Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Supreme Irony



Alleged Constitutional scholar Barack Obama was shocked - shocked! - this week to learn of the existence and purpose of something called "The Supreme Court."

In a rose garden speech, the man who taught Constitutional law at the now
thoroughly discredited University of Chicago petulantly announced that this so-called Supreme Court would be taking an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" if they overturn a law which was enacted by Congress.

Which, of course, is one of the primary responsibilities the Supreme Court was assigned when the body was created in the Constitution (which Obama hasn't actually
read, but has "heard a lot about"). And far from being an unprecedented or extraordinary step, the Supreme Court has struck down over 150 laws deemed to not be Constitutional, and has done so for over 200 years now.

But the shocks did not end there for the president. Because with a look of slack-jawed, baffled outrage, he announced his discovery that the members of the Supreme Court are
"an unelected group of people," implying that they lack the moral authority that comes from being answerable to voters.

Oh,
really...?

Because the dark, ugly heart throbbing at the center of Obamacare is the
Independent Payment Advisory Board - known as IPAB to the politically correct, and as The Death Panel to realists. This is Obama's 15-member board of unelected people who will decide what medical treatments the government will and won't pay for, and who will (and importantly, who won't) get treatment. These are the unaccountable individuals who will take Obama's euthanistic threat to pass out painkillers instead of pacemakers and give it the power of law. Law which is specifically not subject to review by any court.

Supposedly, it's the "unelected" status of the IPAB members which Obama heralds as making them more fair than any
political body could be - which is the exact opposite of the president's criticism of the Supreme Court.

But that doesn't mean that the IPAB will be free of outside influences when making our life-and-death decisions. Far from it! Obamacare specifically mandates that the board "may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property" when making their decisions. It's practically sending out an engraved invitation for bribes...
and making them completely legal!

So in the future, your life may hang not on what kind of insurance you have, but on
whether you have 15 Rolex watches to give away. And if you're hoping to get the government to buy huge quantities of GM Volt Pacemakers which only occasionally burst into flame, you'd better keep your corporate jet fueled up to take the IPAB members to Club Med and provide some pretty good escort services (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) once they get there.

In summary,
Hope n' Change has to admit that we don't really think that Barack Obama is as ignorant of the Constitution as he pretends to be. We think he probably knows it pretty well.

And he
hates it.

Which is why he has taken the truly "unprecedented, extraordinary step" of publically attacking the Supreme Court's very right to rule on Constitutional matters (and therefore to even exist)...thereby directly challenging the structure of our government and the safeguards which the Founding Fathers established specifically to protect us from would-be dictators.

So serious and frightening is Obama's challenge to our nation's system of checks and balances that a Federal Appeals Court has just ordered (not asked) Eric Holder's Justice Department to turn in a written statement by Thursday explaining whether or not this administration concedes the authority of the Supreme Court.

Because if it doesn't, then Obamacare will be the least of our worries.


-

38 comments:

drjim said...

Yep. Gonna get REAL interesting between now and November!

BS Footprint said...

I heard President O's comments today, and I was floored.

It occurs to me that he's just trying to spin things such that the believers will know who to blame should O-Care be struck down.

I mean, never waste an opportunity to engage in good, old-fashioned demagoguery.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@drjim- It ain't going to be pretty.

@BS Footprint- I agree with the body of thought that Obama is so actively attacking the Supreme Court because he's already been tipped off that the private vote amongst the Justices went against him (and the smart money is on Justice Kagan being the squealer who leaked the results - perhaps for the first time in Supreme Court history).

BS Footprint said...

@Stilton:

Just when I thought I couldn't find anything more to dislike about B.O.'s rhetoric... this is really sad.

But I suppose B.O. has to think about what comes after ObeyMeCare is struck down, and how to gain from it -- slamming the Supreme Court for failing to pay proper respect to the legislative and executive branches is but one tool in his bag of tricks.

Coon Tasty said...

I can't wait to see how the Democrats and their MSM allies turn this into a "Conservative War on Poor People" issue.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Unelected group of people? And just what are his gaggle of effing czars? I don't remember voting for them. The only vote I'd ever cast for any of them is to deny parole.
Congress has been rendered irrelevant by diktat. Now the SCOTUS is to be ignored. Tell me we don't have a tyrant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Of course the media can't be bothered to notice. They're too busy fluffing.

Pete(Detroit) said...

We, as a country, need to adopt the Nancy Reagan policy of 'just say NO'. NO to higher spending, NO to freebies and handouts, NO to benefits for illegals.
Just
Say
No

We can NOT flipping afford it anymore.
And the biggest, loudest NO of all to those jack ass-hatted politicians who's career is built on freebies and handouts.
See also one President Obama.

Tim said...

Don't know what I like more - the irony you showed us, or the Casablanca reference.

Colby said...

Methinks Barry-O stepped in it this time. Imagine being a Supreme Court Justice and hearing this crap from some arrogant ass that was snorting coke when you were studying your ass off in law school. If I had ANY reservations as to my decision on this law, they would sure be down the tubes now! I would be plotting subtle ways to rub his face in his own poop.

As much as Barry wants a single branch government (him) he is still, thank God, stuck with the three branches we still more or less have. If SCOTUS kicks his stupid ass law to the curb, there isn't a damn thing he can do about it but whine to the mental 5 year olds that will vote for him anyway.

Oh yes, if the law gets the ax, the LSM will make it out to be like the greatest disaster in the history of the USA. I can almost hear Ed Shultz calling the SCOTUS a bunch of Nazis or something. Let 'em stew in their ignorance and hate. I will be celebrating a small victory for freedom!

Mike Porter said...

It would appear that the IRS remains happily ignorant of the current state of affairs. The linked article below will make your blood boil if it isn't boiling already. If the SCOTUS righteously bitch-slaps the individual mandate (which hopefully leads to the demise of this mind-numbingly obnoxious legislation), will the IRS eventually get the message? If not, might I suggest that every American fill out this portion of their tax return with '$crew you!'

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/03/29/irs-already-gearing-up-for-health-care-crackdown/

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@BS Footprint- Obama isn't stupid enough to believe his own arguments here, but he has good reason to believe that Democrat voters are. But he's mounting a direct attack on our Constitutional system of government and dividing the country (yet again!) just to try to get his sorry ass reelected. He is despicable.

@Coon Tasty- I'm sure you won't have to wait long. Though Obama already has his class war whipped nicely into shape, so I think the Supreme Court issue will become the new "War on Voters." You read it here first (and I hope last - but I have a nasty feeling it won't be).

@Pete(Detroit)- And let's not forget one of the BIGGEST reasons to decisively say "no!" to Obama in November: to deny him the ability to pack the Supreme Court with more liberal ideologues. We still don't know if we'll have dodged a bullet when the Court announces its ruling in June - but you can damn well believe that if Obama gets another Justice pick or two, we might as well tear up the Constitution.

@Colby- Good summary. The Supreme Court will be excoriated in the media if they rule against Obama. But they have lifetime appointments specifically so they can (or at least should) shake off such considerations.

@Mike Porter- Good link, and you're right: my already-boiling blood has now been superheated to the point where I could probably get a large government grant as a possible energy source. Since the IRS can't wait to hear the Supreme Court's decision, they're rolling ahead with 4000 new agents to "enforce" the Healthcare mandates (nothing says "healthcare" like a guy threatening to break your legs), and new plans to share citizens previously private IRS records with other agencies and even private companies.

Obama frequently promised that his plan wouldn't put anyone between "you and your doctor." But now, the freaking Internal Revenue Service stands between doctor and patient. Any questions?

John the Econ said...

The question I have been pondering for the last week or so is "What is his plan for when ObamaCare gets tossed?" Obama and his team of Marxists are not idiots; they knew going in that the Non-Affordable Care Act had a better-than-even chance at being tossed, either in part of its entirety. None of this is a surprise. So there is a plan.

And remember that the entire purpose of the act was to destroy what was left of the private market. Even if it is repealed as a whole, it's still done irreparable damage to the health care economy, driving us even closer to their real goal, "Single Payer".

I think we may have seen a glimpse of the plan this week: He's attempting to provoke a Constitutional crisis. Remember, he'd already pissed off the Supreme Court justices over his out-of-line State of the Union tirade on the Citizens United ruling. (which he has absolutely no problem what-so-ever exploiting) Taking cheap shots at the justices before they come to a ruling seems like an odd tactic, does it not? After all, the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. They don't have to answer to him, or anyone.

I think Obama wants ObamaCare ruled unconstitutional. Pissing off Kennedy & Roberts, the supposed swing votes hardly seems like a strategy to achieve anything otherwise.

I'd brace myself for an ugly summer. He and his cohorts in the media and the race pimps and have already got the minorities pumped up thanks to the totally non-sequitur Trayvon nonsense. When the Surpreme dumps on ObamaCare, either in part or in its entirety, expect something interesting, and highly disruptive.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Tim- Sorry for the delay getting your comment posted; Blogger (which works in mysterious ways) had put your remark in a Spam folder which I quickly unSpammed.

And of course, the Casablanca reference was deliberate!

ImperialDave said...

I hate to correct you on something, because I whole-heartedly agree with everything you said, but the Supreme Court's power of judicial review was NOT, "assigned when the body was created in the Constitution." This was a power they took upon themselves in the Supreme Court Case, Marbury v. Madison.

ImperialDave said...

The Constitution just says:
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

It was modified by the 11th Amendment to say:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Except for an excerpt about Treason, that's it. Nothing in there about Judicial review.

ImperialDave said...

In fact, Thomas Jefferson, as well as other Founders, was vehemently opposed to the Supreme Court using judicial review of the Constitution, "BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Here's a whole page of his other quotes on the subject: http://www.restore-government-accountability.com/judicial-tyranny.html

BS Footprint said...

@Stilton - If I may share my snarky take on B.O.'s statements with your readers: Obama takes unprecedented stance: Supreme Court shouldn't overturn his crowning achievement.

Sorry. I can't help it. I have no mouth and I must scream.

BS Footprint said...

@ImperialDave: A claim (by a state or a citizen of a state) that Congress exceeded its duly-constituted authority when drafting a law is certainly a valid Controversy.

So while I appreciate and understand your claim that there is no explicit judicial review power in the Constitution, I'd argue it's a necessary and proper power.

Otherwise, we might as well say that there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, and that no citizen or state has redress beyond tossing out the current batch of misbehaving congressmen and the President.

rickn8or said...

"...overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

It doesn't matter if the vote in Congress was 435-0 and 100-0, (which it wasn't) if the Supreme Court says the law is unconstitutional, it's gone.

You'd think a Constitutional Law professor would know that.

BS Footprint said...

@ImperialDave - Continuing on (oh, I wish I could edit my comments...)

I agree that a case can be made that there is no authority for judicial review, and that Jefferson et al's concerns RE judicial tyranny are quite valid, and in fact the judicial branch has exceeded its authority from time to time.

The real issue here is that The Prez claims this is unprecedented, when in fact it is not. Even if we consider the recent spin that Obama was talking about the SCOTUS' commerce clause jurisprudence and its shameful habit of letting Congress do as it pleases by claiming that something has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the SCOTUS has, on occasion, struck down legislation for exceeding commerce clause authority.

And that means that Obama's claims are bogus. Period.

He's welcome to make the argument that the SCOTUS has no valid authority to strike down laws. In fact, I'd welcome that argument, and be willing to consider arguments in support of his position.

But I doubt he or his cohorts will do any such thing, because SCOTUS judicial review has been a powerful tool in their arsenal when it suits them.

And that's what makes Obama's statements so odious.

BS Footprint said...

@Stilton- "Obama frequently promised that his plan wouldn't put anyone between "you and your doctor." But now, the freaking Internal Revenue Service stands between doctor and patient. Any questions?"

I've said it before (but few have heard, because I'm just a crank) -- Government-run health care is like HMOs With Guns.

