointees, and prior to Kagan on the Court there has never been an issue with this Court leaking a decision, the most logical conclusion is ???

alabama yankee| 4.4.12 @ 3:00PM

Couldn't agree more! I suspect that Eliena 'Buffalo-Girl' Kagan, or one of her clerks, made a secret late-night call to the White House, letting them know that ObamaCare was going down, hard!
However, impeachment is not the answer. Chief Justice Roberts should 'interview' every court clerk and ask them if they were the leaker; start with the four conservative justices' clerks, then move on to the liberals, ending with Kagan's. By the time he gets to Kagan's, they'll be so scared that they'll rat her out in a New York minute!
Then, he can 'interview' her in private, tell her what he has learned (as if she didn't already know), and offer her two choices:
1. Resign immediately for 'reasons of health', an obvious fig leaf but still saving everyone a modicum of face, or
2. Consider herself excluded from ALL future court hearings and cases, instruct the Supreme Court bailiff to enforce this ban, and leave her to vegetate in her office until January 20 2013, at which time a suitable replacement will be named.
It's time to play hardball with these Dupeks! It's how they play, it's all they understand, and it's the one tactic they can't overcome.

drudge ette obama| 4.3.12 @ 8:07AM

Did Obama get the nod & wink from Kagan or a law clerk? Does Chief Justice Roberts have control of his courtroom? Was there smoke rising from the chimney of the Supreme Court?

If Pelosi starts to trade the market in advance of the decision, then we know there is a leak.

Indy| 4.3.12 @ 8:28AM

I would not blame Roberts, everything points to Kagan, rookie on the Court and POTUS cheerleader, ObamaCare is her baby.

Alan| 4.3.12 @ 10:11AM

The Communist knew what the preliminary vote was 30 minutes after the court adjourned by one of the stool pidgeons on the court. Which one? Take your pick, but be assured of that. The only question that remains is what to do about it. Blackmail? Threats? payoff? Something else? Take your pick, they have about 3 months to work on it.

Dick Nome| 4.3.12 @ 12:25PM

Kegan is his court stooge. That's the only reason she was appointed. I'd point a finger, my middle one, at Sen Lindsay Grahamnesty and McCain and other RINOs for voting to confirm her appointment. They knew what was at hand

Mike 3/505| 4.3.12 @ 1:28PM

They didn't want to be tainted with the "anti-gay" brush.

taint shat for tunes| 4.4.12 @ 8:58PM

Don't forget about Jota Mayor too...with her Latina Experience

Von Mises Jr.| 4.3.12 @ 8:14AM

It seems to make sense now why Kagan did not recuse herself from the case. She probably gave Obama the wink that the health care bill is toast. Remember, only the nine Justices know the decsion at this point, or are supposed to know.

But since Obama already is launching attacks on the Supreme Court, it seems like he is either convinced the oral arguments were a total disaster, or Kagan tipped him off.

Kagan was Solicitor General for ObaMao and worked for the defense of the case. So she has a conflict of interest and should not be deciding on the case before the Supreme Court. But if she was not there, the law would definitely go down with only three (3) socialist Judges out of eight (8). So the law should be struck down by the rules and tradition (that they socialist changed again for theif own benefit). And with her in the room, ObaMao had a potential spy.

PJ| 4.3.12 @ 8:33AM

I agree with you but what about the Justices' law clerks? I would think they would have an idea where their bosses are leaning towards.

Von Mises Jr.| 4.3.12 @ 10:00AM

The meeting last Friday included nine (9) Justices and no one else. Perhaps Kagan could have disclosed details to her staff instead of directly to the White House? But the staff was not in the room and each set of clerks would only know what their Supreme Court Justice decided, at best, unless Kagan or Sotomier leaked.
And I bet they both leak standing up.

SPQR| 4.3.12 @ 10:27AM

Kagan is the most likely individual to leak information. She is as insecure as they come. A fat, dyke-ie, stupid woman who desperately wants to fit in. Couple that with the idiotic things she said during aural arguments about this steaming pile of crap of legislation.

Add to that: "What's ahead if the president doesn't get his way on the health care decision?"

A tantrum. Pure and simple and he's already at it. Decrying capitalism as the reason the economy is failing. He will continue to talktalktalktalktalktalktalk and for most people, it simply causes them to tune him out. So, he thinks that it will be necessary to talk even more.

I remember once in the military we had a guy who was very much like Obama. Had all the answers...talked all the time. Finally, we threw him in the emergency washdown shower while telling him to "just shaddup, would ya?". He actually did.

Obama is a very angry black man in a sea of other angry black men. Though not all black men are angry, it's the angry ones who create most of the problems. His whole core is focused on vengeance and the media can't quite seem to grasp that notion. They aren't attuned to it so they cannot see it. The rest of us who live in the real world can pick it out very quickly and recognize it.

So, as to his reaction to a Supreme Court vote to destroy his "signature" legislation"? A tantrum of epic proportions. He'll turn up the heat and have every healthcare professional inundated with new regulatory problems to face. He'll go on a tear to destroy whatever he can get his hands on but at a pace and intensity 1000% greater than what he's doing now. Extra-constitutionalism? You ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Von Mises Jr.| 4.3.12 @ 12:34PM

If Obama is re-elected, he will not need riots in the streets to totally destroy the economy.
The Bush tax cuts sunset in January 2013 if not extended and signed by the President, or an overturn of his veto is successful. And then there are the ObamaCare taxes. Homes over $400K, I believe, get taxed an additional 3.8% even if you are underwater when you sell. Taxes on dividends go up to the marginal rate, so seniors living off their 401K's will see a portion of their income taxed at a higher rate if you have any decent dividend income.
It is all set up to implode in 2013 and will do so unless our "Dear Leader" is sent back to Chicago, Indonesia, Kenya or whereever the hell he came from.

Laffer had an article about the crash of 2011 that was only postboned until 2013 with the Bush tax cut extensions. With Obama in for a second term, there is no need for re-election. They will not be extended again unless he is sent packing.

JP| 4.3.12 @ 8:57AM

This all could backfire on Obama. If I were one of the justices, I would be really upset regardless of how I voted. Perhaps, Roberts should file a complaint with Justice (yeah,, right)?

Andrew P| 4.3.12 @ 9:46AM

There is a fine line between effective intimidation and really torquing the Justices off. Obama has to make them fearful without making them mad. The best way is for Obama to keep the rhetoric toned down, and for the Democratic machines to provide subtle but effective demonstrations of their raw power.

rjh| 4.3.12 @ 10:33AM

obama has demonstrated many times that, due to his oversized ego, he is not a competent politician. His "political skills" are more befitting a third word banana republic dictator.

oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 10:37AM

Nothing in his past would indicate he would even consider 'toning it down'. The Alinsky Playbook has no such option. The only option is to tone it UP to the max. Get in their faces, scream them into submission.
Hey guess what? That sounds just like a two year old temper tantrum. LOL

Possum Dearie| 4.3.12 @ 1:47PM

This is the same guy who dressed down the Court at the SOTU? The dunce can't help himself.

martin j smith| 4.3.12 @ 8:26AM

Once again its about "look who is calling the kettle black" --or 100% projection. Obama's statements are ready made political campaign adds waiting to be used.

Indy| 4.3.12 @ 8:38AM

I'm listening to Mark Levin podcast from last night, as I suspected, he's fired up about Obama's remarks from yesterday.

For those who have time, here's a good piece written by an attorney, she walks through the testimony and gives us insight to Justice Kennedy based on past rulings. She also addresses the Federalist No. 51 and 46

"In the 2008–2009 term, there were 16 decisions in which the justices split strictly along ideological lines. Kennedy joined the conservative members of the Court eleven times and the liberals only five.

And so, all eyes were on Justice Kennedy in the case against the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and all ears were open to his questions and comments, in the hopes of providing a glimpse into his mindset regarding the administration’s huge power grab under the Act."

grab some coffee and read on
http://forloveofgodandcountry......re-ruling/

Indy| 4.3.12 @ 10:57AM

Mark Levin's comments

http://www.therightscoop.com/m.....-argument/

PJ| 4.3.12 @ 8:51AM

Obama is in good company when he threatens the other branches of government. --------- Hitler, Castro, Chavez,.... All Communists or Fascists---- same thing.

A. C. Santore| 4.3.12 @ 11:29AM

Absolutely correct!

And his plan is to take us down the same road to ruin.

Jerry Burke | 4.3.12 @ 8:56AM

Washington is always awash in leaks. With the possible exception of the Bin Padin raid, there has been been few if any major national security issues that have not been leaked - e.g., the ongoing "information operations campaign" to manipulate opinion on Iranian nuclear weapons. The Supreme Court's decision on health care affects every American and has enormous political and economic consewqunes. A few people could become very wealthy were they to know the Court's decision in advance. So, does the President's statement on Monday (and perhaps Senator Schumer's on Sunday) reflect advanced knowledge -- if only a suggestive comment -- of the Court's most imprtant decision in my lifetime?

oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 8:59AM

These are the acts of a very desperate person. He knows that if PPCA goes down, he goes down as well.
Perhaps, like Lincoln, he will declare marshall law and have the military thrown dissenting lawmakers into Canada along with a few of the Supremes as well.

The following is the first verse of the Maryland State Song which was written in response to Federal Troops gunning down Maryland citizens on the streets of Baltimore.

Maryland, My Maryland
I
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!

When the Maryland Legislature was going to vote on succession Lincoln had all the pro-southern legislators arrested and put in jail without charge to stop the vote.

I believe Obama is very capable of doing what Lincoln did.

Andrew P| 4.3.12 @ 9:49AM

He has to be more subtle than Lincon. He doesn't control the House.

If Obama is in trouble he could provoke a nuclear war with Iran. Iran has ICBMs that can reach the US as well as a missile base in Venezuela. This would give him a legitimate excuse to impose Martial Law.

oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 10:07AM

I would agree with that except for one reason. He has set up DHS as an intenal Police Force through TSA. Nothing like that has ever existed. Just ask youself - why did DHS order 450,000 hollow point pistol bullets? Against whom will TSA use these bullets? Civil unrest when OWS is released to do violence if PPCA goes down?
1. Internal police force - TSA
2. PPCA gives the Executive to order anyone to do whatever it chooses.
Add 1 plus 2 and you get Dictator.

