Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law Professor, Constitutional Law Scholar & President Barack Obama Mentor Says That Obama Misspoke Regarding Comments About SCOTUS

Another bad day for Obama and his “judicial activism” comments … Yet another Obama “Lost in Smallness” moment.

President Barack Obama is going to rue the day when he made the ridiculous comments and vale threats to the Supreme Court Justices regarding “judicial activism” and Obamacare.  Emperor Obama actually questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.

“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.”

How bad of a comment was this by Obama, even his former mentor, Harvard Law professor and Constitutional Law scholar Laurence Tribe was forced to say that Obama misspoke. Wow, if Tribe thinks that Obama was one of his best students, I hate to see the not-so good ones who have no concept of “judicial review” and Murbury v. Madison. Or is it just Obama that likes to mislead “We the People”?

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.

Mr. Tribe, who calls the president was one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

Mr. Tribe said he saw no reason for the president to express his views on the matter, because everyone already knows he wants the case upheld.

“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done,” Mr. Tribe said, “except by public confusion.”

You don’t think any harm was done, really? If Tribe really thought that no harm was done to Obama and Obama’s credibility he would not be commenting on The One’s misspeak and comment that Obama made was misleading people. This is hardly a ringing Obama endorsement when he has to be bailed out for looking and talking like gaffe prone VOP Joe Biden.

Obama not only had Tribe say he misspoke, but also got spanked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, regarding Obama’s comments. Attorney General Eric Holder says he’ll comply with a federal judge’s request to type three single-spaced pages recognizing the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress. While Tribe said that Obama misspoke, Obama minion Eric Holder, actually defended Obama’s comments as appropriate. We can see why so many have called for Holder to resign.

Attorney General Eric Holder defended Obama’s comments today, calling them “appropriate” when he was asked by reporters if he’ll respond to the request for a written explanation by Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the appeals court.

Then there was White House Press Secretary and Obama minion mouth piece Jay Carney further exacerbating the Obama screw up by trying to defend Obama’s actions and words. Could these people torture the English language anymore? Next thing they will be telling us it all depends on what is, is.

Barack Obama Fires Shot Across the SCOTUS Bow … The Supreme Court Will Be Guilty of “Judicial Activism” If They Dare Strike Down Obamacare

Has President Barack Obama have no shame, no “The One” takes shot at intimidating the SCOTUS?

After having passed Obamacare with backroom deal, Corn Husker kickbacks and against the will of the people along a Democrat party partisan vote, Barack Obama now fires a preemptive shot across the bow of the Supreme Court calling it “judicial activism” if they dare strike down Obamacare. How desperate is Obama is he has to sink to such depths? Now the SCOTUS is on Obama’s enemies list. Does Obama understand that he is not a dictator and that the SCOTUS is one of the three branches of government put in place as a checks and balance when a President and Congress act in an UN-Constitutional manner? I guess not. Obama is already setting up the SCOTUS as the evil “unelected group of people” that would dare strike down Obamacare. However, as referenced at the NRO what else could Obama do after the disastrous defense of Obamacare in the SCOTUS last week?

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.

“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,” Obama said.

Really Mr. President,  an “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? Unprecedented? Who is this guy kidding?  As Doug Ross states, who finds it curious that the arrogant Barack Obama and self-professed Constitutional scholar doesn’t know that the Supreme Court has struck down more than 1,300 laws since the founding of the Republic?

Its one thing to question a decision of the Supreme Court, its quite another thing for a sitting President to question the credibility of the SCOTUS prior to their final decision on such on over-reaching law that would force Americans under the “commerce clause” to buy a commercial product.

Who does not find it ironic and completely ridiculous that Barack Obama would use “judicial activism” as some type of defense when the LEFT loves such activism when it suits their views? President Obama, you may want to brush up on the doctrine of “judicial review”.

Day Two Obamacare & the SCOTUS … Strike Two … Justice Kennedy Says Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship Of Gov’t … Others Ask, What About Being Made to Buy Broccoli & Burial Insurance?

DAY TWO OF OBAMA CARE BEING ARGUED AT THE US SUPREME COURT AND STRIKE TWO FOR OBAMA …

The Obamacare vs. We the People at the SCOTUS was billed as one of the most important court cases in recent history. The federal government thru Obamacare is forcing Americans to buy and “approved” Obama insurance and forcing people into a market, rather than regulating a market. One would have thought that Obama’s legal mouth pieces would have been more prepared. I guess not.