What sane, rational person would think this is going to improve the situation?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- I don't think Obama wants Obamacare ruled unconstitutional, but he'll be perfectly happy to provoke a Constitutional crisis if that's the way the chips fall. And Obamacare isn't even really the primary concern at the heart of all this: it's Obama's wish (in my opinion) to completely break down our country and then rebuild it to his liking without the burdens of our Constitution.

@Imperial Dave- You're right that it was Marbury v. Madison that established the Supreme Court's judicial review powers, and I appreciate the correction. And Thomas Jefferson made a good point about the potential for abuse of this power, but Alexander Hamilton, writing in the 78 Federalist, made what seems a better argument that the threat is less than Jefferson feared. Then again, when I see how the Court gets stacked these days, I'm sometimes not so sure...

@BS Footprint- Great breakdown of the president's petulant statement (line by line). I recommend readers click on BS's link for a quick, enjoyable, and on-target read!

@rickn8or- When Obama referred to a "strong majority," I don't think he meant numerically large, just "strong" in the sense of a smelly gym sock or some particularly rancid cheese.

@BS Footprint- Whether Obama likes (or knows) the law or not, even he can't deny 200 years of established precedent. The Supreme Court is what it is, whether he likes it or not.

And "HMOs with guns" is exactly what we're looking at. And when you ask what sane and rational person would think this will help...you've answered your own question.

John the Econ said...

@Stilton, I don't think it matters. ObamaCare has achieved it's goal; further disruption to an already disrupted marketplace. If it stands, it will clearly destroy what is left. If it's tossed out, an already weakened system will not likely recover, and millions more people will have lost their insurance in the meantime and will be unable to get it back, either due to unaffordability or pre-existing conditions. These people will provide fodder for the Democrats, and flood the existing system as unfunded charity cases bankrupting it.

This battle was lost when Obama was elected. He's already won, no matter what the court rules. The only question is on exactly how he'll increase the collateral damage once it's tossed.

Pete(Detroit) said...

John, that makes a truly disturbing amount of sense....

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- You argue your point convincingly (frighteningly so) but I prefer to hold out a little hope that our insurance system can not only be saved, but genuinely fixed.

That being said, even in a best case scenario of tossing Obama out of office, he will leave a greater and more lasting scar on this nation than the 9-11 attacks...and I don't say that lightly.

@Pete(Detroit)- Don't you hate it when he does that? (grin)

Coon Tasty said...

I agree with John: it is too late. Obama The Destroyer has accomplished his mission.

pryorguy said...

Wow, I am watching a VERY angry barack obama on tv in response to Paul Ryan's budget plan...my, he looks so presidential with his eyes bugged out and his chin up in defiance! I do believe he is beginning to unravel with his rage as unreasonaable people always do when they think they see the writing on the wall.

I hope and pray that many many Americans have seen his vision for America and it is enough, along with gas prices, unemployment, the national debt, Obamacare, etc., to make them consider the fact that he is NOT the anointed One after all!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Coon Tasty- Well, his mission will be unquestionably accomplished when everyone declares he's won. So just to be contrarian, I'll continue fighting.

@Pryorguy- You raise an interesting point: America (bless its occasionally pointed little head) elected "Hope and Change" Obama. Post-racial Obama. Bipartisan Obama. "No red states and no blue states" Obama. But that guy never really existed, and he sure as hell can't run this time around. No, this election will be about angry Obama. Failed Obama. Devisive Obama. Petulant, smug, self-righteous Obama. And that may not be so pleasant for even stupid voters to swallow.

BS Footprint said...

@Stilton- You forgot finger-pointing Obama. I'm sure it was due to temporarily diminished capacity on your part.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Stilt (and John) Yes, I DO... He speaks well and convincingly w/ words that ring true.

WAYYYY BITD When I was still a freshman, and Reagan was president, and gas could be had for less than a dollar, I would hear people ask "Why doesn't (the U, the Department, the Prof, etc) do THIS (ie, take a sensible response to a situation)?"
I came up w/ the response "because that would make sense, and is therefore immediately suspicious."

