-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 227 comments
-
The Pigs of Pigford
April 30, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Overstating Boston
April 26, 2013 | 143 comments
Political Hay
How Are Those Supreme Court Attacks Working Out for You?
The president’s bullying comes back to haunt him — though he’s right to compare himself to the Court-villifying FDR.
On Monday, polling company Rasmussen released results of a survey of likely voters showing that in less than one month the percentage of Americans who rate the Supreme Court’s job performance as good or excellent has spiked up 13 points, from an all-time low of 28 percent to a two-and-a-half year high of 41 percent. This time frame includes the Court’s hearings on Obamacare as well as the thinly-veiled Obama warning to the Court not to strike down his signature law.
In other words, now that Americans have been reminded what the Court is there for, they are more positive about its theoretical and actual function.
In the Rasmussen poll, the change in opinion of the Court among Republicans has gone from 29 percent favorable to 54 percent favorable. Not surprisingly, Democrats aren’t on board the Supreme Court favorability train: Rasmussen doesn’t give the numbers but says that Democrats’ “views of the court are largely unchanged.”
Most important politically, “among voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties, good or excellent ratings for the court have increased from 26% in mid-March to 42% now.”
Also among the poll results — and more bad news for Democrats — twice as many Americans believe that the Supreme Court “does not limit the government enough” (30 percent) as those who think it “puts too many limitations on what the federal government can do” (15 percent).
How does picking that fight feel now, Mr. President?
It is lucky for Republicans that President Barack Obama lives in a radical leftist echo chamber which reinforces his delusions that he’s the second coming of FDR — as well as of Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, just to name a few.
Obama is a poor student of history, and not just of Supreme Court history despite his prior position as a “Senior Lecturer” in constitutional law. And without understanding the past, the president thinks of FDR’s 1930s attack on the Supreme Court as part and parcel of Roosevelt’s being elected to the presidency four times.
This explains Obama’s rhetoric all but daring the Court to strike down Obamacare, or at least its individual mandate provision — a dare that Judge Jeffrey Smith recently challenged the administration to defend. The defense, in the form of a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, reeked of “you can do it, but you really shouldn’t” condescension, and notably did not claim to represent the views of President Obama, but simply of the Justice Department.
What the echoes from Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and Debbie “We can call it ‘Obamacare’ now” Wasserman Schultz will miss is that attacking the Court was not a political success for FDR, with support for Roosevelt’s court-packing plan falling under opposition among the public within about one month of the plan’s announcement, and never recovering.
The public may not love the Supreme Court but that does not mean they support its assault by other branches of government. Now, as in 1937, Republicans, out of some mixture of principle and politics, were forceful in defense of the Court’s independence. But then as now, it was not only Republicans who objected to the presidents’ tyrannical overreach.
In a 1937 editorial, presaging public reaction against Democrats and FDR the following year, William Allen White, the Progressive editor of the Emporia (Kansas) Gazette, railed against Roosevelt’s assault on the independence of the Supreme Court: “But while crying against these economic royalists [much like Obama’s demonization of “the 1 percent”] he would seem to have harbored subconsciously a seven-devil lust to become an unconstitutional royalist himself.”
White continued: “[T]hose who scorn the orderly processes of democracy, those leaders who by instinctive indirection slip around our laws and annul the basic implications of American democracy, they become a menace more deadly than the economic royalists whom Roosevelt denounces.”
Perhaps Obama’s self-comparisons to the anti-constitution FDR are not so far-fetched after all.
In the 1938 mid-term elections, Republicans gained House seats for the first time in a decade, picking up a stunning 81 seats in the House of Representatives, or 18.6 percent of that chamber. Even the Republican tsunami of 2010 only caused a GOP pickup of 63 seats, or 14.4 percent, although Republicans began the most recent mid-term elections with twice as many seats (178) as the party held during their hapless years going into 1938 (88).
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (96) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/10/how-are-those-supreme-court-at
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 4.10.12 @ 7:42AM
The people who understand, or are taking the time to read up on, the function of the Supreme Court, are realizing that it's the last defence against people like Obama who think they have been crowned King. If his miserable, dangerous presidency does nothing else, at least it will start people thinking about the Constitution as something besides some old piece of paper that allows The Man to Spoil Our Fun.
drudge ette obama| 4.10.12 @ 8:28AM
I am thankful for Obamacare for one reason - light now shines on the Constitution. It has been dark for so long.
When people read Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, then we will really see what the Progressive left thinks government should have the power to do.
But excuse me, I am heading to Detroit for some Little Caesar's pizza on a sterling silver plate.
chuck| 4.10.12 @ 8:55AM
I'd like to see the pompous asses on the left actually lower themselves to eating Little Caesar's, or any kind of pizza!
Con Chef (NB) | 4.10.12 @ 9:50AM
Oh yeah! Well, they're eating it on sterling silver platters, so NAH-NAH!
I agree though. Little Caesar's?! I know the family's a huge Obama donation machine, but aren't most liberals foodies (and quite a few conservatives as well :-))? Why couldn't they get Batali to make the freaking pizza. At least THEN, it'd be good!
Occam's Tool| 4.10.12 @ 11:30AM
Because all their taste is in their asses, Con.
idalily| 4.10.12 @ 10:05AM
Drudgette, Detroit? Really? I'm headed to Vegas to party it up with the GSA. Vegas is way more fun than Detroit, and besides, it is my money they're partying with!
Jack in Wi.| 4.10.12 @ 11:26AM
The election of 1938 was a good one for the Republicans because the people finally saw that the economy was still in the tank and people were getting sick of the policies. The Surpreme Court was only one item on the agenda.
Other Presidents have attacked the Court including Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln without hurting their historical reputations. FDR was re-elected twice more after this and Obama's poll numbers have been spiking upward. I would not call this issue a problem for him. I remember when real conservatives hated the Court with it's forced busing, quotas, and overthrowing the laws of 50 states on the issue of abortion. I personally hate a fear all three branches of the Federal Government when they are out of control. They seem to be out of control most of the time in the last 1o0 years.
oldfart| 4.10.12 @ 7:47AM
And like FDR (who was thought of as the second coming because he 'made us feel good') don't be amazed that this President will do EVERYTHING he could to get us into big time war to rally the country behind him.
Just like Billy Clinton did in the Balkins when the Monica story broke.
MIke G| 4.10.12 @ 12:42PM
Expect Big O to give Israel the OK to attack Iran 1 to 1-1/2 months prior to the election. Then he will become Israel's best friend and drag us into the war.
I have no problem with him being Israel's friend, but I do have a problem if he uses that friendship only for his own political purposes. And he hasn't been much of a friend so far.
Mike M| 4.10.12 @ 8:18AM
Shudder the thought! Is is likely these Democrat babykillers will have to pay for their own "contraception?"
Say it isn't so!
Von Mises Jr.| 4.10.12 @ 8:34AM
Even if ObamaCare is overturned, the fight against this tyrannical Marxist has just begun. Dodd Frank will destroy small business if not overturned, and we will have a nation of "Crony Capitalist" such as Buffet, Immelt at GE, Blankfein at Goldman and Solyndra's galore.
And this EPA and Interior have to be replaced if we expect to fuel our economy with cheap and abundant energy.
Otherwise, the Leviathan will bleed us to death with trillions of paper cuts.
The battle for the Constitution is just begun.
Indy| 4.10.12 @ 9:08AM
You sir are correct, there is much work to do, just think of all the Leftists hired in all those Federal Agencies. The DOJ is full of Leftists, lifetime appointments to the Courts will do much damage, this is one of my worries with Romney, I really don't think he understands the ideology we are facing.
richard ryan| 4.10.12 @ 10:08AM
Agreed, but my main concern is the American people. What percentage of adult citizens can name the Speaker of the House? The 3 branches of government? What percentage of Americans would identify our system of government as a democracy?
The answer is, less 50% on the first 2 and greater than 90% on the last issue. So how can we expect our citizens to take our freedoms back when the vast majority cannot even identify the most basic government limitations or functions?
BarocheDique | 4.10.12 @ 10:48AM
Mr. Ryan, I believe that you do not have enough faith in the American people, and for admittedly sound reasons I allow that you have good reason to feel that way. But, I believe that we are looking at the awakening of the Sleeping Giant who's 'silent majority' (see recent SCOTUS approval ratings increases) will manifest itself 11-4-12....as for Romney, Indy is correct: he's too soft, 'scared to take a punch' while fighting for the team for the team, and he fails to understand the evil and malevolence of the animals we have to defeat. They are not honest brokers with a different opinion, they are evil marxist/communists that will lie, cheat, steal and murder to achieve their goals. We need a fighter and sadly I do not believe Romney has the nuts for it.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.10.12 @ 10:59AM
You are correct, Richard. But even the dullest among us (excepting of course for ideologs such as Perp, DRedful and Brooksie) can figure out that they are broke, lucky to have a crappy Obama job, are paying more for gas and groceries.
So unless you are a troll with an EBT card, reality is hard to escape.
JT| 4.10.12 @ 11:28AM
This guy has every intention of defying the Supreme Court if this law is struck down or neutered. He has every intention of just moving ahead regardless and the gutless Rino's will scream and holler and do nothing in the end.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.10.12 @ 11:53AM
That is why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments. The states cannot afford to enforce ObamaCare. Day three of the hearings was for the states. ObamaCare provides free health care to families up to 138% of the poverty line, or about $30K. The Southern and many Mid-West and Western Red states would go bankrupt fast and furious.
JamesJ| 4.11.12 @ 9:00AM
Uh, we are not a democracy. We are a Representative Republic.
Count yourself as one of the 90%
richard ryan| 4.11.12 @ 11:27AM
Read my comment James. I'm lamenting the fact that over 90% of us would INCORRECTLY define our basic form of government as a democracy. It's probably 99% for gosh sakes.
chuck| 4.10.12 @ 8:45AM
Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
Oh joy, just what we needed!
Indy| 4.10.12 @ 9:06AM
Would FDR have served 4 terms if there was an internet back then?
Mike Hawk| 4.10.12 @ 10:52AM
He served 3 terms. Died a few weeks into the 4th. He was elected to 4. Withhout the Depression, he would not have been elected twice. The Republican candidates in '40 and '44 were weak and even without the war in progress probably would have lost anyway.
Indy| 4.10.12 @ 6:03PM
Oops, my bad, thanks for the correction. There were those in FDR's Administration who were starting to wake up and realized the massive spending didn't work. You may be right about the weak candidates but I like to think if citizens back then had access to the info that we do now, they might have given him the boot. Of course, we have the internet now and still the race is likely to be close, too many asleep and too many takers.
I've learned more about FDR through my own research in the past few years than I ever did in school.
Nancy in NC| 4.10.12 @ 9:11AM
This thug in the White House has awakened many Americans to the Constitution. Classes are being given online and in small groups all over the country.
Personally, I have taken the Miracle of America, participated in a book study of the 5,000 Year Leap, and a Constitution class with Hillsdale College. (That doesn't count the books I have read about the Constitution and the Founders.)