Alan| 4.3.12 @ 10:50AM

I have no doubt that option is on the table if needed or the proper opportunity presents itself. I don't put anything past these people now in power. They are amoral and play with no rules or other moral hinderances that incumber honest people. That was 450 Million Hollow points, not 450,000 by the way.

Dmac | 4.3.12 @ 11:06AM

The TSA and Homeland Security need to go the way of the DoDo. Both do nothing but violate our constitutional rights. There would be no need for Homeland Security if we would just allow the border patrol and FBI to do their jobs aggressivly.

loulou| 4.3.12 @ 12:32PM

You're right, Dmac.
Thanks again for nothing, GWB.

Alan| 4.3.12 @ 1:01PM

They are the muscle and preatorian guard of the ruling class in DC. When Governments become self aware like Skynet in Terminator, they cease fearing outside threats and start fearing inside threats, i.e. the voters and citizens, because the voters and citizens are the last threat that can nueter them and usurp their power legally. Homeland Security and TSA? Orwells 1984 now brought to us in living color. Wait until the next terrorist incident, regardless of who carries it out, and katy bar the door.

oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 11:09AM

Opps - thanks for the correction. What the heck, just off by three zeros, just like progressive math on how many people have jobs.

Robert Mugabe| 4.3.12 @ 11:27AM

Barry is taking my advice to heart. He is a goo man, like mysely. I have had to straighten out Zimbabwe, now the people want me to be president for life. Soon you will come to reconize how great a man Barry is and will pay tribute and respects to him.

Lawrence Boccardi| 4.3.12 @ 11:07AM

No he doesn't control the house. But, I'm beginning to think our side is incapable of any meaningful checks on the disgrace. When he shut down Keystone XL, we wrung our hands, and said woe is me. When he made subversive promises to the outgoing Russian President, we took a couple of media spins, where the hell is the impeachment motion. If what he is offering, is good for the USA, why wouldn't he float it before his election????

SPQR| 4.3.12 @ 9:05PM

"What am I doing in this hand-basket and where am I going?"

JimH| 4.3.12 @ 9:07AM

Congress is against him. The Supreme Court is against him. Next thing you know he'll be accusing his Secret Service detail of stealing the strawberries.

Will Stevens| 4.3.12 @ 12:14PM

Good one! I can almost hear the clicking of those steel balls and Obama getting the dye markers ready.

Mike 3/505| 4.3.12 @ 1:35PM

"Joe Biden...yes, yes...he was a most unreliable Vice President. Hillary Clinton...yes, yes...she was against me too."

Tim the Enchanter| 4.4.12 @ 3:26PM

Ah, yes. The Queeg Presidency.

The Bruce| 4.3.12 @ 5:09PM

Well, if he spent the rest of the year doing nothing else but searching for the wax key that would be fine by me.

Clint| 4.3.12 @ 9:08AM

“Obamacare is a cancer in our government and we’re going to rip it out!” Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin told the crowd."

The Tumor In Chief Is Scared Of The Tea Party.

Andrew P| 4.3.12 @ 9:52AM

One thing that could work in Obama's favor is the WI recall will have its results in near the beginning of June. If Obama is able to make the recall successful, that could convince the Justices that the Direction of History is moving back in Obama's favor.

LarryK| 4.3.12 @ 9:59AM

If the Supreme Court does overturn the "Obama Care" law, I look for the Reichstag, er I mean the Supreme Court Building to burn this summer.

Louis Jenkins| 4.3.12 @ 9:59AM

"So don't forget Supreme Justices, this ol' putty cat will have you for dinner if you don't vote in favor of my domestic insurance plan," says Obama. This man has no qualms about pulling low blows. This man has no regrets for anything he has done. His way or the highway. There are a few justices that stand for correctness (not political correctness), however, the supremes do not stand between us and socialism! We are the ones who do the standing. A man can allow himself to become a slave, or he may decide on the path to freedom. The choice is ours.

Anthony| 4.3.12 @ 10:04AM

Obozo becomes more brazen and dangerous by the day. No president, sans FDR or Wilson, would have dared pulled this in your face stunt, and they didn't, not even close.
This is right out of Alinsky and the New Black Panther's playbook. To think that the Muslim Marxist community organizer, with no skills, other than using a teleprompter, would dare challenge the Supreme Court with a direct threat.
If Obozo is so offended by the Constitution's 3rd "non-elected"branch of government, perhaps he should look to his own, clearly unconstitutional "unelected" tzars.
Obozo's abuse of the Constitution will continue, he has no place to go other than total chaos by November.
I hope the leftist's on the Court see what a monster they helped to create, including Kagen, who should never have participated in the first place. Obozo has one tainted vote already.
America has its first dictator. Yes, he's indeed the one the left has been waiting for.
I don't want to hear any crap about Romney not being any better than the first black Hugo Chavez.

oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 10:18AM

One correction - if Zimmerman can be called a White Hispanic then Obozo is a White African.

albert constantine jr.| 4.3.12 @ 11:51AM

Actually, I think Theresa Heinz Kerry, born in Mozambique, is an example of a white African.

Clint| 4.3.12 @ 3:23PM

Obama Could Be The Quadroon Human-Vulcan Illegitimate Son Or Daughter Of Mr. Spock & Maxine Waters.

Thom| 4.3.12 @ 10:17AM

“An enduring weakness of Democracy is its lack of accountability…..”

MOB rule has reared its ugly head more than once in our history as a “constitutional republican” form of government. Each precedence has set the stage for the next transgression and so on. We are so far off the track of a republican form of government that most of the government (Federal, State and Local) is redundant and serves only as a minor league recruiting function for the next higher level of government and its “goodies”.

If the Courts find King ObamaCare constitutional it grants the Federal government power to control all commerce and nothing in life is free from commerce in effect. That would also make the Supreme Court redundant since it just signed into law that majority rule is the rule of the land and under that tack there would be no need for a Court system to review laws at all…. What would be the point?

A long time ago in a Democracy another Supreme Court gave the green light to what turned out to be a rather notorious time in history. There are plenty of people in this Nation that would sell their parents down the river for the right amount of silver handed out by government. If the Court continues to see the Constitution as a cafeteria plan rather than an integrated document of enumerated and limited powers MOB rule is just around the corner.

INTJ| 4.3.12 @ 10:20AM

A majority still oppose Obamacare. An overwhelming majority, including a majority of Democrats, think the law is unconstitutional (and that was before the oral arguments). If the court strikes it down, Obama would be a fool to run against it, which would only serve to bring up in the minds of the 72% of voters who believed ACA to be unconstitutional in the first place.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 10:28AM

how could a court that says corporations are people be taken seriously ? a ruling against the aca will just reaffirm this belief held by 75 % of the american people

Thom| 4.3.12 @ 10:39AM

All Corporations contain (represent or are represented by “people”) just like Unions which are also “corporations”. When government takes actions against “corporations” it is taking actions against at least one person who has the same rights as the rest of us but no “corporation” can vote so they are not “people” or “citizens” but mere special interest associations and unless you want to make the suggestion that there is no right of association in this country and said associations cannot “speak” (like Unions do) then your beliefs have no merit. When government stops targeting some “corporations” aka “people” for special treatment under the law then “corporations” will have less reason to “speak” to protect their interest which includes the interest of those “employed” by them.

JP| 4.3.12 @ 11:50AM

Hey Purp, how's it going?

albert constantine jr.| 4.3.12 @ 11:53AM

One might just as easily ask how could someone he can't find the shift key to capitalize the first letter of the first word of each sentence be taken seriously.

albert constantine jr.| 4.3.12 @ 7:04PM

"someone he can't "

someone who can't...

Robert Alexander| 4.3.12 @ 10:30AM

So if I understand properly, the only person acting in good faith in the US is Barack Hussein Obama. Both the Supreme Court and Republicans in the House don't simply disagree with him on issues, they are willing to do almost anything just to thwart him?

No One Important| 4.3.12 @ 10:43AM

Pretty spooky how narcissistic he is, huh?

It's all about him. Always has been. He's so completely self absorbed, he can't see anyone else's position. If you oppose his positions, there's something wrong with you, not his positions.

You're not allowed to have a position that differs with his.

Even casual acquaintences said about Obama that he has "unbounded confidence in his own ideas." That's polite speak for he's arrogant, and always thinks he's right.

Obama is one of the most narcissistic self enamouring elitists we've ever had to suffer through in our nation.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 10:51AM

its not about him . its about 30 million uninsured. what alternative have the republicans proposed ? its about people with preexisting conditions being able to get affordable health insurance. its about individual resposibility for their healthcare so the rest of us who are insured dont have pay for those that arent . wasnt this a republican idea only when obama proposed were conservatives against it.

Lawrence Boccardi| 4.3.12 @ 11:21AM

Nonsense Fred! We only go from paying at the emergency room, to paying higher taxes, when 30,000,000 of these folks go on Medicaid! Four thousand additional FBI agents to enforce Obamacare? What the hell is up with that? Remember Bart Stupak? Wonder how stupid he feels?

JP| 4.3.12 @ 11:50AM

What concern is that to the Courts? BTW, the Nazis offered universal health care to all Germans -including the Jews.

The courts are concerned with Constitutional law and not policy (at least that was the founder's intent). Leave the policy to politicans. And if thier policies are unconstitutional, leave the interpretations to the courts.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 10:44AM

conservatives in the supreme court and republicans will do almost anything to thwart the president . are you that niave not to believe that?

Herb| 4.3.12 @ 11:54AM

And your point is......?

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 1:19PM

Go thwarters!

Gary B| 4.3.12 @ 3:10PM

And this president will do anything to thwart the Constitution.

it's the spending stupid!| 4.3.12 @ 8:21PM

September 2008:
McCain caught and passed Obama in polls.

