"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld,"
The president said overturning the law would be "an unprecedented and
extraordinary step" and compared the court's rejection of the law to
"judicial activism."

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench
was judicial activism," The president stressed that the judges
are "unelected" and noted that the law was passed by a
democratically elected Congress.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

I guess it wasn't bad enough insulting the court at his State of the Union?

He must really have toilet paper imprinted with the Constitution on it.

President Obama Goes on Record Opposing Marbury v. Madison

Posted by Leon H. Wolf (Diary)

Monday, April 2nd at 6:26PM EDT

For a guy who graduated from Harvard Law, Barack Obama is not really very well versed on his law or his legal history. Speaking out today about the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare, Obama offered this stunning and completely ahistorical nugget:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.

Look, I’m not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with anyone, but the fact remains that since that decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been “unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without serious challenge ever since.

I would seriously like to know, and I hope the press gets Obama on the record on this – is it President Obama’s contention that the Supreme Court’s only role in reviewing legislation is to double-check the count on the roll call vote to make sure that a majority in fact voted for the law and to check the President’s signature for possible forgery? Because, I mean, if that’s what we’re going to go back to, I’m open to having that discussion but we are going to have to figure out what to do with several hundred SCOTUS decisions that have taken a decidedly different view.

Of course, in making these comments Obama is exposing himself yet again as a cynical hack who is devoid of anything resembling shame. In 2003, the United States Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by substantially larger margins than Obamacare. When the Supreme Court refused to strike down this law, which was passed by a “democratically elected Congress,” then-Senator Obama threw an absolute hissy fit about the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld the clear will of Congress (and the vast majority of the American people).

However, when it’s his own legislation at stake, Obama seems suddenly ready to go back and undo pretty much every Supreme Court precedent over the last 200 years in order to strip the Court of their power to rule on any question other than whether the roll call was tallied properly. The most galling thing of all is that if any Republican had said this, the media would be busily trying to paint them as an uneducated rube who was unaware of Marbury v. Madison - when Obama says it, it’s presented as a thoughtful defense of his brilliant law.

www.redstate.com . . .

. . . . . Let's face it folks, the progrssive ideology is that the US Constitution is obsolete and that the masses should just succumb to the tyranny of either the Congress, the executive branch or the judicial branch....whichever they control and therefore control us. Liberals are nothing less than fascists in sheeps' clothing.

ymifrench wrote:

. . . . Let's face it folks, the progrssive ideology is that the US Constitution is obsolete

and that the masses should just succumb to the tyranny of either the Congress, the executive branch or the judicial branch.

Liberals are nothing less than fascists in sheeps' clothing.

In the name of freedom, the world should intervene in the US to save you from your oppressive Government

.

jeanv wrote:

ymifrench wrote:

. . . . Let's face it folks, the progrssive ideology is that the US Constitution is obsolete

and that the masses should just succumb to the tyranny of either the Congress, the executive branch or the judicial branch.

Liberals are nothing less than fascists in sheeps' clothing.

In the name of freedom, the world should intervene in the US to save you from your oppressive Government

.

. . . . . Unfortunately, "the world" has governments that are either more oppressive or are militarily unable to intervene. Mythinks that IF the day comes, the people of the US who truly care about our country will be able to handle it by themselves.

retreat_retreat wrote:

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld,"
The president said overturning the law would be "an unprecedented and
extraordinary step" and compared the court's rejection of the law to
"judicial activism."

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench
was judicial activism," The president stressed that the judges
are "unelected" and noted that the law was passed by a
democratically elected Congress.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

I guess it wasn't bad enough insulting the court at his State of the Union?

He must really have toilet paper imprinted with the Constitution on it.

I do not know how old you are mate, but you know shit about the evolution of the separation of powers and way less than my 20 yo students.

maxdorleans wrote:

I do not know how old you are mate, but you know shit about the evolution of the separation of powers and way less than my 20 yo students.

Max knows shit. He knows more than his students and since they know more than you, he knows double the shit that you know. Woha.

fuck nut in chief "constitutional professor" just figured out that the scotus isn't elected, and has YET to discover what they do?

You know... like... deliberate and decide the constitutionality of laws?

No. He's a smart dude. He's just completely full of shit.


In summary: He was betting on his cult hysteria to last until the law became too entrenched to extract from the rectum up which he shoved it.

It didn't. So fuck him.

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

This answered the question on what SCOTUS could do over 200 years ago.

Fuck Obama.

To the world's smartest man, Judicial Activism = Making Law from the bench. It is not striking down laws that barely pass in the middle of the night with every parliamentary trick in the book. Also the only bipartisanship on 0bama HellCare was AGAINST IT.

When the SCOAMF says things like this it really scares me as to what the little tyrant will try if he gets a second term.

"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench
was judicial activism," The president stressed that the judges
are "unelected" and noted that the law was passed by a
democratically elected Congress.

The hypocrisy, even by Obama standards, is simply staggering. 2 of the SCOTUS judges are Obama appointees. Secondly, how many unelected czars do we have setting policy on healthcare, energy, and corporate tax rates thanks to Obama?

The best part is that liberals have used judicial activism for years to try and sue gun companies out of business. Sotamayor herself even raised the issue with a wink wink and nod. And now he has the stones to bitch about SCOTUS tossing out Obamacare?

Fuck TDL™:

trainer wrote:

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

This answered the question on what SCOTUS could do over 200 years ago.

Fuck Obama.

Thomas Jefferson knew how to play hard ball. Adams being the carter/obama of the 1790's and Jefferson gave him the smack down he deserved.

The only justification the liberals use for Obamacare is this: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

Read Federalist 42 and for a more detailed explanation as to the purpose of the commerce clause. Not surprisingly ramming laws down Americas throat that have nothing to do with the enumerated powers is not in there. Obamacare requires a constitutional amendment if they want it that bad. Take prohibition for example. For as stupid and pointless as it was, at least the Temperance movement went about it the right way. Obamacare is finished.

I am at least glad to see that Obama has seen the light on unelected bodies.

Can we expect that he'll start to rip on the EPA, FCC, FDA, EEOC, and other unelected bodies?

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power.

The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.

"Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.

Throw some more gas on the fire boy.