I bet that like me, the more people read about our Founding Documents the more incensed they become about what our so called leaders have done to our original principles, and the destruction they have wrought on our Nation.
Thank you, Obummer, for throwing us into the boiling water of reason and thought.
tdiinva| 4.10.12 @ 9:25AM
I am will go against the conventional wisdom. Obama wants the law overturned for two reasons. First, you can see the outline of his reaction with his campagin theme of the "war against women." He beleives that along with government workers and the welfare class, women are the key to re-election. Reason #2 might surprise you. While Obama wants to move to a privledged class only medical system (aka single payer), he knows that this Obamacare is a fiscal trainwreck and its inevitable failure puts single payer at risk. He wants to go back to square one and design the system he really wants. In his mind the court killing Obamacare kills two birds with one stone. It get he relected and the Democrats back in control of Congress and then allows him to go directly to single payer.
T.L.P.| 4.10.12 @ 10:09AM
I don't see any way in Hell that the Democrats take Congress. If anything, they're looking at a 2010 redux.
This will go back to Congress, where it will be treated as a Piece of Legislation, and not like that SLUT - Fluke - at a Biker Gang's Stag Party, in Newark.
It will see the light of day, instead of the Shadows behind closed doors. It will actually be DEBATED, whether the King, and his Uppity Queen likes it, or not. Maybe, even on CSPAN, like we were PROMISED the last time. I've even got a feeling that 2,700 Pages of mostly Non Health Related BULLSHIT, will become vastly less voluminous. We will be rid of all of the hidden Diktats, put in there by that other SLUT - Nancy Pelosi - and that Sleazy Scumbag - Harry Reid - who has remained SILENT, as a Fellow Mormon is dragged through the sewer, by his Scum Sucking Buddies, in the Media, like that Ccksckr over at MSNBC. (I can't remember the MFer's name. O'Donnell, I think) He's a real POS. Just like Harry Reid and that SCHMUCK - Schumer. (Type in Schumer, and then hit the Spell Check app. See what comes up, and tell me that you're surprised.)
As far as the premise of the Great White Tourist's Column - The attacks on the Supreme Court - goes. Is ANYONE surprised?
He's an Alinskyite. He's far left Radical from the South Side of the most Corrupt City in the Country, run by the most Corrupt Political Machine, this side of Moscow.
He's an Agitator. He's an Instigator and he is DANGEROUS. His Narcissism does not brook opposition. It sees a problem, and it SMASHES it.
He'll be picking up the phone, soon. His Civilian Armies will answer his call, and load up the Buses. Threats will be inferred. Threats will be made. HARASSMENTS will soon come about. Phone Calls and Emails. Letters and people actually staked out, that they can follow these Justices' and their families to their SCHOOLS, and to the Super Market. To the Mall.
They will bring the OCCUPIERS to these people's Doors.
Anybody think I'm wrong?
Anyone?
And, no, Purp doesn't count.
tdiinva| 4.10.12 @ 10:46AM
I didn't say this strategy would be successful. I said this is his strategy.
albert constantine jr.| 4.10.12 @ 11:33AM
T.L.P.
Put in the penalty box under your true identity?
Warrior | 4.10.12 @ 12:39PM
If the Supreme Court does the right thing and strikes the law down in its entirety, the radical left will be engerized beyond belief. There will be front page headlines of a baby dying while waiting for an unavailable doctor all due to the radical conservatives and thier stacked court. The funny part is that the administration will continue forward as they have done with cap n' trade, no budget, foreign interventions, aid for the muslim brotherhood, targeting citizens without due process because there is no political will to stop them. This will solve nothing.
kristen| 4.10.12 @ 3:29PM
Radical left, maybe. The 10% farthest out that assume POTUS can do no wrong and everyone else is lying. But there are over 30% IDed as independent and plenty of less radical democrats that will think "huh? SCOTUS found it unconstitutional... why's that?" and look into it. The more attention this gets and the more light shines on it, the more obvious it is to anyone with an open and functioning mind that it's a bad law. A finding of unconstitutionality will hurt Obama. Trust me, I'm an independent... and only now serving in my first year as a "non-democrat" :)
Warrior | 4.10.12 @ 5:51PM
Respectfully Kristen, the furthest out that you speak of are already frustrated with Obama because he is not radical enough for them. If you need the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare in order for someone to realize that he is operating outside of the Constitution, then it's probably too late for them.
idalily| 4.10.12 @ 10:09AM
I have wondered if this might be his strategy, too, but if it is, then he's got to be sure he'll keep the Senate and regain the House. Granted, he's arrogant enough to believe that, but I'd say his chance of gaining both chambers is nil.
Bobloblaw| 4.10.12 @ 9:40AM
Right now the public opposes Obamacare 60-40. I predict if the SCOTUS upholds Obamacare the polls will quickly switch to 60-65% support for Obamacare. It will be extremely demoralizing for the GOP heading into one of the most important elections in our lifetime and would be a prelude to an Obama landslide.
PolishKnight| 4.10.12 @ 10:38AM
The problem is that if the SC upholds Obamacare, then we'll be stuck with it as a Stalingrad issue for the next 4 years while either Romney, or Obama, let the left have everything else they've gotten for the past 4 years and 4 decades: amnesty for illegals, unlimited H1B visas, affirmative action, and of course, massive deficit spending and the fed giving the banks free money to buy US savings bonds with.