October 2008:
Financial markets melted down in response to burst housing bubble.

November 2008:
Obama elected with democrat majority House and Senate.

January 2009:
Obama solemnly swears to preserve, protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully execute the office of president.

February 2009:
Obama and democrats increase federal spending by a third.

March through December 2009:
Obama and democrats fight to keep and fund 33% increase in federal spending.

January through December 2010:
Obama and democrats fight to keep and fund 33% increase in federal spending.

January through December 2011:
Obama and democrats fight to keep and fund 33% increase in federal spending.

January through March 2012:
Obama and democrats fight to keep and fund 33% increase in federal spending.

It is naive to believe Obama and the democrats should not be thwarted.

Tim the Enchanter| 4.4.12 @ 3:29PM

Fred- let us know when you're done eating the corn out of the kenyan's crap.

No One Important| 4.3.12 @ 10:40AM

We know that in the past judges have changed their votes after reading opinions. Probably from clerks. My guess, a clerk leaked the initial vote here, also. Otherwise, Obama wouldn't be spewing hot rhetoric at them if it went his way or thought he had a chance.

This is pretty brazen to castigate the only government branch that still has any respect in the nation left.

Almost 7 in 10 americans want this repealed in whole or in part. That's a mandate. . . .by any measure.

Over half the states in the nation also want it repealed. That is also a mandate.

Obama is just angry and threatening people as he usually does when he doesn't get his way or someone dares to point out how "lacking" his positions are.

Obama doesn't like anyone second guessing his positions or questioning his "wisdom." The response, isolate them, insult them and villify them.

The funniest part is, the SCOTUS should strike the whole thing down based on the dishonesty and mendacity used to pass this law. Don't reward dishonest politicians with an expansion of their power.

Strike the whole thing down, with a hard slap at the dishonest Washington politicians that says "try again. And this time, don't step on individual liberties or states' rights."

Stamp it "Return to Sender" and dump it on Obama's desk and make it Washington's problem. They created a bill they didn't read and rammed it through (how does it pass constitutional muster if they didn't even read it?) Make Washington start over and do it honestly and correctly this time.

The SCOTUS is the last line of defense against an over reaching arrogant government like Obama's administration.

They have to strike this down. Otherwise, they've essentially told the nation there is no one left in our government to protect us from dishonest politicians and Washington's tyranny. The SCOTUS would be saying "broken arrow."

The only correct decision is to strike it down entirely, and send it back and make Washington do it over, the right way.

oldfart| 4.3.12 @ 10:48AM

That would be SCOTUS doing the job as planned by the authors of our Constitution. They are the LAST line to defend the citizens from an overreaching central government, be it the Executive or Congress.

No One Important| 4.3.12 @ 11:04AM

Exactly. And Obama's bully tactics are meant to appeal to the "low information" voter. (Polite way of saying stupid, uneducated voters.) He's playing on their ignorance of the constitution and the role of the SCOTUS.

What is funny is for someone who is supposed to be a "Constitutional" professor, he just stepped in it big time. His heat and fury in finding out how the vote went, and his eagerness to bash them just opened him up to bigger questions about his "intelligence."

We've always said, once Obama loses the "look how brilliant he is" aura around him. . . . .he would suffer the "Carter-ization" syndrome.

The "he's just too dumb to govern" appearance. Once he's made himself look this stupid, everything will then be measured through the prism of "look how dumb he is."

Once you lose the "brilliant" mantle, you never get it back. He was divisive, plaintive, whiney and childish. He has gained the "Blamer-in-Chief" mantle. . . incessantly whining about everything being someone else's fault. . . .Solyndra, the economy, the failure of the stimulus, the failure of his budgets, the tsunamis are to blame, the earthquakes. . . .the republicans. . . .

Even "pre denying" moving the goal posts in debt deal discussions. Because he knew Boehner was going to tell everyone exactly what Obama did. Move the goal posts. So Obama "pre denied" what Boehner was going to tell the nation.

He's childish, and petulant. He was obviously coddled as a kid, and no one ever blatantly made him take responsibility for his behavior. As he rose through the ranks, he got his way gaming the system, never really taking positions or responsibility for his behavior.

Ergo, anyone that challenges his "oh so brilliant" positions in his mind . . . .he will bully and villify. Because he's never wrong. It's always someone else's problem.

Burlington| 4.3.12 @ 10:42AM

Somebody on the Supremes snitched and you can guess who. She is going to be spanked by Scalia and Roberts. This is going to backfire on the narcissist-in-chief.

No One Important| 4.3.12 @ 10:51AM

But we know that judges have changed their minds in the past after reading opinions. How do we know that then? Because. . .clerks talk. Apparently it isn't an "inviolate" situation.

My guess, a clerk leaked that the initial vote didn't go his way, and he's spewing at them trying to influence them. (threaten them.) Just like he called representatives of half the nation "hostage takers". . . .never mind the people voted to send those representatives there. . . .

If you don't agree with his positions, there's something wrong with you, so he calls you names and villifies you. The last refuges of an intellectually bereft person who has nothing left to say on their own behalf.

Just bully games. Call people names, make them the villian. . .castigate them and try to get people to hate them. . . . .obfuscation from the fact he was wrong.

Remember, how long did it take Obama to admit he was wrong on the Iraq surge? when he finally did, well he wasn't wrong, everyone was wrong.

He's arrogant, childish, self adoring. Anything that points out how he may be wrong is going to be met with hostility.

Anthony| 4.3.12 @ 11:07AM

Are you kidding me, who the hell wants to spank that fat ass?? Gross.
I wouldn't even steal Purp's identity and use her credit cards to watch that major ugly!!! Whew, it would give porn a bad name.
But I digress; Peggy Noonan has finally woken up and recently declared Obozo to be down right "creepy".
One wonders if the rest of the LSM will get their heads out of their asses and see what a monster they helped to create.
Oh, did I mention that this summer is going to get "hot"?? As Ted Kennedy said, "It ISSSSSSS"

Nite| 4.3.12 @ 7:37PM

I believe we know who. I agree with your comments. Obama actually threatened the Supreme Court this time. It may go even worse for him. One can only hope.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 11:02AM

still cant get an answer . if the aca is struck down how will people with preexisting conditions be able to get affordable healthcare ? what will happened to young people who are covered on their parents policy to age 26? will seniors again have to pay full price for perscriptions once the reach the donut hole? here is the big question . do those of you on the right care one whit what happens to the poor and lower middle class in this country or only the wealthy?

Tommy Frisco| 4.3.12 @ 11:39AM

freddy,
We're ignoring you in hopes that you will go away. Only a fool will argue with a fool.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:01PM

tommy what a great answer . are you on drugs ?

Possum Dearie| 4.3.12 @ 1:55PM

We know you are, Purp.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 11:39AM

[if the aca is struck down how will people with preexisting conditions be able to get affordable healthcare?]

Through their employers insurance plans...through getting a part-time job to cover the additional costs...through getting govt out of healthcare, thus substantially lowering the compliance/regulatory costs that are passed on to consumers...through the generosity of oh-so-concerned Lefties like yourself...any number of ways.

[what will happened to young people who are covered on their parents policy to age 26?]

Their parents can buy them health insurance...they can pay for their own health insurance...any number of options.

[do those of you on the right care one whit what happens to the poor and lower middle class in this country or only the wealthy?]

Sure we do. That's why it's our job to stop you thieving Leftists...because we understand that if you are allowed to have your way, their will only be two classes in this country as there were only two classes in the Soviet Union: the poor class and govt-machine class.

[still cant get an answer.]

You've got your answers. Now I want one from you:

What entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:16PM

boy you sound like an expert . more and more companies are not offering insurance coverage for their employees . what are they to do ? rely on charity ? get a minimum wage part time job ? you also want the parents of a young person to buy a policy for them. how are they able to afford two separate policies ? the republican mantra is ive got mine screw everyone else . prove me wrong. in response to your last question . i guess you dont mind paying for the uninsured at the er . like it or not you do in the form of higher costs what entitles them to not have isurance coverage ?

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 1:06PM

[what are they to do?]

According to you, they're supposed to wait for me to pay for it.

Care to explain the logic by which they are freed from responsibility for providing for their own health care but I am saddled with the responsibility for providing for their health care? From where does my indebtedness to them arise? What do I get in return?

You know what they used to call people who are involuntarily compelled to provide for the material needs of others? They used to call them "slaves". Then again...considering the history of slavery in America and the Democrats ties to it, I guess it's not surprising that a Lefty like you wants to see it re-instituted.

[the republican mantra is ive got mine screw everyone else . prove me wrong.]

Easy. Do I have a right to reach into your pocket and take money from you...just because you have more than I have? Does someone else have a right to reach into your pocket and take money from you in order to give it to someone else...just because you have more than they have?

No?

There...your "argument" has just been demolished.

Now...where were we? Oh yeah...answer the question, Lefty: what entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

A. C. Santore| 4.3.12 @ 11:44AM

Wrong questions!

The correct question is "What will happen to our freedom and our form of government if it is not struck down? "

I'll tell you. On the fast track to ruin and communistic slavery.

Don't doubt it. That's the plan.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:19PM

so you dont mind paying for the uninsured at the er ? what ever happened to the idea of individual responsibilty ? the mandate was a republican idea until obama proposed it . then it was no good . it would be laughable if wasnt so sad.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 1:08PM

Answer the question, Lefty: what entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

Possum Dearie| 4.3.12 @ 1:59PM

Individual responsibility went out the window with Medicaid, which is what most of the ER patients are on. If you don't have insurance, they sign you up for it right there. Of course, the illegals just skip their tab. What should we do about them? Right, amnesty.

it's the government stupid!| 4.3.12 @ 4:58PM

u rite stoopedlee sew u probablee reed stoopedlee two en kant figger owt itz two xpenzev two beeghin wif beecuz uv guvurnmint regoolashunz ina phurst playce u idyet:

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....n_newsreel

Vic| 4.3.12 @ 10:13PM

We must surrender to bankruptcy and tyranny or the poor will all DIE!!!

martin j smith| 4.3.12 @ 11:16AM

Oh I would say the possibility of a leak is at least 60:40 that there was a leak.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:16AM

R-Resolute
O-Organized
M-Money
N-Natural
E-Energetic
Y-Young

What is "ROMNEY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Possum Dearie| 4.3.12 @ 2:01PM

R is a stretch. More like M-O-N-E-Y. That's the only reason he is even a weak frontrunner.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:10PM

Maybe you'd be happier if O'Bamalama was in front.
Keep up the Republican circular firing squad and enjoy the 2nd Inaugural race-riot.

