Obama's remarks on the Supreme Court, a campaign to incite Mob Rule?


Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2009
San Diego, CA
Lots of people are speculating on WHY Obama described a possible overturning of his Health Care law, as "unprecedented", when he knows quite well that it's done quite frequently. Some say he is "ignorant", as though he actually believed his own statement, but this is obviously not so.

So, what's the real reason he said it? It was not just an off-the-cuff Biden-style gaffe.

My guess is, he is following a long tradition among leftist leaders whose agendas run afoul of the Constitution and, therefore, afoul of the Supreme Court. In the 1930s then-President Franklin Roosevelt had the same problem, putting in place vast dictatorial schemes for controlling everything from the price of laundering a shirt to the quantites of wheat farmers were allowed to produce, even for their own consumption. And the Supreme Court kept striking them down, either partially or in full, one after another.

Roosevelt's response was NOT to say, "Well, it's the Supreme Court's job to decide what is constitutional or not, and according to our form of government I must acknowledge that the Framers had good reasons for putting the restrictions they did on the Federal government from doing these things. So even if I don't like the result I must necessarily agree with them as being more closely aligned with the Supreme Law of the Land."

Instead, Roosevelt decided to add six more Justices to the Court, increasing their numbers from nine to fifteen - the extra six being picked by him, of course, for their devotion to his grand socialistic schemes rather than to the Constitution.

The country was outraged over this idea, inevitably, and started calling and writing their Congressmen in droves. Soon Roosevelt saw that he would not have the votes in Congress to pass his "Court-packing scheme", and withdrew the proposal before any votes took place in the House or Senate.

But Roosevelt wasn't through. Instead of conceding the ascendency of the Constitution,he dipped a little lower in his bag of tricks, and started attacking, denigrating, and vilifying the nine members of the Supreme Court personally.

And he did it, not so much to persuade them himself to change their votes... but to get members of the general populace who didn't know the facts, angry at them. He went on for week after week, telling the American people that "these nine men" were personally responsible for the horrible conditions the nation was going through (Great Depression), that the elderly Justices were directly taking food out of the mouths of poor people's children, removing the heat from their homes, etc. etc. by their perfidious actions of not letting Roosevelt take over and run the entire economy according to socialist ideas.

No mention that the law required that the cases to be adjudged the way they were, that the Constitution gave the Federal govt no power to enact the vast schemes Roosevelt was trying to put in place, and especially no mention of the fact that such totalitarian schemes had been tried before in other places and had uniformly failed to improve the countries where they were tried.

Newspapers picked up the cause, and started decrying the heartlessness and depravity of the justices, in articles short on legal facts but long on rhetoric and talking points. Mobs started showing up outside the Justices' homes, picketing, shouting, hurling insults and worse. The Justices who voted against Roosevelt's schemes got especially vile treatment, while the minority who voted for them, were left curiously alone.

Finally after months of such treatment, one of the Justices started changing his vote on the Rooseveltian schemes, and 5-4 decisions against them started coming out as 5-4 decisions in favor of letting them stand. The Court even overturned some of its own previous verdicts this way. Government started growing at a rate never seen before or since (until the inauguration of the Obama administration in 2009), and Roosevelt and his leftist compatriots never looked back.

Ironically, Roosevelt was re-elected an unprecedented three times during the national emercencies of WWII, and eventually appointed enough Supreme Court justices into the existig nine seats, to accomplish what he had failed to do with his "Court-packing" scheme: Put a majority of Justices in place whose loyalty was to Roosevelt's leftist ideas instead of to the Constitution. But the start of the government explosion that is still with us today, can be traced to that exact month when one Justice changed his vote in response to the mob-rule pressure brought by a President who thought his socialist ideas should take precedence over the Supreme Law of the Land. The rolls of government employees, to oversee the vast functions newly taken on by the Federal govt, started doubling and tripling, from that day forward - an expansion of power and intrusion that has never stopped to this day.