As the saying goes, I'm not an art critic but I know what I like and most people will NOT like Obamacare: Their insurance co-pays are going to soar, many will lose their insurance and then wind up with expensive government approved plans for features most of them don't want (since they are tailored for the preferences of a typical SF gay voter or Georgetown law student). But with most of the above issues above they dislike, they won't be able to do much about it.
In the meantime, having gotten their next domino to fall I predict the left's next social policy to enact will be government funded daycare. This will give single mothers, who already enjoy a 1.4X tax deduction compared to a married couple's 1.6X an additional incentive not to marry. They will also be loyal Democrat voters.
A. C. Santore| 4.10.12 @ 12:15PM
Regarding government funded daycare, I give you two thoughts.
1. There is more truth to that notion than is immediately apparent. Remember the words of our "woman in red" (and not just for her familiar clothing) who said that "it takes a village to raise a child," or something like that. (Contrast that with Santorum's response, "It takes a family to raise a child." Stark contrast, indeed!
2. The Soviets made that a centerpiece of their control over the masses.
PolishKnight| 4.10.12 @ 1:07PM
My Soviet raised wife asked me: "How many years of paid maternity leave do you get here? 2? 3?" I responded, er, none! :-)
In addition, ready for the laugh, she wanted to land the perfect job first BEFORE then going on immediate paid maternity leave for 2 years. Imagine if you were an employer and you had just hired a woman to do a job and she took off and then you had to go to a temp agency, pay high rates to the agency, to hold the job for her while she's gone.
Of course, in the former USSR, it wasn't the director's money so these inefficiencies were dealt with one main way being they could just engage in gender discrimination (whom are the women going to sue, Josef Stalin? :-)
American workers are probably amazingly efficient compared to Western Europe. We're actually pretty efficient compared to India and China, believe it or not. The reason for the outsourcing is to get around pollution restrictions and child labor laws among other things.
Anyways, my wife remembers that her parents did NOT discuss politics in her presence as a small child lest she blab and repeat something to the authorities. This is now in place today as my Polish friend does the same with his daughter lest she blab something at school and get into trouble.
Dmac | 4.10.12 @ 6:48PM
The reason for outsourcing is to pay lower wages, no benefits and not contribute to the Social Security or or Medi-Caid Funds. Don't think otherwise or your just being foolish.
kristen| 4.10.12 @ 3:54PM
I agree that the gvt should not incentivize single parenting or deincentivize marriage... but that 1.4X rate depends on a lot of qualifiers - reciept of child support, having a live-in non-married boyfriend that helps support the child, etc. Keep in mind that not all mothers are single by choice. (other than the choice not to abort or give up their child, which I hope you can find reasonable). Some women are widowed, others are raped and has no idea who the father is, plenty have husbands that just up and leave without a trace. These women are at a significant disadvantage to even a single income married couple, because they have to do the rearing and the bread winning. It's a tough situation and I don't think the answer is quite as easy as you make it seem. But to ease your fears, the taxes as they are now are not enough (on their own) to deincentivize marriage. I would gladly give up that extra $100 bucks a year to have a good man in my life.
Jack Barrett| 4.10.12 @ 9:42AM
We all pay union dues. We pay taxes. Obama takes some of that tax money and passes it on to union leaders. We pay union dues we just don't receive benefits or representation in the UAW. However, if you look at it like the government is a union and Obama is the union president then I guess we're all members of Obama's union. In this union we do have representation and I guess one of our union benefits is Obamacare. that's just the way they see it. I see it like they have their hand in my pocket and they should remove it. The SCOTUS is more or less the Labor Board. Whether you're an employer or an employee you still pay your union dues to Obama.
Anthony| 4.10.12 @ 10:05AM
Ross, If you think Obozo's screed against the Supreme Court constitutes an "attack", you've seen nothing yet.
Obozo and his henchmen are gearing up for a "hot summer". The New Black Panthers have told us so. They are advocating for open warefare, and hack Holder and his corrupt Justice Department have done NOTHING to stop the Panther's lawlessness, not to mention the OWS scum.
There will be riots this summer, it's the only way Obozo can distract Americans from his corrupt and dismal policy failures.
In the mean time, the stunning Breitbart video, that demonstrates for all to see, that Obozo, Holder, and the left are "all in" for massive voting fraud, has been completely ignored by the LSM.
The corrupt Justice Department called it a fake.
Obozo and FDR have much in common for sure. Just wait for Obozo's internment camps (those elusive shovel ready jobs) to start being built. And ask yourself why Homeland Security just purchased millions of rounds of ammunition.
America is in deep, deep trouble, and it will all hit the fan this summer.
In the mean time, the Breitbart video that demonstrates that the left are all in for corupted elections have gotten a big yawn from the media.
Anthony| 4.10.12 @ 10:16AM
Sorry about that last paragraph, computer glitch.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.10.12 @ 10:28AM
Anthony,
You may be right, but that's sort of my point: I think attacking the Court is a political loser, but Obama is so deep in his echo chamber that he probably still thinks it's a good idea. In terms of wanting him to lose in November, I hope he keeps it up.
Anthony| 4.10.12 @ 10:52AM
Ross, I'm not sure it matters what Obozo says and does.
How the hell can Obozo lose in November under the auspices of Democrat poll workers, Democrat legistatures, and Democrat state secretaries of state, that have put policies into place that insures massive voter fraud will occur throughout the country?
Ross Kaminsky | 4.10.12 @ 11:48AM
It's a very valid fear, Anthony. Don't forget, though, that it is very difficult to steal an election unless the election is basically a tie to begin with. So the GOP needs to make it not close. Easier said than done, I understand.
