The left has got itself up in arms in its outrage of the week; can you guess what it is? Swapping a military deserter who is possibly guilty of treason for several terrorist leaders? Maybe the fact that our president has manufactured a new crisis by dissolving our southern border? Or perhaps the fact that… Read more »
Posts Categorized: Supreme Court
Tomorrow the SCOTUS is going to start to review if international treaty can overrule the Constitution of the United States. This will affect all current and future considerations of what is the “law of the Land.” If Roberts rolls over again, then the UN’s Small Arms Treaty can be allowed violate our Second Amendment rights,… Read more »
I have to agree with the author here, you know Obama has WAY overstepped his authority when the Supreme Court strikes him down 9-0. Which recent cases came down on Obama 9-0? In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a decision issued in June, the justices unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s argument that raisin farmers did not have… Read more »
In March of 1937, in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish erstwhile conservative Justice Owen Roberts suddenly began voting to support New Deal legislation. His change of heart was the beginning of what became known as “The switch in time that saved nine.” His sudden reversal was in direct response to FDR’s threat to pack the Court in the face of the Court’s resistance to the President’s sweeping progressive agenda. From that point forward the Constitution ceased to be a significant barrier to anything FDR wanted to do.
“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” said Chief Justice Roberts in summing up the Court’s upholding of Obamacare (at 10:25 in the ABA transcript). Wrong. It most assuredly is the job of the Court to protect the people from their own political choices when those choices violate the Constitution, and if the Court fails to do this—if it instead decides that it should stay out of contentious political issues in order to remain above the fray and keep its neutrality from being questioned—then it has to find some way to read the Constitution so as to declare the clearly unconstitutional as constitutional, and this is exactly what Roberts did.
You can see where this is going. This gets us to the fundamental question about liberalism in general. When will enough regulation be enough? Will there ever come a point where liberals believe that there is simply enough government regulation in place and that they should stop making new laws? Is there a point where citizens are going to be allowed to exercise individual responsibility to the point that they are responsible for their own lives? From the federal government all the way down to local towns and counties, what one describes as freedom in America is rapidly shrinking.
Obama is attacking the Supreme Court again. Last time he accused them of “reversing a century of law” which would lead to special interests, including foreign companies, to spend without limit during our elections. You may remember this occasion because Obama uttered the lie during his State of the Union speech, in front of all the justices and in response Justice Alito mouthed the words “not true.”
Even some of the liberal judges appear skeptical about Obama’s defense of ObamaCare:
On the first day of oral arguments in the case challenging President Obama’s national health care law, justices seemed skeptical that the individual mandate should be considered a tax — one of the main consitutional defenses being offered for the law.
Romney is not my first choice in the Republican primary. Nor is he my second. On some days, he is not even my third choice.
It does not bother me that he is rich; I have no problems with the sort of work he does, but I do abhor dishonesty, and it riles me that he is buying this election with a staggering number of dishonest ads
Newt Gingrich has proposed many solutions to the ever growing power of our courts. Power that has surpassed the other two branches of government:
Kelly: You have proposed a plan to subpoena judges to testify before Congress about controversial decisions that they make. In certain cases, you advocate impeaching judges or abolishing courts altogether. Two conservative former attorneys general have criticized your plan, saying it alters the checks and balances of the three branches of government. And they used words like “dangerous,” “outrageous,” and “totally irresponsible.” Are they wrong?
Gingrich: Well, the first half is right. It alters the balance, because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful, and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people.