I see the same pattern(s) in the corporate world, and the phrase has served me well.

Therefore, when I see someone making sense, I tend to get suspicious.

Our Friend John the Econ makes MUCH sense, and as a result I'm inclined to have fits.

Not his fault - I blame {strike}Obama{/strike} Bush

(yeah, looks like we can't strike through stuff - s'okay, I blame 'em both. Bush was also a 'spendocrat' who was always trying to buy popularity w/ freebies, the jackass. Tho, compared to O, he was a total piker... See also 'Bob the Local' getting a quickie in a strip club vs. Elliot Spitzer dropping $4k / hr of state $$$ on some class. Face it, O knows how to blow the wad!)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@BS Footprint- Nah, my capacity wasn't diminished...my fingers were just getting tired.

@Pete(Detroit)- Frequently when things make "too much sense" it's because someone is trying to talk us into sticking our foot in a snare. But I'll make an exception in this reasoning for John the Econ, who seemingly always makes sense. I don't think he can help it (grin).

And I'm with you on looking at the wretched history of Government spending and heaping blame on BOTH parties. Though as you say, Barry is something special in this regard.

Pete(Detroit) said...

I'd suggest taking up a collection to get him his own bus, but he's already GOT one - the Canadian Dearth Vader Tour Special...

Coon Tasty said...

@Pete(Detroit) - You make Obama sound like Tobias F√ľnke:

"I’m afraid I prematurely shot my wad on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so I’m afraid I have something of a mess on my hands...."

Personally, I find Tobias to be the more manly of the two, though. And certainly a helluva lot more likeable.

John the Econ said...

@Pete(Detroit), you are right; there would never have been Obama without Bush, a Clinton without another Bush, or a Carter without a Nixon/Ford. (squishies, all of them)

But on the upside, there never would have been a Reagan without a Carter and the preceding parade of GOP squishies, so there is some hope. I just hope it happens in time. A year ago, I had hoped that the Tea Party would give birth to someone worthy of the legacy of Reagan. But clearly not yet.

As for "making sense", I apologize for the fits that causes.

But to give you some hope, I have been wrong before. For example, since the '80s I had always argued that the first female or black President of the US would be a conservative. This was because any female or black running as a Democrat would necessarily have to conform to the liberal narrative of what a female or black individual should be; either a raging, man-hating feminist or a quota-beneficiary bigoted toady; both of which would be totally repulsive and unappealing to mainstream Americans. (Race or gender would not be the primary qualification for a true conservative candidate)

(I still believe that if the Iraq war had not turned out to be such a cluster, we'd currently be campaigning for the 2nd Condoleezza Rice term; she was a two-fer!)

So see, it happens.

Pete(Detroit) said...

As much as I truly like adn respect Condi, I think she got tainted by Bush giving her goofy instructions.

IIRC, the Press meme at teh time was that she was not bright (typical treatment of Conservative Women) and 'uncle tommish' (typical for conservative blacks)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pete(Detroit)- I'm willing to let Obama keep Darth Bus as a lovely parting gift as long as he uses it to get the heck out of Washington.

@Coon Tasty- Tobias would get my vote over Obama. Then again, who wouldn't?

@John the Econ- Wait, when you're wrong it's because you underestimated the possibility of Dems electing a quota-beneficiary bigoted toady? How is that supposed to make us feel better? (wry grin)

@Pete(Detroit)- Yeah, Condi was just a figure skater, a concert pianist, a scholar, and a strong political advisor. But to really be a black woman of significance, you need to plant yams and lead the nation in jumping jacks.

LLoyd said...

Stilton,
You ARE the Ramirez of the what I would call the 3 box toon. What POWER you invoke and the absolute uniqueness of your ideas in making and getting a 'pernt' across. This is one of the best you have ever done and I see by the comments one that deserved the replies you got.

This is a 'keeper' for me. Great job Stilton.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Lloyd- All I can say is "awww, shucks" and a sincere "thank you!"