Robert| 4.10.12 @ 1:56PM
Hate to burst your bubble, Ross, but the mechanism for the wholesale theft of the presidential election has already been put into place. The obama regime has outsourced the processing of ballots for the presidential election to a Spanish company, SCYTL, which had recently acquired SOE, the leading vote processing company in the United States. This means votes will now be transferred to a central server overseas, where they will be counted, rather than being counted at the local precinct level. By the way, the CEO of SCYTL is a bundler for obama!
This den of thieves learned well the dictum of Stalin, "It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who COUNTS the votes!"
Ross Kaminsky | 4.10.12 @ 2:48PM
I doubt this very much, Robert, esp since ballots processing is done by states, not by the feds.
Robert| 4.10.12 @ 4:13PM
It is fact, however it does not cover all US precincts. But the number (900) is significant enough to affect the election as it covers the states of New York, Texas, Washington, California, Florida, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia and the District of Columbia (Washington).
I refer you and anyone else interested in the facts to the investigative piece done by Aaron Klein at http://kleinonline.wnd.com/201.....or-scytl/.
Of note, A State of Florida commission's findings at the conclusion of Klein's article:
. The system is vulnerable to attack from insiders.
· In a worst case scenario, the software could lead to (1) voters being unable to cast votes; (2) an election that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters; and (3) possible disclosure of confidential information, such as the votes cast by individual voters.
· The system may be subject to attacks that could compromise the integrity of the votes cast.
BarocheDique | 4.10.12 @ 10:59AM
When will a PATRIOT with a set of BALLS stand up and fight for America? How bad does it have to get? Romney is gutless and "doesn't think he's {barakhussein} a bad person" so we can count him out. Boehner and McConnel are just crickets chirping....Issa is trying to get something done, but when will the 'conservatives' we sent to DC do their DUTY and start identifying, exposing, and convicting these absolute criminals and enemies of the people? Are every single last one of them corrupt enough to be in it together? Please no, I do not want to think that is true.
JP| 4.10.12 @ 11:05AM
And what if the President decides to ignore the court's ruling? What if Reid gives him cover?
Bill| 4.10.12 @ 11:37AM
Obama is trying to intimidate the out come of SCOTUS rulling on Obamacare, and it ain't gonna happen because Obama is exposed and people know about the truth about Obamacare.
David| 4.10.12 @ 11:38AM
33 Senators are up for election this November. Our chances should be excellent to gain a considerable majority because only 10 of those seats are held by repubs and 23 are democrat seats.
albert constantine jr.| 4.10.12 @ 11:39AM
"Obama is a poor student of history, and not just of Supreme Court history despite his prior position as a "Senior Lecturer" in constitutional law."
I am glad to see the Community Organizer-in-Chief's former position has been appropriately characterized, and that Mr. Kaminsky has not given the POTUS yet another unmerited promotion to Professor.
Given the theme and conclusion of this article, perhaps one of the slogans of the Republican nominee should be "Help Make the Obama Administration History".
Ross Kaminsky | 4.10.12 @ 11:50AM
FYI, Albert, the University of Chicago does say that he merits the title "professor" but I think "lecturer" (which is also accurate) captures his personality much better.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.10.12 @ 11:53AM
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
albert constantine jr.| 4.10.12 @ 12:22PM
Interesting link, though it occurs to me that his reluctance to join the tenure may have had as much to do with not wanting to be subjected to the demands for publication (unless Bill Ayres was available to ghostwrite), or perhaps an unwillingness to pay dues to AAUP, than any other commitments.
albert constantine jr.| 4.10.12 @ 7:12PM
"join the tenure "
should be tenured
PolishKnight| 4.10.12 @ 12:12PM
I'm hoping that Obamacare is overturned and loses in November because, and this would just be so super, wouldn't it? What if Obama after January 2013 has to go home and pack up his office and take his "historical" Nobel peace prize with him. What would he do with it? If he puts it on his fireplace mantel, it would remind him that his term was largely worthless in the annals of history other than a half-black man being elected to the office. He would have no other "historical" accomplishments to go into the history books and the prize would be a reminder of a lack of historical notability. And if he gives it to a Chicago (or Hawaii) presidential museum, it would serve for the next century as an awkward question prompt by schoolchildren asking: "Excuse me, tour guide, why did Obama get this Nobel prize?"
A. C. Santore| 4.10.12 @ 12:19PM
I read the linked article. Truly frightening.
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 12:22PM
Great one as usual, Ross.....and thanks! I would not eve go so far as to term it lecturing, but possibly what Bill O'Reilly calls BLOVIATING. My long ago four year stint in college recalls many 'professors' which were basically windbags that didn't know their ARS FROM A HOLE IN THE GROUND! Oh well, another story, and so back to the editorial's subject. Agreement or disagreement of a SCOTUS decision can be and has been the modus operendi historically by those both qualified and not so since its establishment, but always AFTER THE FACT, NOT BEFORE. Obama's actions were simply attempted intimidation, Chicago Community Organizer style. He's noting but a street hustler, although an intelligent one at that. He is basically [in football lingo] trying to MOVE THE GOAL POSTS which is outlandish for a POTUS to attempt to do. He should IMHO be subjected to impeachment over same, but his actions only speaks to the narcissism or hustpa of this man's character [or lack thereof]. How dare him! Again, I do not hold any faith in a favorable conclusion of this case by the court, as I think any reversal will be limited. the FOX TV panel the other night indicated that the court could possibly negate the mandate and then send it back to the Congress for tweeking/amending which would not be a win in my estimation. I'm of the opinion that the one/only solution is 11/4/12 where hopefully a Romney etc Republican can be elected POTUS to replace Obama and thereafter administratively nullify completely this travesty of a coerced legislation. We'll see!!!!