Wow, Solicitor General Verrilli stuttered and stammered his way through his presentation to the SCOTUS like President Obama speaking to the public without a teleprompter. Can you say that day two and the government defending the individual mandate was a complete disaster? YES!!! As stated at Mother Jones, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom. Time after time it appeared that Verrilli was so ill prepared and searched for answers to simple Justice’s questions. As opined at the Daily Caller, Verrilli was asked, If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to buy burial insurance? One would think that they would have prepared for such. Not so much. However, this is what happens when one is asked to defend the indefensible. One day Obamacare penalty is tax, the next, it is not.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

Stepping up to the podium, Verrilli stammered as he began his argument. He coughed, he cleared his throat, he took a drink of water. And that was before he even finished the first part of his argument. Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism’s biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy.

As reported at RCP, Justice Kennedy stated that the “Individual Mandate” would fundamentally change the relationship between the government and “We the People” (VIDEO). BINGO!!! Who would have thought that Justice Kennedy would have been such a skeptic?

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court’s cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

Justice Antonin Scalia asked how the individual mandate was different from forcing Americans to buy broccoli? BTW, 87% of Americans agree with Scalia’s mandate on broccoli.

“If the government can do that, what else can it do?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He then questioned whether Congress could also require individuals to buy vegetables, such as broccoli.

No matter what the outcome is in the SCOTUS, this is going to be damning to Barack Obana in 2012.

US Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Constitutionality Case Today … Lose – Lose for Barack Obama

A “BIG F’N DEAL” HEADS TO THE SCOTUS …

Today the SCOTUS begins hearing oral arrangements against President Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation, Obamacare. For the next three days and a total of 6 hours, oral arrangements will be made on the Constitutionality of Obamacre. However, today the SCOTUS will hear whether they have to wait for the mandate to kick in before they can hear the case. That does not occur until 2014. Tomorrow the SCOTUS will hear the arguments of the individual mandate.

Will Obama’s attorneys be wearing “BFD” shirts to the SCOTUS?

President Obama’s signature domestic achievement — and, with it, a big part of his political legacy — is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

The nine justices on Monday will begin hearing three consecutive days of oral arguments about whether the healthcare law is unconstitutional. The landmark legal challenge threatens to overturn an historic legislative victory, raising the stakes once again in a debate that will help define Obama’s presidency.

The six-hour oral argument is the longest the court has heard in 45 years. And this is the first time in more than 75 years that the court is in a position to strike down a sitting president’s agenda while he runs for reelection.

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SCOTUS … ANY DECISION IS A LOSE-LOSE FOR BARACK OBAMA.

Read more

Rasmussen: 55% Oppose Affirmative Action Policies for College Admissions as SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Case

As the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case of colleges using affirmative action as part of college admissions, a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 55% of Americans oppose using such policies.Just a mere 24% are in favor of applying preferential treatment and affirmative action to college admissions.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 24% of Likely U.S. Voters favor applying affirmative action policies to college admissions. Fifty-five percent (55%) oppose the use of such policies to determine who is admitted to colleges and universities. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just last week the SCOTUS agreed to hear a case dealing with affirmative action and college admission.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the controversial case Fisher v. University of Texas. The case comes from Abigail Fisher, a white college student, who sued the University of Texas after she was denied admission.

The current standard of affirmative action usage in college admissions comes from the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, discussed by the Ohio State Law Journal, which allows continued use of affirmative action as long as race is not a deciding factor and is only one of many factors in an applicant’s admission. Also noteworthy in the Grutter decision was the inclusion of a prediction that, while affirmative action was still necessary in 2003, it might no longer be valid in 25 years or so.

I believe that the Court should take this opportunity to hasten the end of affirmative action in college admissions and not wait an additional 16 years to let it expire.

Why the 2012 Presidential Election is So Important to Vote Obama Out of Office … Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stepping Down in 2015

A note to all Republicans and right leaning Independents no matter what GOP candidate you favor … ELECTIONS MATTER!!!

Forget about the poor US economy, the 5 million lost employees who simply gave up, the real un/under-emplyment number, the $878 billion wasted stimulus plan, the out of control national debt, and an energy policy that puts politics ahead of jobs and energy independence … “We the People” have just been present with one more huge reason why Barack Obama must be voted out of office in 2012 …

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

According to the UPI, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Gingburg plans to step down in 2015.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 to give President Obama, putatively in his second term, a chance to name a liberal as her successor.

That’s the conclusion of Tom Goldstein, founder and padrone of SCOSTUSBLOG.com, one of the premier Supreme Court litigators in active practice — he’s argued 24 cases before the justices — and

In the swashbuckling , devil-may-care style familiar to those who know him, Goldstein admits his prediction is speculation.

“The odds are good that Justice Ginsburg will retire in the third year of a second Obama term,” he writes in SCOTUSBLOG. “That is only a presumption, and I doubt that the justice herself has made concrete plans. [Obama's] re-election itself is highly uncertain, and much can change in one’s thinking over the next three years.

