April 3, 2012

"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'"

Said Senator Orrin Hatch, commenting on President Obama's preemptive attack on a Supreme Court opinion that would strike down the health care law. Obama, referring to the Court as "an unelected group of people," said "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."

Now, obviously, Obama's attack on the Court is vulnerable to the criticism that it's incoherent because there are other times when he honors the Court precisely because it does strike down laws passed by democratically elected legislatures. Indeed, he seems to use his democratically obtained power to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will, for example, strike down democratically enacted laws restricting abortion. He will lavish praise on the life-tenured, aloof-from-politics judges who produce decisions he likes.

Which brings me back to Hatch's quote: "It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'"

I had to laugh.

Because I've been living in that fantasy world for almost 30 years.

It's called the legal academy.

Amongst the conlawprofs, it's an idea so standard as to be boringly banal: The courts should vigorously enforce individual rights, confidently stepping up to a countermajoritarian role, but when it comes to the "structural" parts of the Constitution — like federalism and separation of powers — the courts should defer to Congress.

83 comments:

Fen said...

hat tip to the Republican with the balls to pushback on this nonsense.

It would appear improper for SCOTUS to defend itself, so thanks for stepping up.

Henry said...

I'm just ruefully laughing about the phrase "strong majority." Talk about living in a fantasy world.

MadisonMan said...

Will Hatch win his primary? I vaguely recall hearing about a strong Tea-Party type challenger.

I would say to any politico: It must be nice living in a fantasy world called Washington DC.

Tank said...

"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."


Is ANY part of this true?

He's confident?
Unprecedented?
Extraordinary?
Strong majority?

Liar in Chief.

Con Man.

Con Man gotta con.

BarryD said...

219-212 in the House is a "strong majority"? A 60-39 straight party-line vote in the Senate is a "strong majority"?

It did get a strong majority vote from the Democratically elected members of Congress.

Maybe Obama meant a capital D... And maybe he also fantasizes about a one-party state, with him at the top.

Rusty said...

It's the Chicago way!!!

Sorun said...

I always feel like we're hanging on by just our fingernails when it comes to how relevant the Constitution is to the federal government.

holdfast said...

And by "individual rights" I assume that when they count, they skip right by "2"?

Tim said...

Indeed. Under Obama's logic, the duly constituted and passed laws that mandated "separate but equal" schools overturned by the Warren Court in Brown v. Board of Education resulted from unacceptable judicial activism.

Good to know that double-standards can now be cited by Obama as a defense of his probably prospectively unconstitutional law.

More importantly, this continues his effort to undermine the authority of the Court, begun with his over-reaction to Citizens United v. FEC (notwithstanding his campaign's ongoing failure to verify credit cards to intentionally break federal campaign contribution laws).

For our affirmative action hire and his voters, the ends justify the means.

Quayle said...

"...a strong majority..."

The one that was immediately dismantled the next election.

Scott M said...

unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress

Henry beat me to it (damned job). When I read this transcript last night, the "strong majority" is what I noticed right away. Who, even on the Democrat side, could call that spurious squeaker a "strong" majority.

It passed by a hand full of votes in the House and just barely missed a filibuster in the Senate. And that was on top of all the backroom bullshit they had to pull just to get to that margin.

Normally, I would honestly say that while I dislike the President's policies, it's directly attributable bullshit like this that convince me that I'm not very fond of the man.

Tim said...

"219-212 in the House is a "strong majority"? A 60-39 straight party-line vote in the Senate is a "strong majority"?"

So, he lied. Can you say you're surprised?

For our affirmative action hire and his voters, the ends justify the means.

David said...

Once again, the "structural" parts of the Constitution are just as protective of liberty as the Bill of Rights. Perhaps more so. The Founders were an able group (compare them to our current political leaders.)Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many others would make mincemeat of (say) President Obama. George Washington's concept of leadership and duty is far above most of what we see today.

The deep reach of government, and particularly the Federal government, is a drag on freedom. In rare cases, like the Civil Rights issues of the last century, they are curbing a freedom that was used to oppress. Having enjoyed this power and drunk with self congratulation at the result, they now seek to expand the power to the federal government above all other powers.

This is a very bad development.

rhhardin said...

Obama is making himself as unattractive as possible for some reason.