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 12:27PM
PS: I am putting all of my hope into the PROFESSORSHIP of writers like Ross, Quin, etc who continue to educated the reading public as to the urgent need to replace this president due to the many, many fallicies that they verbally enumerated within their editorials concerning him. Hopefully this research and words will sink into the consciousness of their readers so that the needed effects of this upcoming election can take place!!!!!!!
Vacogito| 4.10.12 @ 1:55PM
So the judicial branch woke up to the fact that President Obama's attacks on the court threatened the separate-but-equal status. If only the Congress and Senate would wake up to that fact. There should be no Senator or Congressman, regardless of political party who should be sanguine about the power grab by unelected federal bureaucrats. The power of our elected representatives has been greatly decreased by allowing the executive branch to ignore it (and the law), to marginalize it, at to assert what used to be power that belonged only to the Congress. I am appalled at both Republican and Democrat representative and Senators that they have sat by and let this happen.
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 2:11PM
I respectfully DISAGREE in that [as I've said too many times here].......IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS:
'..... Colo. Senate Passes Tuition Break for Undocumenteds Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:34 AMBy: Greg McDonald The Colorado Senate has approved a bill to provide discounted college tuitions to undocumented students, according to a report Tuesday in the Denver Post. The bill passed with all 20 Senate Democrats voting for it and all 14 Republicans against it.The vote strictly along partisan lines did not come as a surprise, the Post said. But what did strike Democratic supporters as strange was the fact that no Republican members spoke on the floor against it.Generally, Republicans nationwide have rejected the idea of providing tuition breaks for undocumented students or illegal immigrants.
“I thought it was startling,” said Democratic state Sen. Mike Johnson, a co-sponsor of the measure that sets tuition for undocumented students somewhere between what Colorado schools charge in-state and out-of-state residents.
But Republican state Sen. Nancy Spence said she thought it was probably smart for her party to keep mum on the issue for the time being, considering the beating the GOP has taken lately on issues related to women and minorities.
“We need all the friends we can get in an election year,” she told the Post.The question remains, however, how long Republican opponents will maintain their silence. The bill still has to be approved by the state House, where the GOP holds a one-seat majority.....'
BarocheDique | 4.11.12 @ 12:47AM
Unbelievable, isn't it? Sure, the msm has become the lapdog for the socialists/marxists and ignores everything it can rather than expose the truth to the people, but with the internet and videos everywhere to prove our claims, we just have to assume the lack of action on the part of our elected representatives is intentional and they are in it up to their own asses. Truly sad for America, but I cannot find another explanation.
RCV| 4.10.12 @ 2:13PM
What nonsense! The "change" in public perception of the Court is clearly attributable to the fact that right-wing Republicans, who formerly viewed the Courts as the emodiment of evil for striking laws down as unconstitutional that they supported (laws discriminating against gays, for example), now anticipate with glee the Court striking down a law they don't like. Yesterday, they were in favor of arresting such judges; today they view them as the epitome of good government.
The Bruce| 4.10.12 @ 2:26PM
"Yesterday, they were in favor of arresting such judges."
They? What they? Outside of Newt Gingrinch's imbecilic remark on the subject, who else is spouting this garbage?
kristen| 4.10.12 @ 4:01PM
look again at the numbers. Independent's perception of the court is up quite a bit too, and even dem suport is up a percentage point or two. (it's not in the article but if you go to the souce they have this data as well as data on percentages IDing as GOP dem or independent, so you can do the math...)
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 4:03PM
False! Conservatives respect the rule of law, even though it is their right to disagree with court decisions [as in AFTER A LEGAL DECISION HAS BEEN PROCLAMATED.......NOT BEFORE SAME]. That is what elections are for, and that will be part of what 11/4/12 is about!!!!!
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 4:06PM
PS: If memory serves me, I recall that Newt Gingrich was opining that possibly judges should be called before congress to '''''EXPLAIN'''''' THEIR ISSUED DECISIONS RELATIONSHIP TO THE US CONSTITUTION, that's all. What is wrong with that??????
RCV| 4.11.12 @ 12:43PM
Their explanations are in their opinions, where they should be.
Warrior | 4.10.12 @ 5:56PM
Name the law that was stricken by a court as unConstitutional which discriminated against gays and was supported by Republicans.
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 8:25PM
THE NATURAL LAW!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 8:31PM
What connection does that have with the subject of this editorial [ie the healthcare constitutionality that is being decided by the SCOTUS]??????
The Bruce| 4.10.12 @ 2:22PM
My question is simple:
Assuming Obamacare is overturned, and Obama proceeds to implement it anyway (as I believe he would), will John "Pass the Kleenex" Boehner actually have the stones to do his job and begin impeachment proceedings?
Warrior | 4.10.12 @ 6:01PM
Boehner and McConnell will immediately start campaigning on the what they propose for the replacement of the stricken law. The Republicans gave us Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, SCHIP... What makes us think they are against entitlements?
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 8:27PM
These are NOT entitlements. The only true entitlement ever enacted was MEDICAID, since it's recipients NEVER PAY PREMIUMS OR FOR THEIR BENEFITS!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 4.10.12 @ 8:32PM
How is your question connected to this editorial's subject??????