“Nonetheless, the justice has sent signals that correspond with a likely retirement at that time.”

Ginsburg’s retirement would have nothing to do with her two bouts of cancer, both of which she bested.

Every wonder why the 2012 Presidential election is so important? The United States of America and SCOTUS cannot take Barack Obama appointing two more justices. Previously some Democrats had wanted Bader Ginsburg to step down prior to the 2012 election as they were not confident in Obama’s reelection.

Daily Commentary – Monday, September 26, 2011 – Rare Execution Stay in Texas

• For a third time the Supreme Court in Texas stays the execution of former Army recruiter Cleve Foster

Daily Commentary – Monday, September 26, 2011: Download

Obamacare: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down Obama’s Individual Mandate as Unconstitutional

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE OF OBAMACARE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS …

In the battle against Obamacare and its unconstitutionality, this is the big one. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. Twenty six states, that include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, are battling Barack Obama as to whether the US government has the right to force Americans to buy health care insurance.

Previously in January 2011, Judge Roger Vinson ruled on Obamacare and struck the entire law finding that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law. The 11th Circuit ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, however, they did not throw out the entire law, finding that the mandate could be severed. This hardly makes sense with regards to severability.In any event, this is headed to the SCOTUS.

That last part makes little sense, since the law had no severability clause in it. Kill one part, you kill it all has been the theory. Kicking out the mandate but leaving the rest intact makes things even messier, in my opinion.

The Court’s opinion can be read HERE.

Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion has highlighted  many of the major points of the Court’s opinion.

We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.

Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. [...]

Obviously, Obamacare is headed to the US Supreme Court and most likely right before the 2012 Presidential election. This will be disastrous for Democrats and Obama reelection bid in 2012. Democrats ran from the Obamacare issue in the  2010 midterm elections as no Democrats wanted to embrace the fact that they rammed government sponsored healthcare down the throats of Americans and signed into law with no GOP votes a law that forced Americans to buy healthcare. Obamacare is hated by the American people and an overwhelming majority want it repealed. Presently, the polls at Real Clear Politics have only 38.8% in favor and 50.6% opposed. Good luck to Democrats dealing with this headache during the 2012 elections, a situation that they brought about themselves by going against the will of the American people. There will be retribution by We the People in 2012.

As reported at the Gateway Pundit via the AP, the White House disagrees with the 11th Circuit court’s decision. That’s it Barack, you keep touting Obamacare, you run on that in 2012, I am sure the American people will embrace it.

Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter says the White House strongly disagrees with an appeals court ruling Friday that struck down the insurance requirement at the center of a law.

She says the White House is confident that ruling will not stand.

How Reprehensible … Liberals Want SCOTUS Ruth Bader Ginsburg Gone by Any Means … Confident About Obama Reelection?

What  happened to the Libs and Democrats who say that Barack Obama will be reelected President?

It sure seems like there is trouble in paradise and some are in panic mode begging, wishing and demanding that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire from the SCOTUS. Why the rush libs? It would appear that many want her to retire now so that Obama can appoint an uber-lib to the SCOTUS.  Their fear is that is Ginsberg does not retire soon, a republican could win in 2012. WOW, I thought Obama was a shoe in by the LEFT to win in 2012. It appears not. However, how reprehensible that the NY Times appears to have a Bader Ginsber death watch on. Just sick.

How inappropriate could one be to demand that a SCOTUS step down and take one for the team. Democrats lost the House in 2010, they are on the way to losing the Senate in 2012 and maybe even the Presidency as well. Does it really matter though? If Obama tries to nominate a liberal justice, be prepared for a filibuster.

Some legal observers would like to be rid of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Associated Press reported over the weekend. These aren’t conservatives who find her too activist but liberals who find her too old and worry that if she doesn’t get out soon, a Republican president will get to replace her

For her part, Ginsburg has said she will not yield to the ghoulish left’s entreaties. The AP reports that she “has said gracefully, and with apparent good humor, that the president should not expect a retirement letter before 2015,” the year she turns 82. (Her benchmark is the age at which Justice Louis Brandeis, the high court’s first Jew, left the bench.) Maybe, like Chief Justice William Rehnquist, she will never retire.

And there is a bright side for Chemerinsky, Kennedy and Garrow: If Ginsburg does retire in 2015, it is possible–at least for now–that Obama will appoint her successor.

SCOTUS to Give Barack Obama Eligibility Case Another Look See

Well look at this …

As reported at World Net Daily, the Supreme Court of the United States as decided to take another look at President Obama’s eligibility case. It appears that challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is not over as the SCOTUS has scheduled another “conference” regarding Obama’s eligibility.

 In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.