Even con men disown him.

Troubled Voter said...

ugh the idea that republicans don't pick and choose which decisions are "activist" is a joke. republicans have used the term "activist judge" like it's going out of style for at least a decade now.

Tim said...

"I would say to any politico: It must be nice living in a fantasy world called Washington DC."

So Sen. Hatch's analysis is wrong?

Please explain how so.

Jake said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rose said...

What Tim said...

Lem said...

..said "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."

Reality check..

The House agreed to the Senate version 219–212.. and the Senate only passed it after it secured votes through the Cornhusker Kickback and other unsavory means.

That's what Obama calls a strong majority.

Tim said...

Troubled Voter said...

"ugh the idea that republicans don't pick and choose which decisions are "activist" is a joke. republicans have used the term "activist judge" like it's going out of style for at least a decade now."

Yes, but for cause.

The Court has clearly legislated from the bench over the last 50 years, advancing a liberal agenda that could not pass Congress.

So your position is that Republicans should accept liberal activism from the Court, but Obama is correct in blowing the whistle on "conservative activism" (which only means, "How does this comport with the Constitution here?")?

Nice set of double-standards you have there. Get them on sale from the idiot store?

Jake said...

The WSJ has a good editorial on this today. It makes the point our Con-law professor in chief may have missed the relatively new case of Marbury v. Madison. http://on.wsj.com/Ha1CAb

BarryD said...

No, Tim, I'm not surprised. I probably have an even lower opinion of Obama than you do.

I just think that lies and propaganda need to be pointed out. Always.

AprilApple said...

Someone named Ruth Marcus, who agrees with the law, suggests that Obama went too far.

"But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.
would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice. "

Petunia said...

Pretty scary that a Harvard law grad, editor of the Law Review no less, has such an appallingly bad grasp of separation of powers and constitutional law.

Of course, every single thing Obama has achieved, he's done through affirmative action, since he was completely unqualified any other way. And yet his arrogance and narcissism are unparalleled.

What an insult to those minorities who achieve through their own hard work and individual merit.

Simon said...

"Amongst the conlawprofs, it's an idea so standard as to be boringly banal: The courts should vigorously enforce individual rights, confidently stepping up to a countermajoritarian role, but when it comes to the 'structural' parts of the Constitution — like federalism and separation of powers — the courts should defer to Congress."

It's the Jesse Choper theory—the court should keep its powder dry, staying out of structural stuff in favor of the rights stuff that really matters—and it's inside out. The structural constitution is more in need of robust and solicitous judicial defense than individual rights, because incursions of individual rights are significantly easier to remedy and significantly less likely to occur than the political branches seeking to aggrandize themselves. The notion that Congress is the right actor to police the boundaries of Congressional power borders on the laughable; can you imagine any judge writing a Garcia-esque defense of the court deferring to the President on the outer boundaries of Presidential power?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Troubled Voter said...

ugh the idea that republicans don't pick and choose which decisions are "activist" is a joke. republicans have used the term "activist judge" like it's going out of style for at least a decade now.


You clearly don't know what judicial activism is, TV. When the court rules on the concordance, or lack of it, of a legislative act with the Constitution (ACA), the court is doing its job. That is not activism, but the system of checks and balkances at work. When the court invents rights that are not hinted at in the Constitution (Roe v. Wade), that is activism. I can see why you're troubled. Ignorance is a bitch.

traditionalguy said...

A complete Commerce Clause tyranny is not a good thing for anyone except the Government's Cronies.

But the real problem is that once SCOTUS is no longer a limiting institution, then it iwill be a relic.

The Obama demand is that the SCOTUS kill itself off to set our rulers free of limitations on their power to rule citizens, and save them from rising sea levels et al..

It should be called the new "Court is Dead doctrine" taught by the Marxist Ruler himself.

edutcher said...

GodZero never heard of the National Recovery Administration.

The linchpin of the New Deal was also thrown out by the Court and led to FDR's court-packing scheme.

The "constitutional law professor" didn't know about something I read about in junior year of senior high.

He really is that ignorant.

Quayle said...

Pretty scary that a Harvard law grad, editor of the Law Review no less, has such an appallingly bad grasp of separation of powers and constitutional law.

More scary that he doesn't seem to love the constitution or the law.

