Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Is Obama Melting Down? 

How DARE You!

What a week it's been.  

After realizing his signature 'accomplishment' - ObamaCare - is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court as unConstitutional because the Court does not agree with the Commerce Clause argument made by the administration in support of the law's individual mandate, Obama has gone on the attack.  

Two days ago, probably after getting inside info that the informal vote held by the SC Justices last Thursday didn't go his way, Obama launched a pre-emptive strike against the Court by saying the following: 

Hurry up and finish, you windbag...I have important stuff to
say about undermining the 3rd branch of the American government!
"I actually continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it's constitutional. 
"That's not just my opinion by the way. That's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case. 
"I think it's important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of healthcare, the inaffordability of healthcare, their inability to get healthcare because of preexisting conditions. 
"The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people healthcare that wouldn't otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have healthcare right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get healthcare because they can't be prevented from getting healthcare as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That is part of this law. 
"Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to the insurance companies, and are getting preventive care because of this law. 
"So, that's just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn't speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it's fully implemented in 2014. 
"And I think it's important, I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare. 
"So there's not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this but there's a human element to this, and I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate. 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 this court will recognize that and not take that step." 
(In response to follow up question)
"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who've examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."

What's Wrong With This Picture?:
The parts I bolded were the ones that drew the most attention.  First of all, ObamaCare did not just sail through the lower courts before it reached the Supreme Court. The reason it ended up before the Supreme Court is because several lower courts found the individual mandate unConstitutional, and several finding in it's favor.  Two justices Obama chooses to call 'Conservative' may claim it 'wasn't even a close case', but if that was true, how did the law end up being ruled against more than twice at the lower level? 
People immediately noted that it sounded like a former Constitutional Law professor was denying that there was precedent for a 'unelected group of people...overturn[ing] a duly....passed law.'  Was he really saying that if the Supreme Court struck down this law as unConstitutional, it would be engaging in 'unprecendented, extraordinary' activity?  
He also seemed to equal judicial review with 'judicial activism or judicial restraint', indicating either a ignorant or deliberate confusion of the subject.  
Actually paid attention in law school

As Greta Van Susteren noted on her blog, it's unbelievable that a former Constitutional Law Prof. would directly question whether judicial review by the Supreme Court of a law passed by the Congress can lead to that law being declared unConstitutional because Marbury vs. Madison [1803] is one of the very first cases you study: 
Judicial activism and judicial review are not the same thing.  Obama is either an idiot or he knows this and is deliberately selling a false narrative to his listeners. 
Judicial activism is when a group of judges decide to MAKE law from the bench and bypass the people's elected representatives. Judicial review is when a group of judges look at a law passed by legislators to see if it passes Constitutional muster.  Any law found to violate the Constitution is immediately ruled null and void, no matter HOW many elected representatives passed it.  
That large head in the foreground is Obama not paying attention.

Again, the case for judicial review is one of the FIRST THINGS you learn when you begin to study Constitutional Law. Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for several years, so trying to sell the idea he made a simple mistake between judicial activism and judicial review is going to be a tough one.  

Let's remember how ObamaCare passed in the US Congress: by a vote of 219-212 without a single Republican casting a vote for it and over 30 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against it.  It was only passed after 9 months of intense debate during which Democrats had be arm twisted and bribed to vote for essentially ending their political careers. [See the 'Cornhusker Kickback' & 'The Louisiana Purchase'] This is what Obama describes as a 'strong majority of a Democratically elected Congress'.  As soon as American voters had a chance to vent their displeasure over this, they delivered a historic ass-kicking to the Democratic party in the 2010 mid-terms, throwing over 60 Democrats out of the House alone.  
Co-Equal Or Subservient?
I can do what I want without you guys, you know. I'm equal to you.

When Obama wants to ram through some policy he wants without Congress' input or approval, he's quick to remind them that according to the US Constitution, the Presidency is a co-equal branch of the Federal Government.  
Don't forget about us, chump! We're co-equal to you too!