Warrior | 4.10.12 @ 11:06PM
You place several posts of nothing but off the subject prattle confirming your stupidity above. In your narrow minded, limited education world it's only the Democrats to blame. What has a Republican majority in the house given us the last year? Raised the debt ceiling by over 2 trillion dollars, not one agency has seen a dollar less in funding. Wars are waged on up to five battlefields with not a word of objection. I don't know what's worse, ideological progressives who pursue their goal of ruining this country or useful idiots like you who are ready to vote in a more benevolent and slower moving ruling elite class who take more time to deliver the death blow to our liberties. You are pathetic.
Mrs. Vito| 4.10.12 @ 6:18PM
What's the point now? Let him keep giving Obama enough rope to hang himself. He's already half-way up the scaffold.
Mike Hawk| 4.10.12 @ 6:42PM
Dream on. Impeachment isn't going to happen. Seven months to an election and the Democrats own the Senate. Get real. Every time a POTUS farts, the opposition wants impeachment. This guy deserves it, but it will be easier to vote him out.
SetOurChildrenFree | 4.10.12 @ 2:47PM
Conservatives BEWARE! We may like the Court now because we think they are going to strike down Obamacare, but remember that they have also stricken down good laws too. For every McCain-Feigngold or gun control law they have rightly nixed, there's also a myriad of laws they've stricken that have given us abortion-on-demand, pornography, Christ-less Christmases, and prayer-less schools. The point I'm making is that conservatives shouldn't be so quick to recognize the Court's authority when they are about to rule in our favor (hopefully). The true conservative should take the position that the Court has NO authority in many of the matters that should have been the purview of the states in the first place. Our position should also be that the Court has no authority to make law period, or strike down laws, unless the law CLEARLY violates the plain text/intent of the Constitution. Any justice who does not pledge to hold to these standards should not be confirmed, and those justices who violate these standards should be impeached. A few unelected judges should not be able to overrule the will of the people through their elected representatives. (I know Obama said this too, but he was being a hypocrite when he said it). As a final check and balance, we need a constitutional amendment that states that 90 hold will be put on any ruling regarding any law the Court rules unconstitutional until that ruling is affirmed by a three-fifths majority of both houses of Congress.
kristen| 4.10.12 @ 4:13PM
You're kind of being a hypocrite. The will of the people can ONLY be overruled by unelected officials. When public opinion goes against the principles of democracy, only those not subject to reelection will be able to rise above. it is not SCOTUS's job to write laws we like, only to strike down unconstitutional ones. Whenever they fail to strike down a bad law, it's only after leg and Exec branches have also failed. When they strike down a law we might want, it's congresses job to go back and rewrite it in a more constitutionally sound way.
PolishKnight| 4.10.12 @ 5:46PM
You forgot about flag burning laws being struck down. I don't know of any laws being struck down to protect Christmas. Roe V Wade wasn't a "federal" law struck down but rather the SC overruling states' rights and writing a federal law, basically.
Think of the logic: If the point of a Constitutionally minded SC is to LIMIT federal power as much as possible while letting the states take up the slack. So the court being overly aggressive about striking down laws is by definition a benefit for conservatives moreso than a hindrance.
Yougenic | 4.10.12 @ 2:47PM
To believe the MSM's assertions requires a willful suspensions of sensory data accrued daily; and over time. It also requires a person ignore their common sense and experience with other human beings. The latest polling trotted out by the MSM = Obama leads Romney - Women especially - favor Obama over Romney. Really? Over 1 million women are out of work due to Obama policies. More are likely holding part-time jobs or other jobs - the ones available in this horriffic economy. Women also visit the super market and gas stations weekly. They bring their children, and face a reality where they can not afford to please their children - due to diminished salaries and other demands that place more and more of their incomes into necessities. Excess money for frivolous spending on children's wants - is gone. The MSM inform us women are more concerned with the availability of birth control pills - than they are about the economic misfortunes. I don't see it that way. We know the MSM will lie lie & lie again - trying to advance a narrative and convince the Independents/people who wish to brag they voted for the winner. The MSM is trying to shape a reality - a reality that does not and will not exist come election time. The bad economic conditions will worsen as November closes in. Recall, if you will - Chris Van Hollad - D, Maryland - he was on TV the weekend before the 2010 elections stating Democrats would increase their majorities in the House & Senate. The same faux polling was evident up until the final days - and then... Democrats continued to hold a shrinking advantage. This is the same BS.
cicero| 4.10.12 @ 3:22PM
This has been an overly long primary process. I long for the day of the "smokey room" process for picking a Party's candidate. We tend to over react to every statement and occurence. I believe that, once the Republicans pick their candidate (and it will likely be Romney), the debate will move in a defferent direction. The true battle lines will be drawn, and they will tend to be along the lines of economic philosophy. This is Romney's territory. Obama can only stay in the fight for as long as he can stay on script. Once he is forced to stop reading a prepared piece, he will do as he has in the past - put his foot in his mouth. He can talk out of ideology, but not from knowledge. Does anyone remember the one unscripted moment of the '08 election - Joe the Plumber? If the Repubs had run anyone other that McCain, or had let Palin into the fight, that one statement would have been huge. Romney will be speaking from knowledge and experience on matters economical.. He will be able to ad lib, and will have the flexibility that will give him. Obama will not. The debate has not even begun.
I tend to rely on the collective wisdom of the American people. Those on social security do not look upon themselves as recipients of entitlements. They will not be on the side of the "something for nothing" crowd. Be patient and wait for the battle to begin.
The Bruce| 4.11.12 @ 1:23AM
Well, Rick "It's the DEVIL, Stupid" Santorum dropped out of the race today so perhaps, yes, we can all start to align behind Romney, warts and all.