Fast forward to 2012. Once again we have an extreme-left President and a (usually) 5-4 Constitution-upholding majority on the Supreme Court which seems poised to start voting down that President's socialist schemes, this time in the field of Health Care. It may be possible that a little bird has whispered into Obama's ear, that the Supremes DID vote down Obamacare in their voing session last Friday. But even if he received no such word, the tenor of the Justices questions during last week's Oral Arguments - even the liberals justices - seems to indicate an unfavorable (to Obama) decision in the making.

And now we have our first hint of Obama's reaction to such an unfavorable decision, if it comes. Like Roosevelt, he apparently has no intention of considering that perhaps his schemes are inimicable to the Constitution, and represent a power grab that the Framers foresaw, abhorred, and did their best to safeguard the country AGAINST.

Nope, no deferrence to the original American ideals of limited Federal government, as enshrined in the Constitution, seem to be on Obama's mind. Instead, we are getting what may be the first of many attacks on the Supreme Court justices, and the like-minded people who appointed them... directly from the lips of the President of the United States.

It looks like the four Constitution-upholding members of the Court, had better batten down the hatches and clear the decks for stormy weather... and especially the weathervane Kennedy who is often regarded as the "swing vote" and might be easiest to influence. President Obama's strangely disingenuous remarks about how "unprecedented" an overturn of Obamacare would supposedly be, seem to be directed exclusively at the same audience FDR intended back in the 1930s: people who don't know any better, and who would like nothing better than to regard themselves as "victims"... and who can be relied upon to bring endless political pressure on the Justices.

The Supreme Court (and other Federal Courts) are specified in the Contitution to have LIFETIME appointments of their judges and justices, precisely for the purpose of keeping them from being influenced by politics. They are to concern themselves ONLY with what the law says, what it means, and how it applied to present-day cases - NOT whether unhappy (and often unduly influenced) people might vote them out based on their decisions.

Political pressure is only to be brought upon the people who MAKE the laws - Congress, the President, etc. The people are to have large influence on how the laws are MADE... but not on how the laws, once made, are interpreted. They are to be interpreted strictly according to what they meant when passed - they are not to be changed by the Courts. That's Congress's job. And if Congress sees fit to change a law... or even amend the Constitution, with the concurrence of the States... then the Courts must acknowledge THAT change, and render new decisions accordingly.

Well, back in the 1930s, FDR worked hard to find his way around that, and apparently succeeded. Political pressure on the judges caused them to change their votes. The structure and language of the law, had no input to this sudden change.

And now we have another President who, it looks like to me, has decided to follow the lead of the previous Master. He sees (or at least expects) an unfavorable decision from the Supreme Court coming, on his major (actually his only) signature piece of legislation, another huge power grab that goes far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution. And his reaction, is to start telling flat lies in public about what the Court is doing, how heartless the Justices and the people who appointed them are, how much the poor innocent People are going to lose as a result of these heartless villains in power, and all the rest.

I expect that this is just the start of a long campaign agains the Supreme Court Justices, in an attempt to inflame people against them and bring Sharpton-style mob actions agains them personally. He will always have plausible deniability - "I never told anybody to picket their houses!" Speeches containing the sentiments "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?" have long been used by those seeking to evade the law of the land, and not just in the U.S.

Prepare for a long campaign carried by the mainstream (leftist) media, echoing and amplifying the remarks the President made. And it will be a campaign that continues far past the Supremes' June announcement of the fate of Obamacare. Because there may be other Supreme Court decisions the President might want to see come out "his way" no matter how unconstitutional they actually are... up to and possibly including the 2012 version of Bush v Gore.

(to be continued)
(continuued from above)

The Supreme Court justices - five of them, anyway - are in for a long, miserable time - one that the U.S. Constitution specifically tried to shield them from, for good reason. And Obama's remarks about them last week, were just the opening salvo.

