Image 01 Image 03

Hey Obama, know what else those unelected judges have?

Hey Obama, know what else those unelected judges have?

Aw, a bunch of unelected judges may have a different view of the Constitution than Barack Obama, and may overturn a law passed by Congress.

That never has happened before.

The thing is, those judges may not be elected, and may not have any divisions.

But they have one thing, long memories:

The other thing they have is class, so they will not allow those memories to get in the way of their decision. And they will not be bullied by the bully pulpit.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Chicago-style bullying comes from a position of moral weakness. What else is new with the resident?

he calls it judicial activism along party line vote. of course, no mention how obamacare was passed.

and what of the judges who are sure to uphold? isn’t that judicial activism?

he’s in way over his head.

He really put his foot in it with his demagoguing this time. I have read reports that he is very insulated, surrounded by sycophants, completely unaware that he does not have the public cachet to get away with things he could once get away with. “Unprecedented” to overturn a law? I do not think that word means what you think it means:

Uncle Samuel | April 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Mark Levin gives Obama a good whooping on his attempts to coerce the SC justices.
Just hope no horse heads are found in their beds.

jimzinsocal | April 2, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Im curious. When does lobbying SCOTUS or indirect threats become basically Jury tampering?
Maybe Obama missed the part of conlaw that talked about SCOTUS not being a political instrument. The entire point of SCOTUS is its independance from the political fray.
Funny…try a google search on : Bush warns SCOTUS.
Not surprisingly it comes up empty of citation.
Earth to President Obama. You arent FDR.
But as usual..every Obama failure has its scapegoat.
This week its SCOTUS. Last week it was Exxon Mobil.
The list grows weekly.

    Earth to President Obama. You arent FDR.

    But he will relive one of those “FDR moments”.
    There was Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, U.S. v. Butler, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., and Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo. All cases where “New Deal” legislation was struck down by the SCOTUS, often with the three liberal leaning justices, Louis D. Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo and Harlan F. Stone, in the majority.

antisocialist | April 2, 2012 at 8:53 pm

Know what else they have??

Uncle Samuel | April 2, 2012 at 8:54 pm

Obama: “I don’t think America’s elections should be bankrolled by America’s foreign enemies.”

Of all the hypocrisy…brazen, bald-faced chutzpah… (knowing who bankrolled him) and he probably thought he was being so clever and cute.

I was appauled by the President’s “threats.”

Did this guy really go through law school?

Oh, wait….we don’t have those college transcripts yet.

Obama is a petulant spoiled child who never grew up.
His behavior is embarrassing to our country.
I can’t wait to see the thug in chief removed from office.

“I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama concluded.

Oh, good – the “just because” argument….

What year do they take that class in law school, anyway?

    I believe what you are referring to Theresa is the “Onnacounta Penumbra”. First invoked in Wally v. Beaver, Justice Ward found in favor of Wally, with Justice June dissenting. Defendant Beaver was directed to one week of not being able to play with Lumpy Rutherford.

    I’m not an attorney, but I did watch every episode of Perry Mason. I cannot pass a bar, either.

Drudge has a link on its page sort of inferring that Kagan leaked the vote results to Barry.

Wonder if this is why barry’s attacking the supreme court?

Either way, this law will not stand, the weight of it will lead to its unravelling.

    listingstarboard in reply to alex. | April 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    What is truly sickening is that there is little doubt that someone of questionable moral fiber and substandard intellect such as Kagan is capable of doing such thing. There is no doubt that she has leaked the info to Obama.

    gs in reply to alex. | April 2, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    1. Obama has again shown himself unfit for office.

    2. If a Justice did leak to the White House, it is arguably grounds for impeachment of the Justice and the President. Arguably a worse crisis than Watergate.

    3. Therefore, I question the patriotism of people responsible for this rumor unless they have evidence. I don’t rule out that the rumor could be a false-flag operation.

    4. A republic, if you can keep it.

Slick thuggery I thought would never be seen in America. This guy is poisonous — pure poison in the civic bloodstream of this country.

He’s walked way over the line of any standard of political decency into third-world strongman menace.

At this point I wonder what kind of response from the GOP would be wise and best. (I really expect don’t expect one from those cowards and dullards, including Romney.) But maybe a kind of stunned disgust is better than angry outbursts. I honestly don’t know. The head spins at what’s going on right now in America. I think this is Obama’s and the Left’s strategy. Just disorient people with inconceivable and unending varieties and degrees of hate, lies, intimidation — keep expanding the notion of the “new normal”. Pyschologists define a “scope of sensitivity” beyond which people cannot absorb reality or where they lose a sense of moral proportion and ability to make a judgment. “The president can’t be THAT bad,” they say to themselves — “there must be something to all this.”

I wondered where all the hate would go after Bush left office. I knew it couldn’t go away; it’s always there with the Left. But now they’ve clearly showed their hand. They’re going all in, nothing held back. This is it for America. If we don’t go all in too, we’re not going to make it.

    Bill Gannon in reply to raven. | April 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    I wondered where all the hate would go after Bush left office. I knew it couldn’t go away; it’s always there with the Left.

    Absolutely correct. Seething and teeming somewhere beneath the surface, but always ready to erupt.

    Sanddog in reply to raven. | April 2, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    I’m pretty sure FDR has Obama beat when it comes to thuggery. Barack does seem to be doing his level best to channel him. Unfortunately for him, Obama doesn’t have a Japan or Germany to take the heat off his legislative incompetence.

Nobody elected thugette Sebelius, either, yet she over-turned the 1st Amendment just days ago…very much against the expressed will of the people.

Nobody elected me, and I vote to ignore ObamaCare in my own life.

“…by the consent of the governed…” and all that.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Ragspierre. | April 2, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    You can thank that now dead-and-gone Congress (the Reid/Pelosi oligarchy) that delegated these powers of the legislative branch to her.

    Yeah, in those 2700+ pages, they gave away their power – she has free reign; no checks, no accountability, no limits…..they just said, “…at the Secretary’s discretion….” and such vague, euphemistic, loaded phrases.

    Disgusting. Tyranny.

If you think today’s performance was out of bounds, wait until you see what happens if (when) the mandate is stricken by SCOTUS. It will be a repeat of FDR’s Court packing proposal.

Speaking of SCOTUS, does anyone believe that, if Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg announced her retirement tomorrow, Chairman O could get her replacement through Congress before year end?

StrangernFiction | April 2, 2012 at 9:59 pm

I love win Barky goes off prompter. He actually says “an uninelected group of people.”

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the SCOTUS voted to uphold the mandate and he knows that? When it’s announced, this bravado makes him look powerful, and persuasive. Just a thought, and hoping it’s a nonsensical thought.

    scooterjay in reply to gasper. | April 2, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    you may be on to something there gasp…..I am predicting that the SC has been “thugged” into going along with his wish. If so, then he is burnt toast this November, provided we get to vote. folks, buy a camcorder and a gun, it is going to get rocky!

      This should be the centerpiece of the Republican effort to win the Senate and recapture the White House. What an arrogant son of a bitch.
      If Bush had uttered those words, it would be front page, above the fold news for weeks.
      Idea: Photoshop Bush’s head on Obama’s body while he is making that speech and watch the reaction.

DINORightMarie | April 2, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Gotta hope those memories of total humiliation by Obama will still sting. By at least 5 of the justices, anyway (the other 4 have already made their sycophantic “yes” decisions……before the hearings, no doubt). Real long memories.

Wouldn’t it be sweet if the SCOTUS majority rules to eliminate the mandate, and uses Obama’s very words to both justify NOT going “eighth amendment” and picking through the law – i.e. being “judicial activists” and performing the legislator’s job by “salvaging” the remnants after striking the mandate!!

The SCOTUS rules the ENTIRE bill is unconstitutional, and the Majority justice writes (in my dream):

“The President himself stated on April 2, 2012 that the mandate was integral to the PPACA……and, given that we are not to legislate from the bench, and risk judicial activism by breaching the wall of separation of powers, we conclude that the entire statue must fall, as unconstitutional, since the mandate is unseverable – according to the letter of the PPACA, and the arguments of the federal opinions [citations go here]. The Congress is thus free and able to take up their Constitutional role and legislate, within Constitutional bounds.” Or some such.

How….rewarding…satisfying…and well deserved that would be!!! 🙂

A tiny thread of Hope has shone upon me today, that there may be Change yet…

But if I had to bet in the office pool, it would be 5-4 against the mandate (my best guess) and 5-4 to flush the whole ball of trash (admittedly I’m optimistic there). Which leaves me with: “How did we get 4 people on the Supreme Court who have no intent of restricting the Governments power over us to what the Constitution enumerates? Is there *anything* the Government is restricted from doing to us in their opinion?”

[…] Barack Obama Thugged The Supreme Court, Again Update II: The Professor (not the Chicago lecturer) has class: “The thing is, those judges may not be elected, and may not have any […]

what happens if its 6-3?

    WMCB in reply to drozz. | April 2, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    They all spontaneously combust and go running in flames through the streets before their heads explode.

      DINORightMarie in reply to WMCB. | April 3, 2012 at 7:22 am

      Perhaps I should not admit this, but……I’d pay good money to see that! 😉

Taxpayer1234 | April 2, 2012 at 10:48 pm

I think OZero is reacting to the obvious browbeating his attorneys got from SCOTUS, rather than the actual outcome.

I would also add that previous presidents have, in stump speeches, taken issue with certain of the court’s decisions. Usually very carefully. That part is not new.

But Obama took it further, and crossed a line in both tone and content, IMO – especially after his arrogant display of scolding the justices to their faces at that shameful SOTU. He is openly attacking the legitimacy and process of the Supreme Court itself, not just the potential adverse ruling. That’s dangerous ground, and not something presidents have done. He is not saying “I think you are wrong.” He is saying “Who the hell are you to decide this?”

That’s some breathtaking arrogance right there. And I hope SCOTUS hands him his ass.

Off topic: Thanks for the link today, Prof. It always makes my day a happier one when you do that. God bless and take care.

[…] since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Marbury v. Madison over two centuries ago (h/t Legal Insurrection). One brief sentence stands directly at odds with what the President stated earlier today: An act […]

So, if the Supreme Court is an unelected branch of government that shouldn’t have so much power, what is IPAB?

    I find it amusing that he is railing about the abusive power of an unelected (but constitutionally chartered) body refusing to allow him to hand over total control of our healthcare to….. the unelected secretary of HHS and the unelected IPAB.

    Oh, the overstep of authority!

      Hope Change in reply to WMCB. | April 3, 2012 at 1:26 am

      WMCB, you’ve got that right!

      According to Newt, the number two demand, after “no taxation without representation, of the Founders, was to reduce the power of British judges, who were seen as tyrannical for Britain.

      If we choose to, we, the American People, can arise to our full sovereign capacity and re-balance the power differential among the three CO-EQUAL branches of the federal government.

      We can recognize that the notion that the Supreme Court is supreme over the people, the states, the Executive and the Legislative branches is a pernicious fiction that is not in the American Tradition, is unconstitutional (helloo, “co-equal”), and that the Founding Fathers would have considered an absurdity; an oligarchy. Also, see Robert Bork, The Tempting of America.

      To see what we can do: 54-page paper by Vince Haley and Newt on rebalancing the judiciary:

      They are not the boss of us. The People are sovereign.

      jimzinsocal in reply to WMCB. | April 3, 2012 at 7:56 am

      Wow..the responses to this issue. Sure interesting that so many folks are dialed into his pressuring SCOTUS.

      Its one thing to complain after the decision. Fine. Its our right to complain about opinions we either dont understand or agree with.
      But AFTER the decision if made public. NOT as Obama has done ahead of time to influence the Jurists.
      How is this handled away from DC? Lawyers keep their arguments in Court thats how…to avoid possible jury tampering claims.

Of course, its the 9th Circuit’s liberal activist justices who are the most overturned Circuit Court in the nation.

But no need for accuracy, just flip the script and project proclivity for ______ onto others.

They have class? Not sure what that has to do with their decision. I’d prefer courage. I wish I shared your optimism. I don’t.

They have “class?” Everyone within fifty miles of the Beltway believes they have class. There’s no more reason to ascribe it a member of the Supreme Court than to President Obama because he has a sharp crease in his pants (David Brooks) or for displaying other characteristics noted by Senator Reid (that shall remain unspoken here). Bullied? I’d like to believe some of them will vote it down because they feel it’s unconstitutional, despite believing deeply that it’s “just,” or “right.” Bullied? I think a number of them are looking desperately for any way at all, however obscure, to uphold, not feeling at all bullied by Obama because they might not. I don’t see some of these people as towers of strength.

Conservatives sit around salivating in anticipation of the Obamacare decision. I fear they (we/me) are in for a great disappointment. The supreme court is just as political as any organization or institution in the country, any more. It always has been, but is more so today than ever before. My worthless opinion – everyone is going to get a half loaf. The lawyers, scribblers, talking heads, pundits, aggrieved, and down-trodden masses will have fodder for years. Congress will continue its meaningless debate and make the law worse and worse with multiple vague modifications for years and years to come; candidates will have another talking point; the quality of medical care will decline; and, with the notable exception of those granted exemptions (hurry, applications being accepted now), both access to medical care and its cost will go up. And that’s just the beginning. I’d love to be wrong.

What is O’bammy complaining about???

He already has made two appointments both of whom are activists AND I’ll (almost) bet the farm that Kagan made a discrete call to the WH regarding the straw vote on Friday.

I agree with those that have posted here with regard to FDR’s attempted manipulation of the court in the 1930’s which thankfully failed.

jimzinsocal | April 3, 2012 at 8:01 am

^^Some history books actually paint FDR’s actions with the SCOTUS as a win. They maintain his strongarm tactics sort of whipped future jurists into a mind state where “lay off social reform legislation” and this all caused a see no evil…speak no evil attitude.
I dont buy it all but thats what is in print.

Whiner, liar, thug, douche, not to mention dumbass idiot. On other hand he is preaching to his choir.

jimzinsocal | April 3, 2012 at 9:01 am

Here is what I was getting at around the perceptions of FDR…and how some folks saw his strongarm tactics a win of sorts. Funny to find it here

You don’t remember the lawsuit by Nixon over withholding the Watergate tapes that went to the Supreme Court, do you? That was thuggery.

I agree that Obama’s conduct here is improper (as was FDR’s proposed “court-packing” constitutional amendment). I’ll add that Barry Goldwater, normally a man of impeccable conduct, did make a speech during his 1964 Presidential campaign quite severely criticizing the Supreme Court, accusing it of wielding “raw, naked power”. I can’t find a website to verify this right now, but I do remember newspaper headlines about the speech.

For the smartest man in any room and one who lectured on the constitution, he sure has no idea about the functioning of the judiciary branch. Maybe he should have paid a bit more attention to all those damn negative rights.