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.