President Obama demonizes Supreme Court for possibly disagreeing with him

A joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada turned ugly when President Obama attacked the U.S. Supreme Court as

LOS ANGELES, April 3, 2012—On Monday President Obama challenged the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Referring to the Court’s justices as an “unelected group of people,” he said that for them to overturn “Obamacare” would constitute unacceptable “judicial activism.”

The former professor of constitutional law apparently forgot that the Court first took what he called the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” in Marbury v. Madison, the opinion that established the Court’s power of judicial review. 

President Obama launched his attack on the Court in the company of foreign leaders. With his presidency collapsing, President Obama held a mutual admiration session for the media with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They took pictures together and professed their undying love, admiration, and respect for each other in a desperate attempt to look likable and successful.

President Obama may be incredibly small in the eyes of most Americans, but on this day he resembled a guy telling a girl to like him because the guy standing next to him was worse. President Calderon may be the one man who speaks for longer periods of time while saying nothing than Barack Obama. Calderon’s incoherent ramblings sucked the oxygen out of the area, and were the equivalent of “running out the clock.”

He spoke for so long that there was no time to ask President Obama any substantive questions.

President Obama received separate questions about the possibility that the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare, and whether American exceptionalism and influence around the world had declined. He responded with sheer arrogance, even by liberal professorial standards.

“My entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism.”

Moving on to Obamacare, he chose to attack the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court. He resembled a mafia boss, not a president. They would do the right thing if they knew what is good for them. He then reiterated his tactic of claiming everybody agreed with him, and that only utter imbeciles would disagree with him.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”

Obama has said of the law, “It’s constitutional.” He may believe that, but it’s not his call. Otherwise America would be a dictatorship where Mr. Obama controls all three branches of government.

He claimed that “Seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law.”

Perhaps he forgot that the prescription drug benefit of Medicare Part D was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Obama “inherited” this law.

The most bizarre part of his defensive posturing came when he stressed the importance of the Obamacare mandate.

When running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Obama argued against a mandate. He attacked Clinton for wanting one. When he won the election he decided to support a mandate. When he rammed it down the throats of the American people, he argued that the mandate was essential to the entire bill and could not be removed without Obamacare collapsing in its entirety.

When the solicitor general pleaded Obama’s case before the Supreme Court, he claimed that the mandate could be struck down while the rest of the law stayed intact. Severability was easy, if only the justices would read a 2700 page bill that neither Obama nor any of the congressional Democrats who voted for it had ever read themselves. 

Obama called the potential rejection of his law “unprecedented.”

The Supreme Court has been striking down unprecedented laws since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803.

He criticized the potential “extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of an elected Congress.”

Perhaps he means extraordinary in the sense that while many U.S. Supreme Courts have struck down many laws, this has never happened to him personally. The myth of Obama as a constitutional scholar can now be laid to rest. He was the President of the Harvard Law Review, which only proves that social engineering and affirmative action may be more responsible for his promotion than actual merit. After all, anything he may have published has been kept secret.

He lambasted the Supreme Court as an  “unelected group of people.” The left is already preparing to attack the Court as a group of right-wing radicals who appointed George W. Bush over Al Gore for partisan reasons. Attacking the legitimacy of the Court failed in 2000 and it will again. This strategy only reinforces the belief that liberals have zero respect for the rule of law. In coming days, Obama should be asked if the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision should be thrown out because unelected judges ignored the precedent of Plessy vs. Ferguson to strike down school segregation.

Obama’s most laughable moment came when he claimed that Obamacare was seen as constitutional by most “constitutional law professors and academics.” He could have just said that “a bunch of pointy-headed leftists with zero real world experience who live in a bubble and talk to each other all agree with me.” The notion that several Supreme Court justices could possibly disagree with him based on their superior understanding of the Constitution is lost on him.

President Calderon came to his American friend’s aid, pointing out that Mexico had expanded fudning for health care, that all Mexicans are now covered, and that it would be wonderful if an economy as large as America’s could follow suit. Mr. Harper declined to join in the obsequious praise of Obama’s wisdom, saying that he’d rather not comment on America’s domestic policies.

The press conference moved on to other subjects. In a further attempt to curry favor with Obama, Calderon blamed Mexican gang and drug violence on George W. Bush. He claimed that the repeal of the assault weapons ban in 2004 caused the spike in Mexican gun violence. There was  no mention of the Obama Administration’s “Operation Fast and Furious.” Obama cited efforts to stop illegal gun trafficking without mentioning Eric Holder’s significant contribution to the problem.

Calderon offered an unscripted truthful moment when he pointed out that the murder rate in Washington, DC is higher than in the biggest city in Mexico. Until recently, it was illegal to own a gun in DC. Even when the Supreme Court, in what President Obama would consider an unprecedented step, struck down the unconstitutional gun ban, the local government put enough red tape to keep a de facto ban in place. As usual, politically liberal policies led to soaring crime and catastrophe. When Mexico mocks D.C., the situation is bad.

The words “Iran” and “Syria” were not mentioned once. This is in keeping with the Obama tradition of speaking about utter nonsense while the world around him burns. He gets away with this because the liberal media refuses to challenge him on any level.

 

Brooklyn born, Long Island raised, and now living in Los Angeles, Eric Golub is a politically conservative columnist, blogger, author, public speaker, satirist and comedian.

Eric is the author of the book trilogy “Ideological Bigotry, “Ideological Violence,” and “Ideological Idiocy.” Eric is 100% alcohol, tobacco, drug, and liberalism free. After years of dating liberals, he has finally seen the light and now only dates Republican Jewish women. His family is pleased over this. Republican, Jewish women, you may contact Eric above.

Follow Eric on Twitter @TYGRRRREXPRESS

Eric Golub is an independent writer for the Communities. Read more from Eric at his TYGRRRR EXPRESS blog.



This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from The Tygrrrr Express
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Eric Golub

Eric Golub is a politically conservative Jewish blogger, author, public speaker, and comedian. His book trilogy is “Ideological Bigotry,” “Ideological Violence,” and  “Ideological Idiocy.” 

He is Brooklyn born, Long Island raised, and has lived in Los Angeles since 1990. He received his Bachelors degree from the University of Judaism, and his MBA from USC. A stockbrokerage professional since 1994, he began blogging on March 11th, 2007, the three year anniversary of the Madrid bombings and the midpoint of 9/11. He has been inflicting his world view on his unfortunate readers since then. He blogs about politics Monday through Friday, and about football and other human interest items on weekends.

 

 

Contact Eric Golub

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus