Skip to content

Obama Goes To The Mattresses*

04 April 2012 @ 10:25

So…King Barack The Unready has issued his royal warning to SCOTUS that they’d better not declare Obamacare unConstitutional…

-Methinks Rush Limbaugh is dead solid perfect in his assessment:

And the question everybody was asking is: "Why do this? Why attack the court? Why intimidate them, why threaten them if they had voted to uphold the mandate?" And I have an answer for that. See, I know these people. I know liberals. I don’t want that statement to sound bombastic. You people here — new listeners to the program — that’s not a braggadocios statement. It’s not bombastic. It’s not outrage or any attempt to shock. I just know them, and so when somebody asks me, "Why would Obama say that if he didn’t have to? If he had been told that the preliminary vote on Friday was in his favor, why take the attitude that he took?" There is an answer to that. I don’t know if it’s right, but there is an answer.

He’s a thug.

And again, I’m not trying to be provocative when I say this. I’m just quoting Bill Clinton, folks. Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama as a Chicago thug during the 2008 presidential campaign….

From a bit later on in Rush’s show:

RUSH: Let’s go to the next bite. It’s about a minute 19 seconds uninterrupted. We’ll see how far we get into this one.

OBAMA: I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand —

RUSH: Whoa, stop the tape. "I think the justices should understand." The American people understand. Cue it back up to the top. I think the justices should understand. Well, it’s easy to detect the attitude here. You guys had better understand who you’re dealing with here. You guys had better understand what you are doing here. You’d better understand what your role is here. You better understand what I am expecting out of you. You better understand what you’re supposed to do here. Flat-out intimidation. No question about it….

…"The justices had better understand." Whew, boy. That is amazing.

The essence of Don Obamaleone’s remarks: ‘That’s a nice Supreme Court you’ve got there…it’d be a shame if anything happened to it – if you catch my drift‘.

So…the President Of The United States has threatened the Judicial Branch in public, and many are cheering him on.

Banana, meet Republic.

-There is some push-back already happening: from CBS News, Jan Crawford reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to]:

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."

…The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick — both Republican appointees — remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

Well-played, sir!…er, Your Honor.

Julius Obamacus Nero Caesar thinks he can carry-on like his namesake. He’s in for a rude awakening now that he has awakened the Separation Of Powers Beast. You’re so good as singing soul, Barry, how ’bout you Try A Little Tenderness? On second thought: don’t…I’m enjoying this too much — it’s what I live for.

-Methinks Michael Walsh has a damn fine understanding of Little Barry’s character:

Which brings me back to my point from yesterday: The Punahou Kid is not used to being crossed, nor to being treated with anything less than obeisance. All his life, he’s gotten away with his lighter-than-air act, blissfully aware than even when provably duplicitous he’ll be able to skate, thanks to his protective horde of media buddies, led by Jake Lingle himself.

In the Leftist world-view, there is no yesterday, only the fierce urgency of now in the service of tomorrow — which they feel rightfully . Which is why and how stories go down the memory hole, and why Obama will conduct his 2012 campaign by essentially running against himself and promising that next time, things will turn out better. The real “dog whistle” will be Obama signaling to his supporters that “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

…Obama’s never had to take a real punch, never had his core assumptions challenged, never been forced to defend his governing philosophy — which is why he reacts so petulantly when crossed. He’s got a glass jaw, which is something increasingly evident to the public; let’s hope it is to the [GOP] candidate as well.

Sadly, it won’t be if that Nominee is Willard M. Romney [he's all jaw-jaw, not war-war].

However, there is a bit of a bright side: Congressional candidates can get in some nice punches on Little Barry’s brittle jaw.

-Jeff Goldstein complements and enhances Mr. Walsh’s remarks in his dead-on-balls-accurate description of Caesar:

…a man who hasn’t studied history, doesn’t understand the nature of man, eschews the foundational principles of the country he longs to “fundamentally tranform,” and who views the world as his to reconfigure until it at long last matches the one he envisions — a man who has been enabled in that narcissistic delusion his entire adult life by those who have groomed him and trained him like a performing seal, one that, because it receives the applause of Sea World tourists, believes itself to be in charge of the show.

-A former student of The World’s Greatest Constitutional Law Professor [and a former clerk to Judge Smith] Thom Lambert offers some insights into Professor O-Awesome [tip of the fedora to]:

…Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.

Do take the time to click here and read Mr. Lambert’s whole post, which also includes an excerpt from the transcript of the hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit — Judge Smith’s remarks will have you laughing and cheering [Michelle Malkin's reaction: 'Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha' / Darleen Click's is here].

-Over at The Other McCain, the Snark-O-Meter hits eleven as Smitty publishes the first draft of the Administration’s response to Judge Smith. Well done, Admiral.

* Where’s Reggie Love or Kai Penn when you need them, eh, Barry?

  1. 04 April 2012 @ 13:06 13:06

    Don Barack Obama, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your daughter… ‘s wedding… on the day of your daughter’s wedding. And I hope their first child be a masculine child. I pledge my ever-ending loyalty.

    • 04 April 2012 @ 22:34 22:34

      Infidel, my friend…I’m a little worried about this Romney fellow. I want you to find out what he’s got under his fingernails. Go to the Republicans, and tell them you’re not too happy with our Family, and find out what you can…

  2. M. Thompson permalink
    04 April 2012 @ 18:09 18:09

    He’s a shitty machine politician. He doesn’t yet understand you need a reliable 50%+1 of voters, not just the disillusioned underinformed and his base.

    • 04 April 2012 @ 22:35 22:35

      And don’t forget the new ACORN and SEIU…oh, and the New Black Panthers.


  1. Obama Understands Judicial Review, But Counts on the Ignorance of His Audience « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: