The Real Reason Obama Attacked The Supreme Court
April 5, 2012 | Tags: barack obama, freedom
Barack Obama disrespected the office of the presidency, once again, with a speech he gave earlier this week. His challenge to the Supreme Court’s authority was wrong. They represent an equal but separate power of our government. It is not his place. Further, to do it while they are considering his case (Obama-care) was unprofessional, undignified and shameful. It is a new low. And, though you’ll never read it in “proper” publications or hear it spoken by talking heads, most of America is asking a simple question, ‘just who the hell does this guy think he is?’
“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,” Obama said. Then adding, “I’d like to 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.”
Let’s see, strong majority? Hardly. Obama-care passed the Democratic controlled House by seven votes. Judicial activism is not determining whether a law is or is not constitutional. As he would have you believe. Judicial activism is when judges allow their personal outlooks to guide their decisions, often contrary to precedent or well established interpretations of the Constitution. And to push the idea that “…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed…” is just a blatant lie. That’s a large part of what the Supreme Court does.
USA Today, showed clearly, the Supreme Court has a long precedent of over-turning cases. Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137):
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. … If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
The Constitution is first. All other laws are evaluated against the principles put forth by the Constitution. Period. End of discussion.
The truth is, in law school the Marbury case, when compared to a general education for us common folk, is on the scale of gravity or the world is round. It is a foundational block. There’s no chance it is skipped. And there is no chance, none, that Obama missed the class that day. No, he just outright lied to the American people, again. But why?
The prevailing thought is Obama’s comments were meant to intimidate the court, in hopes they will rule on Obama-care in his favor.
Texas Republican Lamar Smith, “I am very disappointed by our President,” Smith told FOX News Radio. “That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I’m not sure that’s appropriate,” he added.
Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, “What President Obama is doing here isn’t right,” Johanns said Tuesday in an interview with local Nebraska radio station KLIN. “It is threatening, it is intimidating.”
Newsmax.com reported, “Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III told Newsmax that President Barack Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court earlier this week was a dangerous attempt to “intimidate” the justices into upholding his controversial Obama-care law.”
Meese went on to say, “I think he is trying to intimidate the court, or at least trying to in effect rile up the public against the court — if they should make a decision which is constitutional, and which is adverse to him,” declared Meese.
Intimidation seems like a valid interpretation of his motives. But I’m skeptical. I find it difficult to believe the Supreme Court would ultimately be intimidated. Members don’t answer to votes. The reason for a life appointment to the bench is to allow them to rule without concern for popularity.
No, I don’t see intimidation. I see something a little more nasty. Obama, for his myriad flaws, is no dummy. He knows the law of the land. He knows his comments are inaccurate and will be called out. What folks are failing to realize, or acknowledge, is that he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care whether his comments are challenged by attorneys. He doesn’t care if the media rips his comments. The speech wasn’t for attorneys or the media or for white America. The truth is, and this is another reality you’ll be hard pressed to find in “proper” publications, his comments were aimed directly at the poor and uneducated.
Consider it. Reality for these folks is predominately grape-vine here-say, provided by friends, neighbors and family. Few of these folks are going to contemplate whether the mandate is constitutional or not, or whether the penalty is a tax or a fine. Even less will actually care. It’s not their reality. These folks don’t investigate contrasting opinions and cross-reference material to make reasonable judgments. They’re more likely to form an opinion based on sound-bites they hear from the news before their favorite TV show. They rely on headlines, not content. And that is exactly why Obama said what he said.
You and I hear a disrespectful challenge to the Supreme Court. The uneducated hear their hero standing up to white America. When Obama says if the court strikes down Obama-care it will be “unprecedented”, you and I hear a lie. His audience hears him warning them the white man is sticking it to them again. But don’t blame the people. It’s not their fault. Democrats have fostered this outlook, through buying votes with assistance programs, for generations. Republicans are not guiltless either, for they sat back and, mostly through inaction, allowed it to occur.
Interestingly, the prevailing thought is that Obama has to conduct a slash and burn re-election campaign because he can’t run on his record, as he lacks accomplishments. I submit the reality is the exact opposite. He has, from his and the radical left perspective, accomplished much. He didn’t make a mistake when challenging the Supreme Court. It was an intentional play. He regularly ignores, disrespects and cherry-picks constitutional law. Why, because he doesn’t know the law? Please. He does this to break the mold, to set a precedent, so others will, also, because if you get enough people saying, for example, healthcare is a right, then healthcare becomes a right. He is not after subtle change. He is after a complete re-build of America as we know it.
Why has he attacked the energy industries with such ferocity? He knows he can’t transform America’s energy infrastructure during a presidential term. Although a proper objective, going green will take America 30 or 40 years. So, why not, as any reasonable person would do, slowly unroll policy and nudge America along? Instead, he goes for the jugular and uses going green as cover for his destruction of America as we know it. It’s simple really. If you force the energy industries to conduct business expensively they must, in turn, raise the price to the public. When the public pays more money for heat, electricity or gas, they have less for other things. He is about stripping the wealth from the citizens because “money is power” and he can’t meet his radical objectives while the citizenry has power.
Why has he not demanded a budget from the senate, run by the party he controls? Why has the deficit increased by some $5 trillion dollars under his watch? Is it because he doesn’t realize he’s spending money we don’t have? Or is it to intentionally destabilize the country? When the Fed prints money, the value of the dollar decreases. That means you have less money.
Why has he done absolutely nothing about unemployment? Because he fails to realize it exists? No, because he actually wants high unemployment. The more suckling from the government teat, the more citizens will rely upon him and his party (the Democratic strategy of buying votes). Worse, the less ability these folks have to fight back against the radical changes.
He hasn’t done a thing about housing except allow banks to delay foreclosures. Do you really think that policy is to protect you? Hardly. It’s so home values stay depressed. Depressed home values means no equity and no equity means no way for you or me to borrower money. He can’t transform America, the way he wants it, without bankrupting the citizenry.
Someone help me. Someone name and outline a policy he has implemented, that was truly about protecting the country, improving the economy or helping the citizenry. But don’t waste my time with the trivial. I’m not interested in the “$500 in everyone’s pocket”, or the “$1200 savings over a year” gimmick legislation. I want real, major policy, implemented to the benefit of America.
Obama is about changing America to what he and his minority on the far-left, feel is valid, not what the majority feel is valid. To do this, he must destroy common notions about the Constitution, so others will feel embolden to do it, also. He challenges the court because he doesn’t respect it. He wants to do away with it. He must make sure you and I are stripped of any wealth we have so we are less capable of resisting his change. Because he represents the minority, he must use race and class-warfare to divide the majority. A piece of pie is easier to consume than the whole. He must spend wildly and run industry into the ground to harm the economy or worse, to bankrupt the country. He is not after subtle changes, folks. He’s playing for keeps. He is after profound changes only accomplished by the destruction of the old and a complete re-build of the new — Obamerika.
And so, you no longer have to scratch your head and wonder, ‘just who the hell does this guy think he is?’
Now you know.
Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or at IMCitizen.net
freedom bunker aggregates the best in libertarian news daily. please visit the source site for more information.
Join our team of 2235 Freedom Fighters.