Nick| 4.3.12 @ 6:45PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:17AM

How can President Obama say that the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare because it's a law arrived at by elected legislators using allegedly democratic methods is "unprecedented?"

When the Supreme Court strikes down or overturns any law, that law was arrived at by elected legislators using democratic methods.

Owen K| 4.3.12 @ 11:21AM

Barry has stepped in it big time. This isn't the first time he has chided the Justices of the Supreme Court. He will regret his little temper tantrums. This pretender to the Presidency needs to be sent back to Chicago with the rest of his socialist pals.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 11:26AM

Funny...over the past week, I've read any number of Lefty articles that cite this precedent and that precedent as "proof" that the US govt has the authority to COMPEL American citizens to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause.

What's even funnier is that when you ask them to point out the text in said precedent whereby the US govt is granted the authority to COMPEL American citizens to purchase some product or service under the Commerce Clause...well...then you don't get an answer.

Funny how that works, eh?

EBL | 4.3.12 @ 11:27AM

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspo.....obama.html Separation of powers?

CopyKatnj| 4.3.12 @ 11:37AM

I think this may help explain our Presidents behavior regarding this issue .

Paradoxically, the tendency of narcissists to refer to themselves in the third person stems from precisely this inability. When asked to explain their ill-conceived actions or describe their negative emotions, narcissists usually refuse to take responsibility for them. Instead, they blame others, often by composing narratives featuring a suspiciously-autobiographical "fictitious" character who understands everything, is a world-renowned expert in whatever subject is germane to the issue at hand, and whose authority is therefore unquestioned. This is also why narcissists may be inextricably drawn to the act of making up quotes.

George Washington mandating purchase of fire arms.

Ultimately I am 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.

"judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint" when "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,"

And also sights legal scholars.

Do we really need any more proof of who and what this person really is.

Rmm| 4.3.12 @ 11:39AM

Wake me when this nightmare is over. Barry 'Audacious' is our puppet on-a-string, doing his one man tap dance on Our constitution. The stench coming from his voice box can be smelled from one coast to the other. Every action he takes suggests that his sole purpose is to chop America off at the knees. What an insult this man is !

A. C. Santore| 4.3.12 @ 11:47AM

The poor sap doesn't even know what "judicial activism" is!

If this court wants to practice "judicial activism," it will re-write the statute and insert anything else it wants to insert. And invent new "law" to justify all of their actions.

Declaring an act unconstitutional and overturning it is NOT "judicial activism."

It's what they're supposed to do.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:56AM

My question is, how the hell did Barack Obama get to be a constitutional law instructor at an Ivy League school like the University of Chicago?

Just by having the perseverance to read a textbook and pull the cases together for his lectures?

Obviously he didn't have any ideas worth passing on to the students...

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:58AM

Wait, wait, I've got it!

Affirmative action...

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:23PM

it is if it denies insurance coverage to 60 million people

Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 12:36PM

Heck Fred, if SCOTUS declares ObamaCare unconstitutional, then all employers, including the federal government, state governments and local governments will probably discontinue their health insurance plans and everybody will be uninsured. That would be, let's see, ummmm, about 311,591,917 people. Now, you can scream about something worthwhile.

Can you understand sarcasm?

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 1:33PM

I want everybody denied Ins. coverage.
Then we can start paying for it like we should.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 3:05PM

That isn't judicial activism. Lots of Supreme Court decisions have deprived people of this benefit or that one. Just because a law that is unconstitutional is struck down and some group suffers, that doesn't make the striking down of the law a form of judicial activism.

Buddy| 4.3.12 @ 11:58AM

I believe Obama is just setting things up so when ObamaCare is overturned he can blame all the heartless conservatives. I think he actually hopes it will happen, takes the debate from the economy...again.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:26PM

if the aca is struck down what takes its place ? cant get any answers from you folks on the right . your too busy cutting down the president. i guess that makes you feel better but does not solve the problem

Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 12:39PM

I'll bet you forgot about Medicare and Medicaid? By the way, there is a federal law that anyone showing up at an emergency room must be treated; and by everyone, the law means illegal aliens.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:42PM

that would be great if we could put everyone on those programs . single payer is the answer.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 1:07PM

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 1:35PM

"Single Payer".
Why don't you libs be honest and say
"Big Govt payer"?

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 3:06PM

"Single payer" is code for "the collective pays."

Dave Williams| 4.3.12 @ 1:49PM

I assume by "single-payer," you mean that if I need health care, I pay for it myself, just like I pay for my own food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and entertainment.....? Sounds good to me.

Nick099| 4.3.12 @ 12:28PM

Who cares what this supposed " Constitutional Scholar" says????? His comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding at the very least. At the worst: a shamelessly narcissistic imbecile who lies like most people walk through air with no regard for the principles upon which this Nation was founded. What a jerk!!! Even more ridiculous would be anyone who actually heeds his mindless gibberish.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:37PM

still no answer nick whats your solution if the law is struk down. do you have an answer ? i cant wait to read it.

Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 12:41PM

To repeat: I'll bet you forgot about Medicare and Medicaid? By the way, there is a federal law that anyone showing up at an emergency room must be treated; and by everyone, the law means illegal aliens.

loulou| 4.3.12 @ 1:23PM

Don't think you have to answer fred's lefty questions. He is not looking for answers--he's here on an alinskyite mission.

Ignore the creep.

Buck Ofama| 4.3.12 @ 1:35PM

Here's your answer: START OVER with bipartisan support, and create sensible health-care reforms.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 1:46PM

heres the republican health care plan 1 dont get sick 2 if you do and cant afford care - die .

sonofagunny| 4.3.12 @ 6:21PM

Gee you figured us out. Learn to type.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 1:36PM

If it is struck down you get to pay your bills.
Like you should.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 5:10PM

great solution skip if you get sick and cant pay just die its the republican way

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:19PM

The American Way is for folks to pay for what they get.
The Communist, collectivist way is to have others pay for what you use.
50 years ago everybody paid their medical bills and there was a thriving healthcare industry.
The difference between then and now is the inculcated sense of entitlement.
That must end or America will.

kwan| 4.3.12 @ 12:32PM

Evidently the conservative Supreme Court justices didn't get the memo from the oval office that they're suppose to take a dive and give a thumbs-up on the total constitutionality of the unconstitutional ObamaCare. Oh boy dey's in big trouble now.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:39PM

kwan still waiting for what will replace the aca . i am on the edge of my seat waiting from your solution.

Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 12:41PM

To repeat and repeat: I'll bet you forgot about Medicare and Medicaid? By the way, there is a federal law that anyone showing up at an emergency room must be treated; and by everyone, the law means illegal aliens.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 12:45PM

ill repeat single payer is the anwer . good thinking pecos

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 1:08PM

Kingofthenet| 4.3.12 @ 1:34PM

We live in a society, you can't have it BOTH ways either you want some Libertarian Fantasy Land or you want personally responsibility, i.e. Mandate(and NO NOT treating people is NOT an option.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 2:07PM

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 1:41PM

the federal government can do it . try not paying your income tax . you might meet someone you like in prison.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 2:14PM

[the federal government can do it . try not paying your income tax.]

So because the federal govt "can do" something, justifies it doing so, right?

So slavery was perfectly fine then, huh?

[you might meet someone you like in prison.]

It's always fun watching an ignorant, thieving Leftist such as yourself when you realize you have no valid means of refuting an argument. It's always then that your mask starts to slip and the little totalitarian inside of you comes out for everyone to see.

Thanks for so clearly demonstrating what you all are deep inside, Lefty :)

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 3:53PM

The federal government's power to collect income tax was given to it by the people, through their representatives, when the 16th Amendment. It's literally part of our basic social contract.

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 3:55PM

when the16th Amendment was ratified, I meant to say.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 4:23PM

[The federal government's power to collect income tax was given to it by the people, through their representatives, when the 16th Amendment.]

In order to fund those activities that the US Constitution grants the federal govt power to perform - e.g., defense, treasury, administrative costs of the 3 branches. Can you point out for us the Article or Amendment that authorizes the feds to take money from one citizen in order to give it to another citizen?

No?

Next.

[It's literally part of our basic social contract.]

Really? Can you provide us with a link to that contract...so that we can read it?

Furthermore, a contract infers an agreement of some sort of reciprocity between parties - i.e., money, labor, etc.

The recipient of the confiscated wealth receives confiscated wealth.

What does the producer of the confiscated wealth receive in return?

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 4:42PM

http://constitutionus.com/

Seriously? You can't think of any benefits that a wealthy man would get from living in a society where people aren't starving or dying sick in the streets?

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 5:21PM

Like I said, you can't point out for us the Article or Amendment that authorizes the feds to take money from one citizen in order to give it to another citizen.

Thanks for illustrating that with your lame attempt at obfuscation.

[You can't think of any benefits that a wealthy man would get from living in a society where people aren't starving or dying sick in the streets?]

I can think of plenty...none of which have anything to do with the so-called "social contract"...especially the version promoted by John Locke, which is most associated with the United States governing philosophy.

THAT social contract is reciprocal...whereby Citizen A agrees to NOT impinge upon the rights of Citizen B - via theft, violence, etc. - and in return, Citizen B affords THE EXACT SAME consideration to the rights of Citizen A. And when disputes arise, both Citizens A and B agree to allow a duly CONSTITUTED govt to settle said disputes.

So, Citizen A agrees to not steal from Citizen B...AND IN RETURN, Citizen B agrees to not steal from Citizen A.

Citizen A agrees to not kill Citizen B...AND IN RETURN, Citizen B agrees to not kill Citizen A.

See? RECIPROCAL.

So tell us: what is the reciprocal consideration that Citizen A receives in return for having his money/wealth confiscated by the govt in order to hand it over to Citizen B?

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 6:30PM

Well, the most obvious benefit is that he has a state that protects his wealth. I'd say that's a pretty decent benefit. We've decided that part of that protection is a social safety net. It's beneficial for the society as a whole. Not having an underclass of starving, angry, disease ridden and probably revolutionary poor is beneficial to social order and most especially to those who stand the most to lose, who are the rich. Every modern western capitalist country has some form of redistributive taxation. Not coincidentally, they're the freest, most prosperous countries in the world. Why are you so eager to cast aside the wisdom of your ancestors and radically reform society into some libertarian utopia? Which of the worlds most prosperous countries are libertarian?

DeRp| 4.3.12 @ 6:43PM

. . . premised the consistently proven dreadful liar.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 7:56PM

[Well, the most obvious benefit is that he has a state that protects his wealth...babble, babble...pointless unsupported-by-law-or-anything-else nonsense...]

I think I've clearly established that you have no fact-based, law-based response to my inquiries about Constitutionally-authorized wealth redistribution.

And I think I've clearly established that you have no fact-based, philosophically-based response to my schooling you in what "the social contract" entails.

...just lots of "social justice" nonsense.

Thanks for playing :)

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 9:22PM

God, the lord and father of all has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods, so that it cannot justly be denied him when his pressing wants call for it, and therefore, no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions, since it would always be a sin in any man of estate to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty.

Charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise.

John Locke, First Treatise on Government

DeRp| 4.3.12 @ 10:14PM

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger
on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending,
on the objects of benevolence,
the money of their constituents."

- James Madison

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 11:08PM

The interesting thing about that Madison quote from Congressman Madison is that others in Congress disagreed with him, citing the general welfare clause. Congress also wound up granting the aid to the refugees. So, what do we do when members of the founding generation can't even agree what the constitution provides?

DeRp| 4.3.12 @ 11:44PM

The interesting thing about the members of the founding generation is the self-evident truth that these members of the founding generation were unanimous in agreement that the constitution of the constitutional republic provides a vote only to those entitled to vote; that this vote be entitled only to those with an actual financial stake.

The interesting thing about this unanimous agreement among members of the founding generation is that the aid granted through their vote was aid provided with their own money; that they did not vote to provide that aid with the money of others.

The interesting thing about the Madison quote is that Madison could not find anywhere in the Constitution where Congress was granted the right to spend money on charity; that Madison could not find this anywhere in the Constitution that Madison himself wrote.

The interesting thing about this post is that it responds to a consistently proven liar; a consistently proven liar who quoted a foreign philosopher while questioning the words of the author of the Constitution of the United States about the Constitution of the United States itself.

DRed| 4.4.12 @ 12:18AM

It does a pretty good job of showing us what Madison thought the constitution meant. But does the Constitution only means what James Madison thought it meant? What if every person who voted to ratify the constitution disagreed with Madison? Alexander Hamilton, for example, pretty clearly disagreed with Madison on the constitution. In the debate concerning the Haitian refugees, Rep. Buodinot, thought the general welfare clause would allow Congress to spend money on the refugees. Madison wrote the constitution, but he didn't ratify it. If he wrote something that everyone else understood differently from how he meant it, who should we give more weight to? You think you can answer that without veering into repetitive gibberish or pasting irrelevant things I wrote months ago?

Hmm, skip, I can't think of any reason why someone would quote John Locke while discussing John Locke's beliefs. Maybe you can use your reason and experience and whatever else is in the doggerel you always repeat to help me figure that out.

rvastar| 4.4.12 @ 9:51AM

[John Locke, First Treatise on Government]

That's all wonderful...and if this was a nation of men, you might have a point. Unfortunately for totalitarians such as yourself who love to see nations ruled over by strong men, this is a nation of LAWS, and the underlying foundation of those laws is the US Constitution.

So it's time for you to put-up or shut-up, Lefty. Answer the question:

What entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

DeRp| 4.4.12 @ 2:24PM

Hmm, answering emotional prattle with reason and experience in response to a consistently proven liar, likely to amount to nothing more than an exercise in futility, uninterestingly.

Hmm, failing to answer reason and experience with emotional prattle by the consistently proven liar, rvastar may be better off with no answer than yet more emotional prattle likely easily proven to be another consistent lie by the consistently proven liar, uninterestingly.

jeff perren| 4.4.12 @ 9:02PM

" It's beneficial for the society as a whole. Not having an underclass of starving, angry, disease ridden and probably revolutionary poor is beneficial to social order and most especially to those who stand the most to lose, who are the rich."

Even accepting your questionable predictions, it sounds a lot like protection money, i.e. extortion, to me. Not something to encourage. Moreover, why should this be handled by the Federal govt? If, and it's a big if, we had to fear the poor becoming violent, why not keep the bribery at a local or, at most, state level?

DeRp| 4.5.12 @ 1:39AM

You are attempting to use reason and experience on a consistently proven liar capable only of emotional prattle who thinks his emotional prattle consistently proven to be lies is "irrevelant" because the emotional prattle consistently proven to be lies was written months ago even though this week his emotional prattle has been proven - as is consistently the case - to be lies.

HudsonValleyWest| 4.3.12 @ 1:56PM

The reason everyone, including illegal aliens, must be treated at emergency rooms is because the very same type of activist judges BHO is now whining about made it happen. Thanks to activist judges, the children of illegals must be educated for free at public schools, even though voters in several states overwhelmingly passed ballot initiatives to the contrary. Thanks to activist judges, the police are not allowed to ask about an illegal alien's immigration status and medical personnel are not allowed to report them when they show up for free treatment. But BHO and the rest of imbecile left don't see any problem with activist judges as long the outcome is right in their view. Personally, I'll be happy to sign up for Obamacare as soon as he and all the rest of the clowns who voted for it are covered by it. Until then, No to Obamacare.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 2:43PM

Does "Hudson Valley West" mean you live in someplace like Newburgh as opposed to, say, Hudson?

kwan| 4.3.12 @ 1:29PM

Like the leftist global warming scamboozle the leftist healthcare scamboozle or ObamaCare is about leftist tyrants wanting to transform the free citizens of America into a BORG collective controled like automatons by the central government. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe-size knows that ObamaCare has absolutely nothing to do with actual health care.

RJ| 4.3.12 @ 12:45PM

Obama again shows us the grace and charm of a surly child. As I recall, Richard Epstein, former Professor of Law at Chicago University said that when Obama was a part-time lecturer there, he was ideologically inflexible and would not discuss serious issues with informed people who disagreed with him. Hypocrisy and mendacity are every day traits of Obama. He is unqualified to serve as President and must be defeated in November.

Russel| 4.3.12 @ 12:48PM

Crummy pute , I'd like to comment on SPVR way up there . Great post . Zero is so thin skinned , he's transparent . All it takes is turning on the heat and watch him explode . He's gotten away with all his unConstitutional directives simply by doing so and waiting for any backlash . Crickets . He's a little child whining at Mom to see how far she'll go . Our Founders forsaw this King George wannabe way back , so guess what , you corrupt whitehaired RINO's who won't do our bidding ? . You are going to be kicked out , and soon . Better pack and join Snowe and Lugar .

rjh| 4.3.12 @ 1:08PM

Perhaps it is time to consider the use of the 25th Amendment.

Kingofthenet| 4.3.12 @ 1:19PM

Correct me if I am wrong, for something to be 'Unconstitutional' it needs to OFFEND some part of the Constitution, i.e. IF the Constitution is silent on a issue, a law can be fine?

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 1:56PM

Like it is silent on abortion?
Thought so.

Calvin| 4.3.12 @ 1:57PM

You're wrong.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Buck Ofama| 4.3.12 @ 1:34PM

Everything about this rat c0cksucker is a JOKE:

- citizenship
- professional experience
- qualifications for presidential office
- racial uniter
- constitutional expertise
- interest in economic principles
- interest in mid-east allies
- etc, etc.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 1:39PM

you will really be upset when obama is reelected . iam laughing at you. by the use of your language are you an idiot or imbecile ? let us know.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 2:01PM

The streets will run red whether he wins or loses.
For the same reasons.

sonofagunny| 4.3.12 @ 6:28PM

Actually, idiots are people who don't capitalize and who leave a space before a punctuation....idiot! See that is where the punctuation mark goes.

HudsonValleyWest| 4.3.12 @ 1:38PM

Obama has routinely flouted the constitution and the rule of law since the day he took office. The unelected Justice Dept., in the person of Eric "See No Evil" Holder, routinely steps in to invalidate state laws and initiatives that voters have authorized on everything from illegal immigration to gay marriage. If BHO decides he doesn't like a law, he ignores it and/or refuses to enforce it, as is the case with the Defense of Marriage Act. He violates the first amendment by imposing his will on religious institutions and making them pay for birth control and abortion. Now he makes thinly veiled threats against the Supreme Court if they don't do what he wants. Apparently it's OK to have activist judges who see emanations and penumbras in the Bill of Rights to create new rights that are not enumerated or invoke international law, as long as BHO and his crowd agree, but not OK when judges don't give him what he wants. Obama is pathetic and I pray that we can get to November and get him out of office before he does more permanent damage.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 3:08PM

You may recall that Obamacare, that law that has within the past day or two been claimed to have been passed with a sizeable majority, passed by about 15 votes, and that not one single Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for it, and that polls indicated that the public disapproved of Obamacare by a factor of approximately 75%-25%.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 3:16PM

My mistake: the Senate voted 60-39 for Obamacare, while the House voted 219-212 for it.

The vote in both houses of the legislature was entirely partisan, with no Republicans voting for Obamacare.

Jack London| 4.3.12 @ 4:08PM

Well, that surely shows where things are - Dems want all people to have healthcare, Repubs don't, although a few Repubs were frightened into voting against for fear of being seem to be decent people.

