Monday in the Rose Garden Obama taunted conservatives. Because they hope the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate and yet have long supported judicial restraint and opposed judicial activism, he implies they are hypocrites. Here is Obama.
“I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard 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 am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”
He condemned what he sees as judicial activism and defends what he sees as the benefits of his health care law.
The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tends of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don’t have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can’t be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That’s part of this law.
Millions of senior are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their 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 even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.
And I think it’s important, and 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 health care. So there’s not only a 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.
Even if those dubious claims are true, they are irrelevant. The Supreme Court justices are not expected to decide if the law is the codification of happy, fun-time, unicorns and rainbows. They are supposed to decide if it is constitutional. Obama doesn’t even attempt to defend the law’s constitutionality. He only attempts to promote what he sees as the benefits of the bill. He tells us, basically, that the court should uphold it based on how wonderful it is.
In other words, what Obama is asking the Supreme Court to do is rule on the case based on the benefits of the law rather than on its constitutionality. There is a name for this practice: Judicial Activism.
Mitt Romney pulled off a three-primary sweep Tuesday night, bolstering his bid to quickly pivot from Republican front-runner to presumptive nominee.
The former Massachusetts governor won the contests in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia, Fox News projects. In doing so, he left Rick Santorum an increasingly distant second while solidifying his own lead and enabling his campaign to turn toward what it hopes will be a November matchup between him and President Obama.
Romney used his victory speech in Milwaukee to map out what appeared to be his general election message. He portrayed Obama as an enemy of business, himself as its promoter. He portrayed Obama as the steward of a “government-centered society,” himself as the champion of a revitalized “opportunity society.”
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”
It will be interesting to see if this ginormous knob even responds. I bet he ignores it.
That whole word “illegal” is just so darn confusing. It has so many interpretations and such variability. The Obama administration is really trying to help you out though, Pedro. The newest PC term is “unlawful” which sounds so much better than illegal. And don’t you think “waiver” sounds better than, say, “immunity”? Consistent with Dear Leader’s fascination with waivers, such as the oh-so popular 3,000+ ObamaCare waivers, he has launched a new variety: Unlawful Presence Waivers.
In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.”
The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens. Here is how it would work, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in today’s Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government; the agency will grant “unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that’s a U.S. citizen.
So, Pedro, here’s all you have to do: Come across the border with your 8 1/2 month pregnant wife, induce labor and pop out Pedro Junior who will, of course, be a US Citizen. Then Junior can get you and all of your extended family relatives–probably at least a dozen or more– “unlawful presence waivers”. See? Simple.
Or, as we refer to it at Vanagram’s Hall of Justice, the “Undocumented Democrat” program.
Solar Trust of America LLC, which holds the development rights for the world’s largest solar power project, on Monday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany.
The Oakland-based company has held rights for the 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in the Southern California desert, which last April won $2.1 billion of conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy. It is unclear how the bankruptcy will affect that project.
That is $2.1 billion. More than 400% of Solyndra’s loan guarantees.
I am starting to think that venture socialism is a bust, ya know?
The totalitarian temptation of the left is always very close to the surface. Here, an editorial writer explains how putting political prisoners against the wall can be admirable.
Yes, Che was ruthless and fanatical and sometimes murderous. But was he a murderer? No, not in the sense of a serial killer or gangland assassin. He was one of those rare people who are prepared to push past ethical constraints, even their own conscience, and bring about a greater good by doing terrible things.
Whether morally justifiable or not, there is something admirable in that — pure principle in a world of shabby compromise. Maybe this is why Che remains such an icon, both in image and idea.
If the arrest of Russian spy Anna Chapman seemed abrupt, it’s because the FBI began to fear she was out to sexually ensnare a member of President Obama’s cabinet.
That seems too crazy to be true, even in a case as bizarre as Chapman’s. But the FBI’s counterintelligence chief tells a BBC interviewer that Chapman was getting “closer and closer to higher and higher ranking leadership.”
“They were getting close enough to a sitting U.S. cabinet member that we thought we could no longer allow this to continue,” says C. Frank Figliuzzi, the assistant FBI director for counterintelligence, according to the Independent.
Choices in Guess the Cabinet Member below the fold….
Obama, evidently, is what passes for a professor of constitutional law in modern academia. Pathetic.
“I am confident 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,” President Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.
Well. There you go. Evidently as long as the representatives of the wolves vote to have lamb for supper, the sheep have no constitutional remedy.
Let’s review, shall we? Here is Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
So? It undoubtedly influenced this: Here we have Father of the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison, the case that established the legal basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
That night, it was like deja vu of the previous night except ten times worse. They now had burned most of South Central to the ground and were working their way steadily north towards Sunset Boulevard. I had this sense of some epic confrontation approaching when they left the ghetto and started to hit the white neighborhoods the following day.
I went up on the roof to try resting my .203 in various gutter brackets and aiming at different parts of the street to see if I had a clear field of fire if it came to that. A police helicopter passed directly overhead and must have seen me with the rifle, but when he made a second pass after turning around I had dropped it into the gutter with my ammo and thrown some leaves over it, then pretended to be sweeping up on the roof so he might think he had seen a broomstick instead of a rifle. The thing about all this is that it was so out of character for me and yet it all seemed to be so instinctual. I was starting to feel like I had another person inside of me for 27 years and it took the riots to bring my true nature out. I was discovering that I was a survivalist. That was the real person inside of me, it was my real nature coming to the fore under stress.”
“H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’” the letter notes. … ‘Lewd’ and ‘profane’ are not defined in the statute or by reference. ‘Lewd’ is generally understood to mean lusty or sexual in nature and ‘profane’ is generally defined as disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices.”
“H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.” the letter continues.
In this respect the law could even technically be applied to someone posting a status update on Facebook.
So what? The next time Slinger and I debate evolution v. creationism and the enforcers see it, the Arizona Attorney General will ask Iowa to extradite me for trial?
Let’s hope Governor Jan Brewer vetoes this crap with extreme prejudice.
At least five people have been killed and others wounded after a student walked into a classroom at a small independent university located near the Oakland airport and opened fire.
Police confirmed that a suspect was taken in custody in the parking lot of a shopping mall in nearby Alameda.
Police said eyewitnesses described the gunman as a male, Asian, heavy build and wearing khaki clothing.”
Isn’t ‘Asian’ the new politically correct way to refer to people of middle-eastern descent?
It all happened at Oikos University. Oikos has a strong Christian element in its School of Theology.
The Congressional Black Caucus wants to hamstring neighborhood watch groups and roll back stand your ground laws around the nation.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, is meanwhile working on a bill that would require neighborhood watch groups — like the one for which shooter George Zimmerman was a volunteer — to register.
“No one’s registered,” Jackson Lee spokesman Michael McQuerry told FoxNews.com.
He said staff members were meeting Monday to try to work out some of the details, such as what entities neighborhood watch groups should register with, and whether that should happen at the federal, state or local level.
Asked whether the proposal would call for neighborhood watch outfits to meet specific standards, McQuerry said it’s still “being worked out.”
CBC members last week introduced a separate resolution calling on states to repeal so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws. The law, a version of which was enacted in Florida in 2005, allows for individuals to use deadly force — even outside their home — if they feel threatened.
The proposed resolution on Capitol Hill, in addition to calling for repeal, “condemns” anybody who played a role in proposing the Stand Your Ground laws. The language in the measure makes blunt assertions about shooter Zimmerman, including a statement that says his “unfounded assumptions and racial bias led to the use of deadly force.”
If you weaken the position of neighborhood watch organizations, you necessarily strengthen the position of the criminal class. If you require that the first duty of lawful citizens is to protect the life of those threatening them and run away from them, you have made the world safer for predators. Evidently the CBC sees strengthening the position of the criminal class and making the world safer for predators as in the interest of its constituents.
Occupy SF activists put the mostly moribund movement back in the spotlight Sunday, taking over an unoccupied building owned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco with plans to establish a “permanent occupation” that would serve as shelter and a center for services for homeless people.
About 100 activists and supporters took up residence in the two-story commercial structure, believed to be a former music building of nearby Sacred Heart Cathedral High School and located within sight of archdiocesan headquarters at St. Mary’s Cathedral.