We have no hope of beating Obama otherwise.
ABNCP| 4.10.12 @ 3:44PM
Again people, whatever comes out of Obama's mouth is disinformation, misinformation, half truths or dammed lies. I can't see how whatever the SCOTUS decides is anything but a lose lose situtation for Obama and his administration. If they strike it down (I think they will) he is shown to be a complete incompetent. The only two major bills he has pushed through, the stimulus and Obamacare have turned out to be expensive disasters, compete failures. Even some of the docile American voting public have to see that.
If SCOTUS allows Obamacare to proceed there will be a reaction from over 60% of Americans that will make the 2010 Tea Party revolution seem tame by comparision.
He will lose in a landslide along with the Senate becoming a Republican frat club so either way he loses. Thank you God.
somnolence| 4.10.12 @ 3:49PM
Obama ignores the SCOTUS ruling that would justify an internal shooting war in this country, and yeah, I hope it happens. Is everyone here aware that hollow point bullets are being bought up by the Feds along with all the extra IRS agents? Now tell me all of us shouldn't be on our toes. Obama already defied one judge when he was told to resume drilling. Both he and Holder would try and justify a ruling against their aims on racism. Hopefully it wouldn't get that far and both numerous representatives and military alike would defy Obama instead. Interesting to ponder all the scenarios, but this much is clear, the extra IRS agents and hollow point bullets are reality as of this moment, or certainly BEYOND the planning stage.
somnolence| 4.10.12 @ 3:56PM
Simple as this if the Court rules against it the IRS can't enforce it. Contrary to what Rush says everyday anyway, the IRS Commissioner hinted that if individuals wouldn't pay the fine the agency would not trip over themselves to collect and enforce(but that doesn't answer the concerns about the 16,000 extra agents). As is stated a lot depends on income. Suppose someone HAS NO income(they only have savings to live on). That might turn out to be a smart move on their part if Uncle Same provides subsidies in that case, and if they(like me) lead a healthy lifestyle, don't go to the doc and don't need meds. Otherwise if this thing succeeds many of us on this page will more than likely be dead before "death panel" stage at age 75(unless of course we prosper somewhat underground anonymously).
Mrs. Vito| 4.10.12 @ 6:15PM
Great article. I think the best is yet to come because, asyou stated, the stunning arrogance and short-sightedness of Obama will be his downfall. If he is that confident that Obamacare will be upheld (I don't think it will), imagine how incredulous he will be when he is overwhelmingly defeated in November (I think he will be).
A narcissist is his own worst enemy, and the sycophants that surround him better tell the emperor to put on some clothes!!
Timely Renewed | 4.10.12 @ 7:32PM
Obama certainly is tracking FDR's anti-Court campaign of the 1930s. But the analogy does not end with the failure of FDR's court-packing scheme and the Republican resurgence in 1938. FDR ultimately was victorious in his fight against the Constitution because he was able to name 8 of the 9 justices by the end of his presidency. These New Deal justices ripped a hole in the interstate commerce clause which persists to this day and is the basis for the expansion of the federal government far beyond its original constitutional bounds even before Obamacare.
Of course, the framers recognized that they could not foresee all situations, and that the Constitution may have to be adjusted. However, their method for accommodating such adjustments was the democratic process of amendment, not the dictate of unelected and unaccountable judges who have now strayed far from the Constitution's original meaning. Even if Obamacare is overturned, all of those New Deal Supreme Court precedents which allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional bounds will remain in effect.
We need to reform the moribund amendment process so that the states can initiate and enact constitutional amendments without having to go through Congress or the unworkable archaic mechanism of a convention. Then grassroots patriots working on the state level can use amendment to roll back and restrain the federal leviathan to its original limits. Only then will be free not only from Obamacare but every other federal power grab of the last 75 years. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
The Bruce| 4.11.12 @ 1:53AM
"We need to reform the moribund amendment process so that the states can initiate and enact constitutional amendments "
No need. Article V of the Constitution already allows the States (two-thirds of the State Legislatures) to initiate a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. A proposed amendment is considered ratified if 3/4 of the State Legislatures vote in favor.
Luckily, the Founders left an avenue for both the US Congress, AND the State Legislatures to get the amendment process going.
Publius6| 4.12.12 @ 10:00AM
The broad interpretation of the commerce clause did not begin in the Roosevelt administration. It began with the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons vs. Ogden ( 1819 ) and particularly in the concurring opinion of Jusice Johnson. Marshall was a leading light in the Federalist party- a party considered by many today to be the forerunner of the modern Republicans.
Gary B| 4.11.12 @ 7:10AM
This poll is less a referendum on the Supreme Court than it is on the Constitution. Ratings on the court would continue heading north if they would uphold the Constitution (their sworn duty) every time they met. Apparently, that's a radical concept.
kevin| 4.12.12 @ 1:00AM
You idiots really believe the supreme court is for us? They will not overturn the obamacare. They play like the politicians, they pretend like they are in-fighting, so that you think everything has been done and u are more likely to accept the conclusion. Wake up !!!! jackasses, you should have voted for Ron Paul. If all of the establishment is against him, then he is for us. duh!!
Publius6| 4.12.12 @ 9:47AM
Obama's badly flawed precedents arguments in favor of his healthcare law, viewed as an "attack " on the Supreme Court pale in comparison with the slashing attacks of Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Court. Roosevellt accused the Court of " relegating us to the horse and buggy definition of interstate commerce " and of reading into the Constitution their own personal economic predilections, Congress, a super leegislature.