"Obama on collision course with Supreme Court" - oh, really?

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
The L.A. Times has published an opinion piece, placed by mistake in the "News" section, on upcoming conflicts President Obama may face in the Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-na-court-roberts-obama-20100706,0,7184862.story

The headlines read:

"Obama and Supreme Court may be on collision course

"The president's agenda on healthcare and financial regulations sets the stage for a clash with the Supreme Court's conservative majority."


And the article is full of dramatic pronouncements of how one justice is "steering the court to the right", while others are steering it some other way, etc.

But the author of this opinion piece, misses the relevant truth by a wide sea mile.

No, Obama is NOT on a collision course with "conservative" USSC justices.

Obama's on a collision course with the Constitution.

The Constitution lays out limited powers for the Federal government to exercise, limited areas where the Fed govt may make laws, and explicitly forbids it any others. Obama's agenda is based almost entirely on making laws and exercising powers far outside those allowed limits.

That entire article is written as though Constitutional conflicts are the fault of the Supreme Court, and in particular the fault of whatever justice(s) rule against liberals.

That's like saying John Dillinger was on a "collision course" with whichever cop shot him in front of the theater that day.

No, Dillinger was on a collision course with the laws that said you couldn't rob banks, import illegal booze, threaten innocent people, shoot them etc. It's wasn't the cops' fault that Dillinger wound up well ventilated. It was **Dillinger's** fault, for breaking well-established, well-known laws. Once he started doing that to the extent he did, he was a Dead Man Walking, no matter which cops happened to be assigned to the beat that day.

Likiewise, Obama is not on a collision course with John Roberts, or Antonin Scalia, or Clarence Thomas. They just happen to be the cops currently on the beat, whose job it is to protect and uphold the Constitution. They didn't make the laws Obama is violating with his socialist big-government schemes... but they have proven to be pretty good at applying them as the lawmakers (Congress and the Framers) intended. If Obama doesn't like that, then he should find another country to rule, where they don't have those laws.

The only reason the article even APPEARS to hold water, is because there are several justices on the Supreme Court who are NOT very good at their jobs - the same jobs Roberts, Thomas etc. do so well. But the fact that the bad justices are bad, doesn't change what the laws say or intend. Fortunately, we have a (bare) majority of justices who usually do their jobs correctly, and tell people who are violating the law, that they are violating the law.

It's the law that has a conflict with what Obama is doing, not the Justices. The fact that some of the justices also have a conflict with the law, doesn't change what the law says and intends. It just means we need to get some new justices - justices who understand that their job is to uphold laws created by others (Congress and the Framers), not to make up laws they would like to see themselves.
 
Werbung:
Lets hope someone in the government shuts down BO or we as a nation are completely toast. Justice Roberts better do something.

That Kagan commie is going to get approved. How sick is that? Another commie on the court. Now we have Sotomaybutt and that Nazi bi*ch Ginsberg and now Kagan the pagan. Three commie women. How does that happen?

If any of the right thinking justices get ill during BO's reign of terror, we are major league F***ed.
 
Wow your people are really judgemental. i take it your in the top 2% since your spitting republican propaganda. it must be nice to be a wealthy elitist. good luck tricking ignorant racists and pathetic glenn beck zombies into helping your cause!
 
Werbung:
From the link in t he OP:

The president and congressional Democrats have embarked on an ambitious drive to regulate corporations, banks, health insurers and the energy industry. But the high court, with Roberts increasingly in control, will have the final word on those regulatory laws.

Yes, they have. How much will get past the SCOTUS, of course, remains to be seen.

The "right" of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to get their favored candidates elected has already been upheld, for better or worse.

One would think the court would uphold the federal government's responsibility to regulate the banks and prevent another financial meltdown, but who knows?


"Presidents with active agendas for change almost always encounter resistance in the courts," said Stanford University law professor Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appellate court judge. "It happened to [ Franklin D.] Roosevelt and it happened to Reagan. It will likely happen to Obama too."

Yes, change comes under the scrutiny of the SCOTUS, just as it should.
 
Back
Top