As for the public, polls consistently show a majority in favor of all elements of the act, bar the mandate, which of course was Repub policy until the looneys took over their asylum.

The funny thing: as it stands the mandate would only apply to about 7% of the population. And the looneys make it sound like world war III and armageddon in one.

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 4:27PM

What entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

Jack London| 4.3.12 @ 4:38PM

What? Are you sane? Do you understand why Republicans such as Romney were so keen on a mandate? It's precisely to stop free-riders and give people a better deal for their insurance. Or are you one of those loons who would abolish insurance?

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 5:27PM

[What? Are you sane? Do you understand why Republicans such as Romney were so keen on a mandate? It's precisely to stop free-riders and give people a better deal for their insurance. Or are you one of those loons who would abolish insurance?]

Wow! Jack hits the grand slam of fallacious Lefty "arguments" in one swing!

1) Ad hominem - i.e., asking if I'm "sane" and a "loon".

2) Red herring - i.e., what does what Romney thinks about a mandate have to do with the question that I posed?

3) Straw man - i.e., which "loons" called for the abolition of insurance?

That's quite a feat, Jack! Congratulations on being THE proto-typical Lefty!

Now...answer the question: what entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

Oh...and when you're done NOT answering that question, maybe you could take a stab at answering these: by what logic is a person freed from responsibility for providing for their own health care but I am then saddled with the responsibility for providing for their health care? From where does my indebtedness to them arise? What do I get in return?

Jack London| 4.3.12 @ 6:17PM

Sure - I get it - you oppose all taxation. Away to your bunker!

From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.3.12 @ 5:42PM

Jacqueline-Rachel-Linda Greenhouse Moscow-Maddow-Moscow,

Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots now know
the reason medical insurance is expensive
to begin with
in the first place
even before the delusionally insane unconstitutional government of Obamacontrol
came into existence

is delusionally retarded unconstitutional government control
interfering with the free market
with literally thousands of unconstitutional government regulations
that serve as mandates
costing literally hundreds of billions of dollars more than necessary
to begin with
in the first place,

and that attempting to solve this problem
with even more delusionally retarded unconstitutional government control
interfering even more with the free market
with even more literally thousands of delusionally retarded unconstitutional government regulations
that serve as even more delusionally retarded mandates
costing even more literally hundreds of billions of dollars than necessary
that is the problem
to begin with
in the first place
with the delusionally insane unconstitutional government of Obamacontrol,

is so retarded only a delusional stupid lying idiot in denial of truth and reality itself would ever argue for more of it,

like you do,

while simultaneously being so retarded as to delusionally stupidly lie by denying the truth and reality
that medical insurance is so expensive
to begin with
in the first place
because of delusionally retarded unconstitutional government control
interfering with the free market
with literally thousands of delusionally retarded government regulations
that serve as delusionally retarded mandates
costing literally hundreds of billions of dollars more than necessary
to begin with
in the first place,

like you do.

Stop discrediting the human race.

- MM staff

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:35PM

"Or are you one of those loons who would abolish insurance?"

Yes, I am.
Insurance for wellness and standard healthcare is a ripoff.
Ins. should be for catastrophic illness only.
When patients actually pay for services rendered, watch the system fix itself overnight.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 5:09PM

Currently the public seems to be about 35% for, 65% against, Obamacare. So it's still almost 2 to 1 against Obamacare as opposed to 3 -1 against when the bill was first rammed through Congress.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 5:10PM

A mandate that says 7 people out of every 100 MUST buy health insurance is still an unconsititutional exercise of government power.

martin j smith| 4.3.12 @ 1:55PM

Obama is a bully and I hope the justices throw him the bird and if they believe this legislation is Unconstitutional then vote to shoot it down. Tell Obama ( indirectly ) to stuff it. But let me tell you something some times the bully must be confronted and let him act and let voters decide who they want to lead them. Expose the bully !!!!!!!

Gene| 4.3.12 @ 1:59PM

If this man wants a chance at re-election, then someone close to him should advise the President to stop making remarks that undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These latest comments are in direct opposition to the system of Checks and Balances.
If he continues with this kind of behavior, even Liberals will be jumping ship. Some appear to have done so already.

Russel| 4.3.12 @ 1:59PM

Martin , Bubba called him what he really is - a Chicago thug . And Bubba knows for what he speaks because he's been there and dun it .

Peppermint Tea| 4.3.12 @ 2:04PM

He doesn't know what Judicial activism is.
He doesn't know what a contract is--the Constitution is a contract, and he thinks it was a lie by the convention to get the states to agree to turn over sovereignty, and it's about time the lie was fully implemented.
He doesn't understand the limits of democracy, but he is about to understand the wrath of democracy.

Indy| 4.3.12 @ 6:36PM

I think he knows exactly what he is doing, every decision / spoken word is all about November 2012. The bully pulpit and the media are his tools along with social media, too much of the electorate are uninformed / misinformed and make up a large percentage of those receiving something from the Federal Government.

Oldefarte| 4.3.12 @ 2:08PM

It's ironical that liberals and Democrats have used the SCOTUS for most of my lifetime to their advantage to the circumvent public opinion of legislation in order to ramrod into existence special interest oriented laws/decisions that were/are beneficial to their socialistic causes, ie quid-pro-qupisms. Now with the possibility of an adverse opinion by the Court that would negate this socialistic WELFARECARE, the president and his liberalistic minions are screaming bloody murder and accusing same of court activism etc. What a croc! Again even though I'll be delighted by the Court ruling against them on this issue, I simply do not hold much hope in an institution that is rightfully dominated by lawyers and judges [as same are some of the most liberal-progressives within our society at large]. My one/true hope resides with the election in November and with the awakening from their 11/4/08 STUPIDITY!!!!!

Tim| 4.3.12 @ 2:14PM

This is just Politics 101

Obama has started his massive scare campaign that will be launched after Obama Care is struck dowm.

This is all about cementing this view that the Reps will take everything away from you.

And the problem is that against Romney it will work.......It will be easy for Obama to scare 50% plus 1 percent of the public into keeping him in to...

"watch out for the little guy"

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so.

Gene| 4.3.12 @ 2:43PM

Your reference to Chicago Thugs reminds me of the present Chicago "Pretend" Mayor. Another person that just ignores the law and does whatever he wants. he runs for mayor when he was not a legal resident. He has a house in the area, but was renting it out and not living in it. Then he gets some friendly judge to sign off on this nonsense.
Two plus two is four. Not five. Five thousand judges signing five thousand pieces of paper will not make it five. He may be a legal Chicago resident now, but he was not when he ran for office. Chicago Thugs have no respect for the law. They just do what they want to do and try to justify it later.

H Abdullah Shabazz| 4.3.12 @ 2:49PM

Roe wasnt overturned becuase of republican judges

We are sick of being betrayed.
By Nixon Reagan and Bush
Fool us thrice your fault. Four times our fault
So Romney,
or ANY other guy who's flip flopped?
Forgetaboutit.

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:39PM

BOH thanks you for your support.

Orwell| 4.3.12 @ 2:53PM

The argument about human elements and the Constitution being a living breathing entity is the "Greatest trick since the Devil convinced us he did not exist!" The whole point of a Constitution is to be rigid and unwavering so that the rights it guarantees can not be eroded or chipped away by the legislature or executive branch at one particular time according to political fancy. The Constitution contains set procedures on how to amend it when need be and the citizens decide it needs to be. Obama know ZERO about the Constitution and has tried to destroy or minimize it since he got into office. This fact alone tells me the Constitution is drafted correctly to stave off the zealots who would change us from within.

DRed| 4.3.12 @ 5:17PM

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:40PM

An eloquent way to ignore your betters.

Akaky| 4.3.12 @ 4:03PM

SCOTUS to POTUS:

We don't work for you.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 5:06PM

i know buddy the supremes work for the republicans . examples gore vs bush and citizens united

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 5:33PM

Hey look...it's the guy who thinks that slavery was OK!

Ready to answer that question yet, thief?

What entitles you or anyone else to confiscate money/wealth from the people who earned or created it in order to redistribute it to people who had no hand in earning/creating it?

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:42PM

#1 Bush v Gore
#2 Citizens United
#3 Obamacare

Will you send us the video of your head exploding?

Timely Renewed | 4.3.12 @ 4:04PM

Mr. Obama's hypocrisy is palpable here. He has no problem when the courts overturn laws that he disagrees with, like Arizona's immigration law.

However, there is a deeper issue. Why should the courts be deciding major constitutional issues at all? The framers understood that the Constitution they wrote would not cover all possible situations over time. However, their solution was not to have unelected and unaccountable judges change the meaning of the written text to address these issues. Their solution was the democratic process of amendment.

Of course, the amendment process is now moribund. Congress will not initiate amendments to return its own power to its original constitutional limits, and the states are blocked by the requirement that they can only do so through the archaic and unworkable mechanism of a convention. Therefore, we need to reform the amendment process so that the states can initiate and enact amendments without going through Congress or a convention. Then patriots working on the state level can put into place amendments restating and re-affirming those original limits on federal power. This will end not only Obamacare, but all of the other federal power grabs of the last 75 years. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Jack London| 4.3.12 @ 4:46PM

'However, their solution was not to have unelected and unaccountable judges change the meaning of the written text to address these issues. Their solution was the democratic process of amendment.'

I agree with this - SCOTUS has no place in interfering with democracy, as the rightist supremes obviously want to do. I depart from you though on Obamacare - this relatively modest act, and one that was Republican policy, does not qualify for amendment status by a long way.

Mark MacInnis| 4.3.12 @ 4:48PM

This administration believes in capital punishment, as long as the criminal is an unborn child, and the crime is "inconveniencing the lifestyle" of a woman.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 4:58PM

what does it matter to you what a woman does with her body. who are you to be judge and jury ?

rvastar| 4.3.12 @ 5:38PM

So her body is her property and as such, no one has the right to force her to do anything that she doesn't want to with her property.

Is that your argument?

