Back before alcohol ads were regulated to death by the federal government, one beer maker, Schlitz, used the tag line “You only go around once in life, so you’ve got to grab for all the gusto you can get.” The message was clear: you get one shot at things, so don’t waste time with half-measures – don’t ask permission, at worst, beg forgiveness. Evidently, The Chosen One has taken these words to heart in more ways than one, and has decided to implement this slogan as his modus operandi for the rest of his term in office. Hence, his comments yesterday regarding the Supreme Court.
Obama hopes that you’ve forgotten everything you ever learned in Civics class. And in American History. (Ever wonder why public schools have either watered down Civics and American History, or just don’t bother to teach them any more? THIS is why.) Here, in part, is what he said yesterday:
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. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.
The President has made a number of fundamental errors in his statement. Let’s see if we can figure out just what the former head of the Harvard Law Review and a guy who taught Constitutional Law at the college level actually knows about the U.S. Constitution.
FIrst of all, the Supreme Court (in Marbry v. Madison) established the principle of Judicial Review in, oh, what was it? 1803. If you’re rusty on your civics, this is the part where we learn that the Supreme Court has the final say on if a law is “constitutional” or not. Essentially, once they have ruled, it’s ‘game over.’ Since the Constitution was ratified, Supreme Court justices have been nominated by the President and ratified by the Senate. They are not elected. They serve for life – not at the pleasure of We the People, the Congress, or the President. Simply put, this is to keep them from being swayed by a desire to keep their jobs or be influenced by anything other than the question of constitutionality. It’s what they do. Apparently, Obama believes that, if you pass a law with enough of a majority of elected Congressmen, that should trump whatever the Supremes rule. To call a potential overturning of ObamaCare “unprecedented” or “extraordinary” is a bald-faced lie. The court overturns laws all the time. It’s their job. This law is no different, in that respect, from the thousand or so others they’ve overturned since the early 1800s. Obama then goes on to play the “Judicial Activism” card. Bear in mind, the charge of “judicial activism” is usually leveled at Liberal judges who create new case law out of thin air, as when the Supreme Court magically created a “right” for women to have abortions. Even Justice Hugo Black warned that they were opening a can o’ worms with that one, speculating that there was no Constitutional authority for what they’d done. (He was right on that one.) If the court practices judicial activism, they would have to create a constitutional right where none existed, or write a majority opinion that fundamentally wrote a new law into the books, without the benefit of Congressional input. THAT’S judicial activism. What the Supreme Court is about to do – rule on the constitutionality of ObamaCare – is their job.
Obama’s comments serve two purposes. First, he’s attempting to bully the Supreme Court into bending to his will. Funny thing, since the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, the Supremes don’t bow down to the President – ANY President. And historically, they’ve taken a dim view of Presidents who attempt to make them subservient to the White House. Second, it sets up his excuse if/when the Supremes overturn his “signature” piece of legislation. When this this gets tossed, to paraphrase that well-known philosopher, Desi Arnaz, he gonna have some ‘splainin’ to do. His idea is apparently to get his licks in early, and set up the Supreme Court as a convenient whipping boy, just as the Dems did when the Supreme Court decided the question about the Florida recount in Bush v. Gore. (Editor’s note: eleven years after the fact, a newspaper has finally completed a recount of the entire state of Florida. Conventional wisdom held that if the Supreme Court had rulled in Gore’s favor, Gore would have won the state of Florida, and thus the electoral vote. As it turns out, Bush won the final recount by an even larger margin – about three times larger, actually – than he did in the recount that, er, counted. In other words, no matter which way you look at it, Gore lost. Deal with it.)
So here we have a guy who supposedly knows the Constitution, exhibiting a shocking lack of understanding about how the branches of government function under the law. That leaves us with a lot of questions, but with only a few potential answers:
- He’s not that sharp, and actually has no idea what the Constitution means
- He’s so wrapped up in his dogma, he’ll say anything to have his way, even if it means trampling the Constitution
- He looks at the Constitution as an inconvenient impediment to being able to implement his agenda, and he’s willing to ignore it, trash it, or subvert it to grab the power he needs to do whatever he wants.
I’m gonna go with “All of the Above,” Dick. It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it. I’d give it about an “8.”
Over the last three years, I’ve come to believe that Obama is not nearly as smart as his fans believe him to be. Why? Because a really smart guy wouldn’t do things like insult the Supreme Court just before they rule on his big legislative accomplishment. A smart guy wouldn’t brag that ObamaCare passed by a “large margin.” (It didn’t. It squeaked by in both the House and the Senate. And if it were voted on today, it would fail in both chambers. And did I mention that a solid majority of Americans – both then and now – are against ObamaCare?) And a really smart guy would have crafted a piece of legislation that would have attracted a large number of those from the opposite side of the political fence, if only to give him the cover of “bi-partisanship.”
I believe Obama is a Marxist. Pure and simple, there’s too much evidence that he is a True Believer, and is Hell-bent to destroy the Constitution, Capitalism, Free Enterprise, Self-Sufficiency, and virtually every other precept that makes America unique in the world. I believe he puts his ideology ahead of the Constitution and everything else.
Lastly, I believe he’s willing to stop at nothing to grab power. With the combination of illegal recess appointments, signing statements, executive orders, appointments and downright subversive acts hes done since taking office, there is no doubt in my mind that he wants to consolidate power in the White House, and make both the Legislative and Judicial branches completely subservient to his will.
In an interesting turn of events, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Obama’s Justice Department to clarify and explain Obama’s recent remarks. This is the moral equivalent of turning Eric Holder over their metaphorical knee and giving him a very public spanking. The court demanded a three page explanation of Obama’s remarks. This is fundamentally a shot across the bow of the U.S.S. ObamaNation, letting Obama know that it’s not nice to screw with Federally-appointed judges, and to encourage him to stop playing politics on the issue. (Good luck with that last one.)
Don’t be surprised if we see a “Wag the Dog” scenario and the country falls under martial law, elections are “suspended” and wagons are circled, as Obama becomes more and more desperate, even as his re-election prospect continue to dim. I’m convinced this guy will stop at nothing to stay in office. And he’ll make the advice of that beer commercial look as though it was prescient, from a political point of view.
Leave a Reply