Just what was Obama doing? Laying the groundwork for the coming riots?
If and when the Supreme court declares “Obamacare” unconstitutional, that’s what could happen – RIOTS! Lord knows his many of his followers are radicals, and shown by the imfamous mug shot photos many are criminals and violent! I suspect riots are what he’d like to happen, but that’s my own biased opinion.
Even though LEGALLY, he may not even be eligible to hold the post of President, being a graduate of our best schools, I find it hard to believe that he didn’t understand the tri-cameral form of government we have. (A new reader [thank you] pointed out this good article.) Still another, a retired judge friend who often contributes, sent me this story, which helped improve my blog article – it’s worth checking out.
Still, because of what he said, a federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president, when he said yesterday, that “it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law – “Obamacare”.
Has any other president ever made such an arrogant statement? He stated, “I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. Ultimately I am 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.”
Though he often stretches the truth, he should be called on it when he does – a major failing of the media. It was not a “strong majority.” Rather, it was a close vote 219 to 212, and the opposition to it has risen as we’ve found out what’s also hidden in the law. Lying, he was standing alongside Canada’s Prime Minister Harper and (note this) Mexico’s president, Calderon, who bragged about their having passed a national health-care system, and challenged America to “follow their lead.”
He continued his out-of-control-arrogant-rant, saying “And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Beck’s “Blaze” reports that since making these remarks, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that it has until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.
Obviously, more in tune with the appropriate roles of the three branches of government, talk show hosts all over the country are citing the landmark case Marbury vs Madison, the case that any 1st year law student is required to understand. Oooops; Mr. President . . . . you’re no longer a lawyer, . . . are you? Lose your standing as a lawyer, did you?
Like it or not, Mr. President, that case (Marbury vs Madison) firmly established judicial review over 200 years ago.
Judge Smith who asked the DOJ for the clarification, said: “And that’s not a small matter.”