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 6:01PM

you conservatives are always talking about how you hate government intruding in ones affairs . what is more intrusive then interfering in the most personal matter between a women her doctor and her family ?

it's the equality stupid!| 4.3.12 @ 6:30PM

You liberals are always talking about the equality of women and men.

What is more unequal than women being allowed to arbitrarily kill others, others who in every instance are both innocent and defenseless?

How intrusive are the women who interfere with the lives of these innocent and defenseless others who these women most personally kill as an actual matter?

Why can't men in the name of equality also kill others?

How about if men promise to only kill others who are guilty and capable of self-defense?

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 5:12PM

I don't care what a woman does with her body, just let her do whatever she's going to do on her own dime and leave me out of it.

Bill| 4.3.12 @ 5:13PM

And don't kill anybody while she's manipulating her own body as she sees fit.

fredfilopek@ymail.com| 4.3.12 @ 6:03PM

bill . what women are telling is mind your own business. i guess you support back alley abortions they way it used to be ?

it's the equality stupid!| 4.3.12 @ 6:38PM

Why don't you mind the business that, if someone is going to be killed, between one who is both innocent and defenseless, and another who is guilty of being too stupid to avoid pregnancy or to put up for adoption, that the self-evident choice between these two options is to support the innocent and defenseless one, and let the guilty stupid one suffer the consequences of their own stupidity they are guilty of?

Skippy| 4.3.12 @ 6:43PM

Back alley was a lie, according to its biggest proponent from the 60's.
Next fairytale please?

Bill| 4.4.12 @ 10:15AM

I support not having rights that are based on the dead bodies of other people.

Bill| 4.4.12 @ 10:16AM

Also, I'm fine with sexual self-restraint, aka abstention, as well as contraception (at one's own expense, of course).

daydreaminmeme| 4.3.12 @ 6:24PM

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the DOJ to submit a 3 page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday stating whether the executive branch believes the courts have power to strike down laws they find unconstitutional. They are hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician owned hospitals. Justice Smith specifically cited Obama's comments referencing judges as an unelected group pf people.

Looks like BO will get the fight he's spoiling for.

gearjammer| 4.3.12 @ 6:47PM

Man all battle stations and for a change let us not shoot at each other. Asking too much there I suppose.

Pecos Pete| 4.3.12 @ 6:37PM

Can't let Freddy have the last line ... Abortion is a states' rights issue, not a federal government issue.

jstwndring| 4.3.12 @ 6:41PM

If we had a strong, limited-government Republican Party, I wouldn't give a damn about this decision. We could just count on a Republican majority, assuming we get one, to rip this gigantic monstrosity masquerading as compassion out as soon as we assume control of Congress and the Presidency. However, given our own party's propensity to elect one RINO after another, it would be nice to see the SCOTUS add some additional pressure to the phonies that populate our party by rendering an opinion against Obamacare. It has been fun up to this point to see the left panic over the possibility that the Supreme Court will render an unfavorable opinion given that they have promoted said court for so many decades as the unquestioned authority on all matters. Oops! Talk about painting yourself into a corner! Regardless of the Court's decision, this legislation needs to be removed in its entirety.

Questionman| 4.3.12 @ 9:23PM

Did anyone read the hateful racist rants from Klansmans Anothy and Timothy? Yep. I did!

Why do the racist right think they are experts on American History? They aren't just because they rant about the Constitution, doesn't mean they understand the laws obviously. Like take "Obamacare" for example. The racist right have forgotten that at least 3-5 judges have deemed it Constitutional, but not a peep from history-challenged losers like Sean Insanity.

What makes they think that because he is not the president you want, he is failing. Haven't they ever heard that one mans meat is another mans poison. With the hate the cons have for him, don't they think that they would be biased as hell? Lies have to have creditably to be believed, a concept that a con finds completely incomprehensible. The cons with their continuous he's a failure s--t are really starting to sound stupid. Their problem is that Obama fails to be a white con, and that is a failure only in their deluded mind.

so tell me again, how does reducing taxes, balance the budget? Cause then revenue is even less for the government. Ryans plan adds even more to the deficit than obama... Ryan adds 3 trillion.

Obama does not meet the rigid definition of 'communist' that you are using. Communist carries a negative connotation in America since the red scare.
No, he's not a true communist, Then, if by chance, Romney gets elected, they'll see in 3 years how his policies are virtually the same as Obama's, because Romney is at heart a moderate and so is Obama (all these fools who call him an extreme liberal, socialist, Marxist, etc. are shills for the extreme right- the Socialist Party of America has plenty to say about how Obama is definitely not a Socialist- they're as unhappy with him as the Ex-Conservs are).

By any reasonable and intelligent measure, his predecessor (George Bush) who took us to war with failed intelligence, destroyed the economy and sanctioned torture was MUCH more divisive. Not Obama.

Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim! He IS a Christian. A REAL Christian follows the Ten Commandments. One should rule is “Love Thy neighbor” and Obama has followed that rule to a T.

The idea that Barack Obama hates America is partly because he’s a Democrat, and partly because he’s black, and because the patriotism of African-Americans has long been doubted by some on the right. And it’s still is, when in fact it;s the other way around!

They hate him. They will never accept a black man as President. NEVER! EVER! EVER!

what is wrong with America is that a These haters would call the commander in chief a "domestic enemy" on a social network site. Is that Patritoic? to call the commander in chief a domestic enemy? No. it is out of line and insubordinate.These people are really sick, it's gotten worse. Seek help.

The right-wing’s hate mongering of President Obama’s religion, race and political philosophy has grown to a fever pitch, and is now evidenced in a series of racist righty website such as this (Not MY website).

NO AMERICAN GROUP has slammed the President of the United States with as many lies and traitorous hate propaganda as the Rightwing Republicans before President Obama came to office.

Before anyone cries "Bush" Leftwing attacked Bush so its ok for Frightwingers to attack Obama - let me remind them that the Leftwing attacked Bush with FACTS opposed to the Frightwingers who are attacking President Obama with madeup, traitorous hate propaganda that has divided this country.

They have proven me right, again. They are NOT Patriots, They are Racists that hates having black people in the White House. That is a fact!

Answerman| 4.3.12 @ 10:00PM

The definition of prattle:

to talk or chatter foolishly or meaninglessly;
nonsense;
senseless;
inanity;
babbling;
twaddle;
gibberish;
blather;
bunk;
rot;
hogwash;
rubbish;
schlock;
tripe;
drivel;
dreck;
treacle;
chickenshit.

rvastar| 4.4.12 @ 10:04AM

[racist right...cons...blah blah blah...]

Nice sophomoric rant. I'm certain your Lefty professors regularly reward you with pats on the head and a hearty "Atta boy!"

[That is a fact!]

Let's see if you can produce a few more "facts" for us, Lefty.

1. Cite the law that serves as precedent for the US govt compelling citizens to purchase a good or sevice.

2. Cite the Article or Amendment of the US Constitutional that gives the federal govt the authority to confiscate money/wealth from those who earned/created it in order to redistribute it to those who had no hand in earning/creating it.

Charles Shaw| 4.4.12 @ 11:54AM

You are exactly right. Even SS was a government run program; Obama Care is bonding the individual with a private insurance company under the commerce clause there is no such power. The commerce clause was placed in the constitution to avoid individual states placing tariffs on goods or commerce between the several states. This law if let to stand is truly changing the relationship of the government to the individual. Plus many things that are in the 2700 page bill called Affordable Care have nothing to do with Health Care. I believe the Justices will overturn the law on the basis of the individual mandate being un-constitutional. I cannot wait to see the uproar from the left.

RCV| 4.3.12 @ 9:42PM

What hypocrisy. I didn't hear Mr. Antle get quite as upset when Newt Gingrich talked about sending in marshalls to arrest justices who didn't rule to his liking.

Answerman| 4.3.12 @ 10:03PM

The definition of prattle:

to talk or chatter foolishly or meaninglessly;
nonsense;
senseless;
inanity;
babbling;
twaddle;
gibberish;
blather;
bunk;
rot;
hogwash;
rubbish;
schlock;
tripe;
drivel;
dreck;
treacle;
chickenshit.

Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:08AM

Newt Gingrich is not the President, is he?

rvastar| 4.4.12 @ 10:06AM

Burn those straw men, Lefty..

Sarbo| 4.3.12 @ 10:23PM

Obama betrays both extraordinary ignorance as well as astounding arrogance. The Supreme Court in the US and, likewise in all democratic countries is manadated by the Constitution. It therefore has the credibility and the legality.

Secondly, the Justices are nominated by the President and vetted by the Senate. Both POTUS and Senators are elected, so those that aprrove have the virtue being 'elected'.

Thirdly, Obama has packed his Administration with unelected and unvetted czars and recess appointments. Whatever happened to democracy in these cases?

By the bowels of God, in Oliver Cromwell's famous eruption, Obama should not be re-elected. Malice is his second-nature and destruction is his purpose.

Bob| 4.4.12 @ 1:07AM

The news is writing itself. Liberals are completely predictable. They repeat history over and over. FDR tried court-packing when he found the Court wasn't as sympathetic as he anticipated. The Supreme Court will rule Obamacare unconstitutional, and Obama will come out on the same day and call for Congress to expand the number of Justices in the Court. Then he will fill the Court with community organizers with dubious judicial records and eliminate the Supreme Court as a roadblock to his power grab.

Charles Shaw| 4.4.12 @ 11:40AM

What is unprecedented with Obama Care is for the first time in American history the federal government is mandating the individual buy private health insurance. Up until now only the states made such requirements. Even Social Security was established as insurance for retirement and was not viewed by the SCOTUS as an individual mandate. But what bothers most people against the mandating of things by the Congress is the reference made to the commerce clause in the constitution. The CC was created to regulate business between the states not the individual and private companies.