Did President Obama simply make a mistake when he fabricated and announcement that an overturn of Obamacare would be "unprecedented"?

Maybe. But there is reason to believe he specifically intended that lie to be acted upon later, by his willing dupes who are in pain and don't know any better.

Remember, too, that Obama's chief experience before running for office, was to be a "Community Organizer". Sometimes that's a person who starts a Boy Scout troop, or who gets people together to clean up the local library or police station, or YMCA. But not in Obama's case. Obama's specialty was to get people together, agitate them, make them angry about whatever was going on, and to direct them into a unified response. At one point he was hired as a lawyer for the purpose of instructing demonstrators on how to invade, agitate, and disrupt other groups, even demonstrating outside the private residences of officials, WITHOUT crossing over the line, still remaining barely within the letter of the law while harassing their targets with as much effect as possible.

There might not be much difference between what he did then, and what he has started to do now.

Such a scheme, even from as lofty a person as the President, is NOT "unprecedented".
BO needs all the boogeymen he can conjure up. he can't run on his record and is left to run against the racist meanies. if thats not the height (depth ?) of pathetic I don't know what is.
After all, someone who graduated from Harvard Law School, edited the Harvard Law Review, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School must be familiar with Marbury v. Madison. As Wikipedia explains, it's an important case

"Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

And yet President Obama implicitly claimed never to have heard of it, allowing him to say regarding Obamacare that it would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by astrong majority of a democratically elected Congress. The precedents go back 209 years and, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out on Special Report last night, the Supreme Court has been overturning acts of Congress ever since, on average every 16 months.

So overturning Obamacare would be about as unprecedented as the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. Actually the precedents go back even further. The last president to seriously challenge the court's power to overturn an act of Congress under the doctrine of judicial review was Andrew Jackson, who famously said after one decision he didn't like,.."The court has made its decision; now let it enforce it."

The court has overturned laws based on the Commerce Clause as recently as 1995 (United States v. Lopez) and 2000 (United States v. Morrison). Both of those were relatively minor cases, although significant for putting limits on federal power under the Commerce Clause for the first time since the early New Deal.

But major pieces of legislation have also been overturned. The National Recovery Act of 1933 was the last piece of legislation passed during the Hundred Days. Its purpose was, essentially, to cartelize the entire United States economy under the direction of the National Recovery Administration. Franklin Roosevelt called the legislation "the most important and far-reaching ever enacted by the American Congress." But that didn't stop the Supreme Court from overturning it in May 1935, by a vote of 9-0.

The National Recovery Act passed the House by a large majority and the Senate by 46-39. The "strong majority" mentioned by Obama in the passage of Obamacare did not exist. It passed the Senate 60-39 on Christmas Eve, when the Senate briefly had a filibuster-proof majority. But by the time a vote neared in the House, that filibuster proof majority had vanished with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. So the House had to pass the Senate bill unchanged in order to get it to the President's desk. Only much arm-twisting and deal making allowed the bill to pass the House with a majority of only seven votes, 219-212. It garnered not a single Republican vote in either house, the first time so important a piece of legislation was passed on a totally partisan basis.
Obama is like a little boy with an temper tantrum. If he cant get what he wants hell stomp,, raise hell,,nag you,,make threats until you cave in give him what he wants.
Obama is like a little boy with an temper tantrum. If he cant get what he wants hell stomp,, raise hell,,nag you,,make threats until you cave in give him what he wants.

he is infamous for his thin skin and short fuse. add in his narcissism and what he sees as a rebuke would illicit such a response.

but I think he knew before Kagan told him that the decision was a no (and by before Kagan I mean before it was ever passed) and is looking for anything besides his record to run on. his handlers are not prepared to be kicked off the federal gravy train especially after the taste of this level of skimming. there is nothing he won't use to obtain 4 more years of plunder.

ignore his words and look at his actions and its very clear its all about the money.