Now it appears the US Supreme Court is about to remind HIM that they are ALSO a co-equal branch of the Federal Government too.  And it's quickly become apparent that Obama isn't liking this one bit.  
In the two days since Obama launched his shot across the Supreme Court's bow with his warning not to overturn the individual mandate, the Lefty media has taken up the cause in an attempt to directly attack the concept of judicial review:
But the courts are already firing back. Yesterday the 5th Court of Appeals demanded to know whether this present administration understands and accepts the historical concept of judicial review: 
How the hell did I end up getting dragged into this?!

Today, Eric Holder at the Justice Dept. had to come out and say 'Yes', they do accept the principle that the Supreme Court and other courts have the ability to review a law to determine it's Constitutionality.  
That's how far along this farce has gotten.  
Let me be clear...there is something fundamentally wrong with you guys
making my opponents sound like they have a point....!

Back Into The Bubble, Boys!
Obama isn't just launching an attack on the Supreme Court in an attempt to bring it to heel. The other day he also upbraided a gathering of journalists for making the 'mistake' of reporting on Republican arguments against his policies - especially ObamaCare - as if they have any validity whatsoever: 
Yes, he's gone from trying to undermine the Supreme Court's authority to judicially review the Constitutionality of laws to trying to badger reporters into covering news stories in a way that is only favorable to him.  Like they've been doing by giving the other side a hearing and making them sound like something other than lunatics.  
My...God! Some of the arguments I heard in there against the mandate...
they....they actually made SENSE! I'm in shock here, excuse me.....!

In fact, that was what many mainstream journalists in the Old Media WERE doing on ObamaCare....until the oral arguments on it started before the Supreme Court.  See my earlier post on how many libbie journalists were caught flat-footed and left in slack-jawed amazement at the realization there actually WERE good and compelling arguments against the individual mandate: 
Living in their little bubble, they simply ignored all the storm clouds on the horizon until the lightning struck.  The past week and a half? The MSM has jumped to play 'catch up' and explain to all those people who only look to the Old Media for their news how they got it oh-so-wrong in confidently predicting ObamaCare was going to sail through the Supreme Court's judicial review of it without a hitch.  
He is literally calling for them to jump back into their bubble and pretend only one side of this discussion has any valid points.  
He's gone from attacking and bypassing the Congress on numerous issues and policies, not the least of which is sending our military to attack other countries like Libya, to seeking to undermine the authority of the 3rd branch of the Federal Government, and now onto demanding the media stop 'pretending' his opponents are making any sense whatsoever. 
ObamaCare was a huge power grab, it was deeply unpopular, polls consistently show Americans favor it's repeal by double digits for more than 2 years, and now that it's in danger of being rolled back, Obama's damage control amounts to attacking the Supreme Court and demanding the press go back into it's shell. 
Sometimes reality does break this thing. And then it's not pretty!

Does Obama seriously think this is a winning strategy, attacking judicial review and then going on to call for the media to only give validity to his side of the argument?  It's becoming more apparent than ever that the guy in Washington who lives in the biggest bubble is the current President.  That bubble got popped in the last 2 weeks, and so in fury he is lashing out emotionally the way most Progressives do when they have it proven to them yet again that almost 70% of the country is out of step with what they want.  
If he thinks it's bad now, just wait a few months.  


  1. Look, I'm an Aussie, and I regard your political system as one regards a well liked next door neighbours way of doing things differently. There's usually a strange internal logic to their stuff, but it works for them. They think the same about us.

    It appears to me you've got a bloke running the country who thinks he's King, not a President. How did that happen?
    (Rhetorical question.)

  2. Obama ran as a moderate that would fix the economy. He basically fooled enough of the voters into thinking he would govern as a middle-of-the-road centrist.

    He never campaigned on broadly expanding the powers of the Federal Gov't. If he had, he'd have lost and he knows it.