Duedad| 4.4.12 @ 12:28PM

who is protecting us from domestic enemies? 1/3 of the government is attacking 2/3's and who can protect them and us?

messup| 4.4.12 @ 1:29PM

This is precisely the sole reason why Messrs. Axelrod, Holder, Emmanuel and Obama have fought tooth-and-nail against Fast & Furious...Holder is in an integral part of Mr. Oabama's re-election strategy (he handles each and every single "constitutional" matter...be it national, international, federal or local).

This one is right up Holder's sleeve. Why? Because while this kabuki show is playing out BEFORE We The People's eyes, behind the scenes more sininister and nefarious centralization of power is taking place, gerrymandering of everything Constitutional, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.

NLRB, Sibelius, Cass Sustein, Bernanke, Gun Control, profiling, internet control, talk radio's limits, voter fraud, ad infinitum. THIS is what this White House is preparing for, Mr. Obama's second term...Presidential ultra centralization of everything social/economic in America.

The Supreme Court is a barrier to this ambitious plan and must be "dealt with." Ergo, Holder's front-and-center presence to diminish or eradicate this impediment...unfettered control over everything America is this administration's objective. The Supreme Court must be reduced to an appellate court level of significance...so goes the narrative.

Dismantling of America is taking place right before ones very eyes...and We The People are allowing this to happen, not a word is being said.
God Bless America, she's on life support. Amen.

Colin Foy| 4.4.12 @ 1:45PM

How prophetic was D.W. Griffith?
With this administration every day is like a looping, endlessly running, bizarre remake of the final scenes from the epic movie "Birth of a Nation."
And were does Janet "Butch" Napolitano and the dept. of homeland absurdity get off handing out
“Unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens?
This bunch is relentless. They're not even trying to hide the corruption and lawless disregard they will use to "win" this election.
One more question: Were are the republicans?

Timely Renewed | 4.4.12 @ 4:42PM

Obama's hypocrisy is palpable here. He has no problem when the courts strike down a law he doesn't like, such as the Arizona immigration law.

The difficulty with judicial review is not that it allows the Supreme Courts to force the Congress to follow the Constitution. That is a good thing. the problem is who makes the Supreme Court follow the Constitution? The framers' answer is the people do through the amendment process. Unfortunately, the amendment process has become moribund, and the courts can interpret the Constitution however they want without check.

We need to reform the amendment process to allow states to initiate and pass amendments without having to go through either Congress or the unused and archaic mechanism of a convention. Then grassroots patriots acting on the state level can amend the Constitution to restore the original limits on the federal government. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Shozbot| 4.4.12 @ 5:07PM

Has he forgotten about those unelected idiots in the EPA, FDA, Energy, and DOT mandating our lives on a daily basis.
He is setting a very dangerous precedent. If he doesn't get his way, he starts demonizing. I for one HOPE there is real change in November.

Robert Hawk| 4.5.12 @ 6:11AM

You don't understand the poke with the sharp stick from the Obama camp. The reason Mr Obama made the unconstitutional statements he did was to move the Judicial toward having him impeached. Mr Obama made an impeachable offense with his statements which were in violation of his oath of office. Mr Obama is well aware of his statements and his offense and he is betting the bank on an impeachment trial which he can use to divide this nation and create a state of chaos to the point of all out civil war. This is what communists do when they can not get the people to fight on their own. The problem with his idea is that he no longer has the support that he once thought he did and his plan of crisis might very well backfire on him and he may wind up impeached.

The letter requested by the Justice was no joke, its full intention is to attest to the impeachable statements made by the President a few days ago. The Justices will not listen to political rhetoric concerning this issue and will demand a clear statement as to why the President made statements which are in violation of his oath of office. If the Justices are not satisfied with the statements of the DOJ they may well move to impeach the President for a clearly documented, violation of oath of office. With a Republican controlled house of representatives, we might well observe the historical impeachment of a President. The Democratic-Marxist party should be warming up another candidate in the bullpen just incase their chosen one is removed from his perch.

Personally I don't think the impeachment of Mr Obama will bring about the level of strife that the communists are hoping for. Yes there will be a flash in the pan of anguish, however after some few months we will be back on track with this almost communist take over behind us.

CJM2| 4.4.12 @ 7:13PM

This so-called 'president' seems to thnk he is the greatest thing next to apple pie. First he demands that the American public thank him; for what? His abuse of powers? His bullying and despotic method of governing? Then he demands that we recognize him as "the one, the only" who is "working hard to save this country. Saving us from what? Freedom; from being a Republic; from our Constitution; from our exceptionalism? Really---this indecisive, destructive cur needs to resign from office and leave this great Nation....at that time, I will say thanks for leaving and for nothing else. If anything, he should be indicted, arrested, tried, and covicted for crimes against America.

Bea Toff| 4.4.12 @ 8:51PM

I find it disgusting that a man, who allegedly taught constitutional law, is arguing the powers of SCOTUS

Is this what we get with racial quotas?

Kingofthenet| 4.4.12 @ 11:07PM

In Republican thinking(Now of course, they were for it when it was their idea) it is FAR more Humane to deny a 'Free-Rider' care when they are sick or injured than to Compel them to buy coverage.

Kingoftheidiots| 4.5.12 @ 2:02AM

In liberal thinking(emotional prattle translator incapable of deciphering nonsense in parentheses) it is not their fault a "Free-Rider" can't afford medical insurance to begin with because of the liberals themselves, who have forced everyone who purchases medical insurance to pay for sex changes and other similar insanely stupid procedures, and have forced everyone to not be able to purchase insurance outside their state and other insanely stupid regulations, that have jacked up the costs exorbitantly, which in turn has forced the "Free-Rider' to be a "Free-Rider" in the first place, all this despite the fact medical insurance could easily be no different to purchase than auto insurance without all the insane exorbitant unnecessary costs of insane exorbitant unnecessary regulations, in which case if the "Free-Rider" was sick or injured the "Free-Rider" would have been covered for it since medical insurance would have been affordable in the same way that auto insurance is affordable without all the insane exorbitant unnecessary costs and insane exorbitant unnecessary regulations forced on the "Free-Rider" by liberals to begin with in the first place.

Charles Martel| 4.4.12 @ 11:18PM

Without Marbury v. Madison, there is no Rowe v. Wade.

If Obama can live without both of them, I can too!

Robert Hawk| 4.5.12 @ 5:59AM

Interesting perspective, however like so many others its completely absent the real issue behind the scene. First that Mr Obama is not a democrat as the word as used some 40 years ago. Further, neither is Mr Obama a liberal or a leftist as others suggest. Mr Obama studied for 20 plus years the redefinition of biblical text via the use of Marx & Engels doctrine and dialectic. His faith is called Liberation Theology. Mr Obama also uses as his basis the soviet subversion tactics such as those described used by Saul Alinsky. Mr Obama is therefore a Zealot Marxist even though he avoids despoiling that truth like the plague. This supreme court battle is not about the power of the federal government under the constitution, its about instituting Marxist based communism regardless of what the constitution states.

The Judicial is the last bastion of hope of defeating these communists, before we result to full civil war as a means to rid our country of communists bent upon forced assimilation of the people of these United States. What damn few understand is that Communism, Socialism and Progressivism as all doctoral based systems. All of these systems are based in Greek philos-sophos doctrine , specifically the Stoic version of that doctrine. We has come to that very point of which the Apostle Paul warned some nearly 2000 years ago.

The Apostle Paul visited Athens, the city named after the Greek goddess of knowledge, Athena. The city that worshipped knowledge based upon mans logic and reason, in a testament to their goddess Athena. A doctrine which moved foreword and has expanded since its resurrection some 1000 years ago. Hegel honed it and taught it to his students which included Marx & Engels. Darwin used the same doctrine as his basis for his origin of the species. Others used it as defined by Henri Saint Simon to derive an education system based on Henri's idea known as the scientific method. Others who believed in this same doctrine and forcefully assimilated it upon their peoples have included, A.Hitler, George B Shaw, Mau, Stalin, Lenin, Castor and the list goes on and on.

The author is incorrect in his understanding and therefore his statements. The USA is the final bastion standing in the way of a global assimilation to communism as stated by A Golitsyn and Y Bezmenov. He understands not, that all of the world around him has already undergone this assimilation. Further he does not understand that all that is left to overthrow are two nations who refuse to give in and give up, those being the United States and the Stated ofIsrael.

As we observe the entire Middle East in the soviet subversion based, crisis stage, we ought to be aware from the rhetoric and actions here in the USA that we are the next intended target for forced assimilation. You see the soviets convinced the intellectuals that a true state of peace can be achieved if they simply give up their individual freedom and Christian doctrine and opt instead for a global communist/socialist state. Who can stand against a world which is run by one single government entity ? Its the ultimate ideal theocracy which was contrived by the self appointed Sage, sophists, Karl Popper. The global Communist/Socialists elite Sage, who run the entire world and all its order from their hight perch at the United Nations. The perfect global world and government, just as it is defined in the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation. A one world global order, a testament of mans ideology and self attested perfection.

Its the identification, and nearly complete assembly, of that idealistic global order which should now have true Christians fully awake. Its the rising of Persia to power (Iran) as a ally of Esau (Russia) which should awaken even the most sleepy of biblical students. Will they continue down this pathway? Yes indeed . Will they eventually assimilate the entire world under this global order? Yes with Satan's assistance as the fake Jesus, they will. This is the last act of the play and those who are biblically literate ought to be gathering their things and preparing to make that last stand as Paul stated in the final chapter of the book of Ephesians. Its time!

Brian Richard Allen | 4.5.12 @ 3:21PM

.... Obama slipped and almost said he expected the law to be overturned rather than upheld ....

Obama knows. His Communist comrade Kagan called and told him last Friday immediately the SCOTUS reached its first 7:2 result on the matter of the mandate and its first 5:3 on salvatorius.

Obama has begun his 2012 run for re-election -- against the Do Everything "republican" Court.

And his self-destruction will be fun to watch.

Brian Richard Allen | 4.5.12 @ 3:29PM

.... And his self-destruction will be fun to watch ....

For those of us that enjoy the death throws of deranged snake-bit honey badgers, that is.

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|14 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|5 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|4 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|12 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|2 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|5 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|2 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|101 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?