With Barry having now exhibited the rather un-presidential behavior of taking yet another swipe at the Supreme Court, I think it quite reasonable to assume that our "Dear Beloved Leader," may now be in the beginning stages of laying the requisite groundwork that will enable him to carry out a full frontal assault against those labeled “conservative” members of the Supreme Court, should he choose to make them a campaign issue this fall. This emerging strategy appears to be one of attempting to paint those members of the court as being "extreme" which was touched on by some after a recent dustup resulting from Barry's assertion that overturning his health care law would be an "unprecedented" move by the Court. While the White House has now seemed to backtrack just a bit, stating that Barry was making a political case, not a legal one, Barry apparently remains ready to keep all options on the table including, as a central part of his campaign, attacking the high court's five-member majority if it does strike down or cut the heart out of his signature policy initiative. His will be a no holds barred campaign and one that will be hard for most of us to stomach.
The court also is likely to consider several other issues before the November election that, depending on the rulings, could be used by Barry in his efforts to stir the various groups that, together, make up the core of his entitlement addicted supporters and draw crucial independent voters as well. Among those are immigration, voting rights and a revisit of a campaign finance ruling that Barry has already criticized as being an outrage. "We haven't seen the end of this," said longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein, who teaches at Stanford and Harvard universities. "The administration seems to be positioning itself to be able to run against the Supreme Court if it needs to or wants to." And what should be so surprising about that? It should be painfully obvious that Barry has no record on which he can run, at least one that would endear him to a majority of rational thinking Americans. So the only thing he has left is the typical Democrat tactics of character assassination, slander and all manner of name-calling. And no one, not even members of the Supreme Court will find themselves being immune.
So in a move that I'm not sure was designed to convince himself or his many devoted followers, Barry decided to go out on a limb and predict victory in the health care case now before the court, going so far as to define any other decision as being "unprecedented." But I think it was also an effort by Barry to put himself in the position of being able to clame overreach by Republican-appointed justices if the law is rejected. At least that seems to the opinion of Mr. Goldstein, who actually wrote a brief supporting this bogus law's constitutionality. This can be dangerous ground, as Barry recently discovered. Since Democrat icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt, few presidents have directly assailed the Supreme Court. In Barry's case, he issued an indirect challenge, but the former constitutional law “professor” tripped over the details. Barry told a news conference on Monday that he was "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." For Barry to make such a statement is to ignore completely the facts as they went down.
As anyone who is the least bit familiar with how our government is designed to operate knows, it is well understood that the Supreme Court has overturned numerous laws passed by Congress for being unconstitutional. That's its job. So Barry later attempted to "clarify" his comments regarding how, if Obamacare was overturned, it would in fact be setting some sort of precedent. He stated that he was referring to a narrow class of constitutional law, but even then Republicans and some court scholars took issue. What's not in question is the fact that this law was not passed by a strong, over whelming majority, but by the slimmest of margins, with the count being 219 to 212 in the House. And that came after much arm twisting, lying and all manner of legislative trickery. And still there remains a significant number, over two thirds, of Americans who are very much against it and want it repealed. But that feat may prove to be much easier said than done. Because Democrats have long sought this form of control over the populace, essentially ever since the days of FDR if not before. Now that they have it they won't be giving it up without a fight.
Barry also took the opportunity to cite Supreme Court case law supporting the premise that laws passed by Congress are "presumptively constitutional." While that may be safe to assume under normal conditions, to assume so when Congress is under complete control of the Democrat Party is a very high risk proposition because there is no fiscal restraint. Hence we have the rationale behind the Supreme Court hearing a rare three days of argument on the 2010 health care overhaul last week, with those who make up what is normally described as being the court's "conservative majority" appearing very skeptical of the key provision, a requirement for individual health insurance. A decision is expected by July and I am quite sure that both the frequency as well as the intensity of the rhetoric will continue to increase until then. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in saying, "The president did something that as far as I know is completely unprecedented. He not only tried to publicly pressure the court into deciding a pending case in the way he wants it decided; he also questioned its very authority under the Constitution."
The constitutional issue aside, Barry has made it quite clear that the thrust of his argument remains very much political. He ticked off "popular" elements of the law that are already in force, and has said the consequences of losing those protections would have grave consequences for young people and the elderly, in particular. And we all know how questioned that an "unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law." After which his spokesman spent the next two days explaining and defending both statements on both legal and political grounds. As a former law professor, "the president understands judicial precedent. He has a little experience with it, and the importance of judicial review," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday. That dolt Carney just loves to refer to Barry as having been a "professor", but as near as I can figure he never actually attained that designation. And according to FactCheck.org, Barry's formal title was "senior lecturer" but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor. WHAT?
A fella by the name of Lucas Powe, who I might add is an actual professor at University of Texas Law School and not someone merely "regarded as" a professor, or "serving as" a professor, and who is also a Supreme Court scholar, said Barry's original statement suggests he probably knows the law is in trouble and is seeking political high ground. "My instinct is that he was laying predicate for a campaign statement," Powe said. "People said he was threatening the court. You can't threaten the Supreme Court." Barry rarely if ever seeks out the political high ground, preferring instead to operator out of the gutter. That said, I'm sure we're all aware that this wasn't the first time Barry chose to criticize the court. He blasted the court's then-fresh campaign finance ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address. It was then that Barry lied, saying, "The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." That earned an on-the-spot rebuttal from conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Alito, sitting in the front row, was seen to mouth, "Not true."
I think we have seen enough of Barry to now be able to fully recognize that there is absolutely nothing that he will not stoop to in his effort to get reelected. Everything and everyone is to be considered as being fair game. And if necessary, he will literally destroy this country to meet that end. And if he does get re-elected all of what we have been witness to over the course of the last three years may be proven out to be only the tip of a very substantial iceberg. Because can you possibly imagine a Barry "Almighty," who won't have to worry about another election, and can therefore operate completely off the chain. This country would never recover. So from this point on, Supreme Court Justices included, anyone who dares to oppose Barry will be painted as being nothing more than the most extreme of extremists. We've now gotten to the point where nothing Barry says is something that can be believed. Whenever listening to Barry your first assumption must always be that he's lying to you. To do otherwise is to likely run the risk of being taken advantage of or inadvertently allowing yourself to be manipulated into becoming an unknowing accomplice in the destruction of your own country.
No comments:
Post a Comment