Thursday, January 28, 2010


The assault on the constitution continues. Here the president takes the almost unprecedented step of trashing the Supreme Court at the very public occassion of the State of the Union address. This incredible action stomps on the constitutional separation of powers as the president tries to publicly humiliate the only branch of government that will not answer his classless remark in public.

The Supreme Court does it work in private until their findings are published. It would indeed be unseemly if they chose to remark on the stupidity of the other two branches everytime they overruled them as oftentimes they are calling them on overstepping their constitutional bounds. FDR tried to pack the court in the worst attack on the Supreme Court in the nation's history. His fellow Dems at the time were appalled and rightfully called a halt to his assault on another branch of government.

Unlike those Dems, the president's cheerleaders in the benches immediately behind the Supreme Court leapt to their feet and cheered as though they were at a college football game. Schumer is a jerk and it's well documented. Durbin is a wild partisan who compared American military members to Nazis and Pol Pot. So that type of childish conduct isn't surprising from these two juveniles jerks. I'm only surprised that they didn't tap one of justices on the shoulder and stick their tongue out at them.

But surprisingly the Attorney General of the US, too stood up and applauded. More proof that he, too, is nothing more than an ideological hack. Not surprisingly his decision to try KSM in NY is becoming more and more unpopular everyday. Way to think that one out Holder.

The hypocrisy of the president's and the Dems' argument is that this isn't about ideology it's about politics. The Dems perceive this ruling to favor the Repubs in fundraising, although the president raised a little corporate money himself in the campaign. What's hypocritical is this is coming from the party that favors open voting with no restrictions especially requiring the presentation of ID to vote. They see an advantage for themselves with illegal aliens among other groups over the Repubs. Essentially the president scored a cheap shot at the expense of the SCOTUS whom he knew would not call him on the fact that he was wrong. The law that precludes foreign companies from putting cash into an American election was left intact.

Day by day the president continues to add to the group of people he considers not worthy of respect or those who disagree with him. This is just one more example of a president who really has little regard for those he considers unworthy.

It's getting a little full under the bus, I'd say.


Brooke said...

Not only did Obama diss the Supreme Court while they are in a forum where they must remain apolitical, but he showed his arrogance even more by this:

"Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention.

Barry just looked the Senate in the eyes and told them they are now officially impotent, and he's the one doing the neutering.

"Don't do what I want? Well, King Obama will simply decree what shall happen!"

Law and Order Teacher said...

You are right. This is another in a long line of things a guy who has charmed his way through life will get away with. Tragic for us. Thanks for the visit.

TRUTH 101 said...

Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are as partisan as any of us LaOT. Their rulings will always reflect whatever their political views are.

From Bork on down the line every conservative justice nominee said they would respect precedent and established law. The election law was I think 60 years old and they overturned it. They lied during confirmation LaOT. I respect the robes. Not the four people wearing them I mentioned.

I don't get what Brooke is angry about. The senate refuses to vote for a commission charged with reducing the deficit. President Obama does the right thing for our Nation by issuing an executive order to move ahead with it. And she's angry? I thought conservatives hated deficits. Her vitriol needs to be aimed at the senators that voted against deficit reduction.

TOM said...

Nine times is hardly unprecedented.
One of those being President Reagan, who supposedly had a reputation for ultimate respect for public conduct.
Going beyond just the "State of the Union" speech, Presidents have criticized the Supreme Court many times in public and on the official record.
Most recently by three different Republican Presidents on the topic of Row v Wade.
There is a question of propriety of the moment, but as your article points out, President Obama has not been the first to criticize the Supreme Court within the "State of the Union" speech.
The Supreme Court is not exempt from criticism by the people, or politicians either in public, or private.
The tone of your piece (Obama way out of line) is not backed by the facts, or the tradition of American Presidents disagreeing publicly with the Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both had public criticisms for the Supreme Court.
A bigger break with tradition, is a justice of the Supreme Court mouthing a public criticism to the President of the United States in public, especially during a "State of the Union" speech.
Although, I have no problem with what Alito did.
This is one of those insignificant points trying to be made significant.
If President Reagan can do it and not be criticized for it, why does President Obama not receive the same treatment for the same kind of oratory? Was it arrogance when President Reagan did the same thing?
Given the History of many Presidents publicly criticizing the Supreme Court, seems your outrage is slanted against President Obama.

Ducky's here said...

Whether it was warranted or not frankly doesn't concern me that much. There have been many public criticisms of the court by presidents.

I believe The Dauphin was quite vocals when the Supremes halted a few of his Guantanamo peccadilloes.

Nothing much to see here folks, move along.

Brooke said...

So predictable. Move long, don't look at the dolphins or whatever.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Unfortunately precedent isn't sacrosanct. I believe when any justice says they will respect precedant they mean it will be taken into account. Many Supreme decisions have been overturned. Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v Board. Plessy (1896), Brown (1954).

The board to which you refer has no power to control spending. It's just more congressional window dressing. I don't care for the fact that anybody voted against it, but it really is a body that will accomplish nothing. The president really doesn't have a lot of power over spending except the veto. In this instance he doesn't differ from the congress on spending so the board is show.

I don't say that this never happened, it was to the degree. When the president directly confronts the SCOTUS to their face during the SOTU with his minions acting like school children. There is controversy over the degree to which this overturns precedant. You don't know me if you think I'm after Obama. I think the whole political establishment is bankrupt. I believe in the constitution not parties. Thanks for the visit.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Thanks for your visit. My point is that Obama really has little class when he disagrees with someone. The SOTU is a poor time to call out the other branches of government especially when you are visiting them.

Bush and all the people who criticized the SCOTUS did so in forums other than the SOTU. This is supposed to be a state of the union address, not an occassion to bitch at one or the other branches of government.

The spectacle of Schumer and Durbin bending over to cheer in the justices' face was childish. My opinion. Thanks again for visiting.

Z said...

I'm with you, Brooke, I caught that, too.
What he's saying is "I don't give a damn WHAT the people say....I'm DOING THIS" Oh, wait. That's not right, the Senate doesn't seem to reflect WE THE PEOPLE anymore, either. He's just dissing our senate. And L&0 is so right, too..Obama seems to have never taken NO for an answer and shows us that in so many ways.

Ducky's here said...

Well Law and Order, I agree it was a poor time for the criticism. It could have just as easily come during a press conference.

It was a pretty grim SOTU all around. The guy is flailing and he's all over the place trying to find something to save a presidency that probably can't be redeemed.

... but if people believe this job situation can be turned around any time soon, nope.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

You CANNOT tell me that this event will not be remembered, and rightly so, by SCOTUS. They are, after all, human.

How would YOU feel, any of LOT's readers, if your Leader, amongst a group of like professionals, slapped you resoundingly, verbally, no more than ten feet from you in the midst of hundreds?


Law and Order Teacher said...

Thanks for the visit. Obama's petulance is grating. He really doesn't handle criticism very well.

Thanks for the visit again. He does seem to flailing. It's getting a little embarrassing to watch.

Thanks for the visit. I agree this will be remembered.