Alinsky rule #4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
Emma Gerould, who identified herself as an Occupy SF spokeswoman, said the protesters were aware the building belonged to the archdiocese and intended to put Catholic officials on the spot.
“There is no reason why any building should be vacant when people have no housing,” Gerould said. “We ask that the archdiocese do the right thing and allow these services in these buildings.”
A banner hung from the building quoted the Lord’s Prayer: “Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses.”
You really think these Godless OWS occupiers really believe in prayer? When it fits their needs they do, (or claim it). Forget about private property rights. In the world of the Occupier, there is no such thing. The occupier believes the church should live up to their own book by giving these people a place to stay, (and smoke dope, rape, murder, crap, and smoke dope). This is “charity” to the occupier, (but of course, forced charity is not charity at all. It is called stealing). If the church doesn’t comply, then the occupiers can claim hypocrisy and try to drive negative public reaction towards the church. That helps their cause. They will then claim that the church is part of the evil 1% and is the enemy, (which it is to OWS).
That is what conservatives are being accused of when they call for the overturning of the individual mandate of Obamacare. Here is and article by Jonathan Chait in a New York Magazine article entitled, Conservative Judicial Activists Run Amok
Just two years ago, the idea that conservatives might win the health-care fight in Court rather than the Senate
seemed absurd. Just seven years ago, the notion that Republican jurisprudence would be defined by aggressive economic judicial activism seemed even more fantastical. But just as there are few atheists in foxholes, there aren’t a lot of justices of any persuasion willing to walk away from a chance to overturn a duly-passed law that they personally detest.
This is the coalescing consensus of the left: If the individual mandate is shot down by the court, it is due to the judicial activism and the personal preferences of conservative Supreme Court justices. This argument seems to consist of two components 1) psychological projection and 2) a misunderstanding of the term “judicial activism.”
Conservatives understand that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and make certain it’s dictates have not been violated. The court insures that the power of the federal government does not grow beyond its constitutionally defined limits. The role of the court is not to write or create laws. It is not to discover and codify new rights. It is not to discover previously unseen and hidden roles of the government. When it does any of these things, it is said to be activist and it usurps the constitutionally defined roles of the executive and legislative branches.
When the court, on the other hand, rules that the other branches have exceeded their authority under the Constitution, it is performing the duty it was created to perform. Judicial activism occurs when the nine justices of the court legislate from the bench and effectively create new laws and new roles of the government. When the court rules that a law has gone too far and voids it without creating any new rights, new laws or new roles of government, it has done nothing except perform the role for which it was created.
The claim of the left that overturning the over reaching individual mandate constitutes judicial activism is absurd on its face. It is, however, the approach they are investing in. Expect the media to go into judicial activism overdrive if the court does, in fact, deep six the mandate.
You may have heard something about this movie that no one in Hollywood wanted to make. It grossed $1.7 million its opening weekend. Hollywood and it’s associated critics hate it. New York Times film critic Jeannette Catsoulis said it was “ugliness at its core”.
As the curtain rises, Hannah hesitantly steps onto the stage for her theatrical debut in college. Yet before she can utter her first lines, Hannah—unscripted—collapses in front of the stunned audience.
After countless medical tests, all signs point to one underlying factor: Hannah’s difficult birth. This revelation is nothing compared to what she then learns from her parents: she was actually adopted … after a failed abortion attempt.
Bewildered, angered, and confused, Hannah turns for support to Jason, her oldest friend. Encouraged by his adventurous spirit, Hannah joins his group of friends on a Spring Break road trip, embarking on a journey to discover her hidden past … and find hope for her unknown future.
In the midst of her incredible journey, Hannah finds that life can be so much more than what you have planned.”
Penny Young Nance, writing for FOX News.com, says these things about October Baby: First she gives five good reasons why you must see it. then she says:
Hollywood needs to be reminded that there is a large market for wholesome films that help people. Conservative families will purchase, if Hollywood produces.
American families are craving alternatives to Hollywood’s films. October Baby is an unconventional portrayal of reality, forgiveness, love, and life. In fact, I think it should be called “Hallelujah, Baby.”
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”