13 Times Since 2012 Obama Has Lost Constitutional Cases Before The Supreme Court By Unanimous 0-9 Rulings

Anybody else remember when it was a huge selling point for Obama's supporters back in 2008 that he was a former Constitutional Law lecturer at the University of Chicago? Obama had such a small resume of actual accomplishments that Liberals took to waxing rhapsodic about his grasp of the Constitution.  

Got elected to the Senate! and Wrote two fantastic books about himself! might do it for Progressives, but the rest of the country needed some actual qualifications.  Obama was a 1st term Senator from Illinois who almost immediately began running for President.  Even when he was at the state level in the Illinois legislature it was hard to get a read on him because he voted 'Present' so often instead of casting a vote for or against something. 

So it was with relief that the Progressive Left was able to seize on this one, huge qualification that Obama had to hold the nation's highest office.  The qualification that would give Obama the ability to function in one of the most difficult, demanding jobs in the world was that....he spent several years lecturing on Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  

After the reign of Evil Bush, who according to some missed no chance to shred the Constitution and trample it underfoot, who wouldn't welcome an Executive branch under the control of a man who would strictly adhere to the Constitutional limits on the Presidency? 

At least Bush, whatever excesses he performed in the course of his Presidential duties, was doing so in the prosecution of a War on Terror that was being fought to prevent further 9-11's and keep Americans safe.  

Obama's Constitutional overreaches have been almost totally in the interest of his domestic politics. In this latest slapdown by the Supreme Court, the Obama White House attempted to argue that it was the President's call as to whether Congress was in session or not.  

Short version: Obama was in a hurry to appoint three people to vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] in an attempt to block Boeing from opening up a manufacturing plant in South Carolina.  Obama was playing 100% union politics here.  He knew Congress was not going to approve his 3 appointees for that reason. So he declared Congress was in recess even though it wasn't, and made the appointments. This led to a lawsuit that the Supreme Court just made a ruling on. 

Team Obama's argument before the Supreme Court was - get this - that for over 226 years the President has had the power to declare Congress in session or not & Obama's just the first President to actually exercise it.

And the 0-9 ruling against Obama was: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say it's the President who decides if Congress is in session or not.  PS - go back to law school and pay attention this time.

Even justices appointed to the Court by Obama himself cannot find justification for the positions he's argued before them multiple times now.  When even the Court's most historically liberal justice - Ruth Bader Ginsburg - can't find a way to throw you a vote, you know your argument sucked.  

Why Ruth looks so uncomfortable: "Oh crap, here comes Obama with another lousy argument.

I hate my life."

While Liberals can find some comfort in advancing the claim most of the Obama administrations losses can be traced to 5-4 decisions where the Court's Conservative majority held sway, they have no such luxury for this plethora of 0-9 rulings. 

When he was running for President, if you actually studied what Obama had to say about the founding document of American government, a troubling picture emerged.  Time and again Obama would condescendingly pontificate about how the Founders got this or that wrong in setting up the American Constitutional system, about how that system was full of flaws.  He also stated repeatedly how frustrated he was that most of the flaws he saw had to do with the unfortunate LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT POWERS.  

The more you studied him, the more a paradox emerged: A Constitutional scholar who seem fixated on what he saw as the Constitution's errors and mistakes. You rarely encountered him saying anything positive about it; instead he kept focusing on what needed 'changing'.  

So it didn't exactly take a genius to see where Obama would take the Presidency once he got ahold of it.  And so here we are, where for the 13th time in two years the Supreme Court has pretty much scoffed at this White House & said "Oh, really?!"

It's clear from the rhetoric he engaged in the day of this latest slapdown by the Court that Obama is fully planning to ignore Constitutional constraints.  He's now openly talking about 'borrowing' power from Congress to push amnesty through via executive order.  

It's pretty safe to assume that by the time he finally leaves the White House, Obama's unanimous rebukes from the Supreme Court will reach a high number at the rate he's going.

IRS That Spent $4.4 BILLION Of 

Taxpayer's Money On IT Claims 

To Have Suffered Over 

2,000 Hard Drive Crashes 

Just *This* Year Alone

"You can't prove anything. We've destroyed all the evidence!"

Sounds like something I made up?  Allow me to establish the facts: 

1.  The IRS got the $4.4 billion bucks in it's budget for IT spending: 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/irs-spent-4-4-billion-on-it/

That's just in the past 5 years under President Obama.  Under the years of George W. Bush's presidency, the agency spent $5.3 billion over 8 years.  If you're keeping score, that's $9.7 billion dollars spent on IT in a 13 year period from 2000 to 2013.

2. The IRS claimed to have suffered over 2,000 hard drive crashes in it's computers just this year alone: 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-23/lois-lerner-s-hard-drive-takes-stage-as-issa-probes-irs


Yes, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen actually claimed to the Congressional committee that the IRS had suffered over 2,000 hard drive crashes just this year: 

Now I don't know about you, but if I took over a government agency, and it was brought to my attention that the agencies computers, on which important federal records are stored, were crashing at a rate of about 333 a month, I'd do something about that.  Like, say, make awful sure people were backing up and printing out those important federal records so as to follow the law regarding such things.  

This, apparently, was the only big IT decision made in the past six months at the IRS: 

IRS Cancels Contract With It's Email Backup Service

Absolutely, that's the first thing I'd do upon being made aware that my agency is beset with crashing computers: I'd cancel the contract of the firm that's backing up our emails n' stuff. 

Another fun fact from Koskinen's testimony this week: upon being asked who told him Lerner's emails were missing, he claimed not to remember.  Think of how unbelievable that is.  He got the job because the former head of the IRS had to step down when the scandal broke.  The investigation by Congress has been going on for over a year.  Now somebody comes into your office & tells you emails under subpoena have been destroyed in a hard drive crash.  I think I'd remember who dumped that huge problem into my lap.  Wouldn't you? 

Of course, the moment Koskinen 'remembers' who told him about the missing emails, that person is going to be subpoenaed to come testify.  Which explains why Koskinen is having memory problems.