Inequality

Radical

OK, this is worth every MINUTE (ONLY 4) to watch this! THIS HITS IT OUT OF THE BALL PARK ! It was taken inside Congress with a Congressman. YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS and YOU MUST PASS THIS ON!!! THIS IS IMPERATIVE EVERYONE SEE THIS!! IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE VIDEO TAPES OF THE FLOOR OF OUR NATIONAL LEGISLATURE. PLEASE GET THIS OUT TO EVERYONE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Yes You Can.

APRIL 3, 2012

APRIL 3, 2012

STEVEN HAYWARD ON Obama’s Assault on Judicial Review:

I’m grateful for the favor Obama did for us yesterday of exposing his extreme constitutional ignorance, with his comments on how it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to strike down a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. (As if a House margin of seven votes is a “strong” majority.) True, he walked back the comment today, but surely because his statement was not merely indefensible but outright embarrassing to his media defenders.

I’ve been growing weary of hearing people mention that he’s a “constitutional scholar,” since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But hey—he taught constitutional law, didn’t he?

Not really.

Meanwhile, the judiciary is not amused: Fifth Circuit calls out DOJ lawyer: Is your boss now claiming that courts don’t have the power to strike down laws? “The courts may choose take Obama at his word, unless he explains that it was just a campaign speech and not intended to represent the position of the Executive Branch on the matter. The Fifth Circuit’s ‘homework assignment’ is a fairly gentle reminder to the President that he actually leads the United States government and not just the campaign for his reelection.”

Related: Obama Walks Back Supreme Court Threat, Still Gets It Wrong.

Hey, Obama’s so bad on this that Ruth Marcus is complaining. “Obama’s assault on ‘an unelected group of people’ stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning ‘a duly constituted and passed law.’”

As I said earlier, if I were in Congress I’d introduce a proposed Constitutional amendment providing for elected Supreme Court Justices, and ask for the President’s support . . . .

Posted at 9:49 pm by Glenn Reynolds

Obama the cheater.

THE NEW YORK SUN: Ex Parte Obama.

It’s been a long time since we’ve heard a presidential demarche as outrageous as President Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare. The president made the remarks at a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. It was an attack on the court’s standing and even its integrity in a backhanded way that is typically Obamanian. For starters the president expressed confidence that the Court would “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.” . . .

It is outrageous enough that the president’s protest was inaccurate. What in the world is he talking about when he asserts the law was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act barely squeaked through the Congress. In the Senate it escaped a filibuster by but a hair. The vote was so tight in the house — 219 to 212 — that the leadership went through byzantine maneuvers to get the measure to the president’s desk. No Republicans voted for it when it came up in the House, and the drive to repeal the measure began the day after Mr. Obama signed the measure.

It is the aspersions the President cast on the Supreme Court, though, that take the cake. We speak of the libel about the court being an “unelected group of people” who might “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This libel was dealt with more than two centuries ago in the newspaper column known as 78 Federalist and written by Alexander Hamilton.

Obama must be expecting to lose. Because if he wins, this kind of threat will simply allow people on the right to argue that the Supreme Court’s decision was the result of intimidation, and deserves no deference by a new Supreme Court. And how will Obama’s feminist supporters feel, given that those all-important abortion and birth-control decisions also came from an “unelected” Supreme Court?

And if I were a Republican member of Congress I’d immediately introduce a proposed Constitutional amendment to elect all future Supreme Court justices in a national vote, with no input from the President. Just for fun . . . .

Posted at 3:16 am by Glenn Reynolds

Ted Bell's new book is awesome!

Amazon.com

Hollywood is a lie.