Obama’s lips moving, means more lies: This time? His War on the Supreme Court

Obama’s lips moving, means more lies: This time? His War on the Supreme Court

I would never claim President Barack Hussein Obama is ignorant or stupid, though he defiantly believes American’s are, but I will call him a liar.  His newest load of fecal matter comes from a press conference where he sounded like he was giving the Supreme Court an ultimatum over his mandated Obamacare: Uphold this bill, or else. His answer to a reporters questions has been re-posted around the internet, and commented on, many times over the last 24 hours.  What articles I have read, I have yet to see anything written exposing the lies and techniques in his answer.  I will do my best now to do so with detailed evidence.

“Ultimately, I am 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 have 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,” Obama said.

“Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.

The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion forMarbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to the Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional…………………………158

Oh my, just giving you the numbers isn’t good enough.  You  mean unlike Obama I can’t just throw out numbers and expect you to just believe it?   Well then I guess it’s good I have the .pdf from the Government Printing Office Database for you to review that has every single

ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL

IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

“…unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

 UNPRECEDENTED? Obama truly believes we are are all stupid.  I have to wonder if he is so disconnected from common American’s that he’s not familiar with this thing we call the internet and that every lie he says can be checked.

“…for years, what we have 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,”

Now Obama wants to play the first rule of the Liberal handbook:  Accuse your opponent of committing an action you are doing, so that there will be no focus on yourself as you are committing the action.

If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare using the Constitution, they are doing so withing the restraints of their powers and are not creating law from the bench.

Judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. “Judicial activism” is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of Congress, rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

We don’t to have to go any further then Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to see examples of judicial activism; The use of International law rather then the Constitution to decide a case. Best stated by Phyllis Schlafly in her article Ginsburg’s Judicial Activism Goes International:

Credited with writing several feminist precepts into U.S. constitutional law based on the spurious notion that our Constitution is a “living” (i.e., re-interpretable) document, she now wants to expand that process to welcome foreign law.

Taking a gratuitous swipe at her Supreme Court colleagues who have spoken out against citing foreign law [...] , Ginsburg said, “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad?” Any first-year law student should be able to answer that question: because all judges, before donning their black robes, raised their right hands and swore “to support this Constitution.”

Ginsburg even deplored U.S. failure to cite the Canadian Supreme Court. She failed to mention its judicial activism in legalizing same-sex marriage.

Ginsburg claimed that our failure to cite foreign decisions has resulted in diminished influence for the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of us can think of many other reasons why judicial activism is deplored by Americans.

Obama needs to redefine judicial activism from “writing law from the bench”.  This too, has been a tool of the left’s: If an accusation leveled against you is legit, and no other means are available, redefine the accusation.

Obama is not our king. He is of the Executive branch, one of a three equal tiers of out government.  Remember this the next time you see him bully or threaten Congress or the Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s