He'll take his chances in whatever winds of politics or power blow.

Con man believes in his ability to con anyone.

Writ Small said...

The courts should vigorously enforce individual rights, confidently stepping up to a countermajoritarian role, but when it comes to the "structural" parts of the Constitution — like federalism and separation of powers — the courts should defer to Congress.

The health care debate shows that federalism and individual rights are deeply interconnected.

A state (versus the fed) forcing the citizen is far less an infringement on rights because the state officials are more answerable to the public, and if a state really screws up, people can vote with their feet and move to other states.

It's the overlap between the structural / federalism issues and individual rights that gives hope of getting this monstrosity overturned.

Lem said...

You would think the term Activism is self explanatory..

Activism consists of intentional efforts to promote, impede or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change.

Saying a law is unconstitutional is not activism.. its their job.

PatCA said...

AS traditionalguy notes, hasn't the Court weakened federalism with its liberal definition of "interstate commerce"? Isn't that what got us to this place?

Christopher in MA said...

Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many others would make mincemeat of (say) President Obama.

Hell, David, Millard Fillmore would make mincemeat of this preening, racist, empty-skulled putative Peron. As Soron implied, it is amazing how fragile - and yet, at the same time, superlatively strong - the Constitution is. Not bad for a bunch of old, racist slaveowners.

As has been pointed out at Ace's, among other places, the SCOAMF's rabblerousing means someone - likely Kagan or the Wise Latina - told him qui vive that OCare is headed for the trashbin of history.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

What Mr. Hatch said is essentially the same thought I have heard from a variety of lawyers I know.

I know liberal lawyers, and I know conservative lawyers.

It just depends on what narrative you are trying to promote.

For humans, restraint is very hard.

wv - Sityui lieiz

MikeR said...

"It must be nice living in a fantasy world". It's nice for a while. Then you wake up, and it's quite a nasty shock.

ricpic said...

How far is it from Rodney King's "Can't we all get along?" to Obama's admonishing the Supreme Court for not being "human?" Not far. The same simple dishonesty.

paul a'barge said...

The courts should vigorously enforce individual rights, confidently stepping up to a countermajoritarian role, but when it comes to the "structural" parts of the Constitution — like federalism and separation of powers — the courts should defer to Congress.

This is not what Obama thinks and it is not what Hatch is accusing Obama of thinking.

Hatch is right and Obama is dangerous, as are all Liberals.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"The notion that Congress is the right actor to police the boundaries of Congressional power borders on the laughable;"

Exactly right.

Someone please tell Bob Wright that the SCOTUS is a check on the legislative and the executive, please.

Rick said...

Too bad Gerald Gunther was not part of your legal academy.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Pretty scary that a Harvard law grad, editor of the Law Review no less, has such an appallingly bad grasp of separation of powers and constitutional law.

Obama is obviously not a Harvard Law Grad or Con Law professor. Like all those guys in white coats pretending to be doctors in drug commercials, Obama just plays one on television an in the media.

If we all live long enough it will come out that Obama has been the longest con ever played upon the American Public. But, who can blame him....after all there is a sucker born every minute. It is easy to fool the stupid and the brainwashed.

Fen said...

Troubled Voter: the idea that republicans don't pick and choose which decisions are "activist" is a joke.

No, the joke is that MediaMatters sent you out with this swill and didn't bother to give you a correct definition of "activist".

You can't even defend your own point, which means its not yours, you're just a parrot.

Fly back to MediaMatters and ask them why they sent you on a suicide mission.

BarrySanders20 said...

Writ says:

The health care debate shows that federalism and individual rights are deeply interconnected.

That's right in many cases. It also is demonstrated outside the federalism realm in decisions like Kelo where the SCOTUS held that taking private land to give to a different private party did not violate the takings clause of the 5th amendment. This "legal academy" notion that certain rights are more equal than others (just happening to be the ones the leftists perfer) allows judges to rule any which way they choose. Sometimes that favors the individual over the state, but sometimes not.

MadisonMan said...

So Sen. Hatch's analysis is wrong?

Why are you making that conclusion? I didn't.

If Hatch is in a tight Primary, I think that's a reason he's speaking out now -- or finding a way to make sure his quotes are shown.

Roman said...

Barry can say whatever he wants, no matter how outrageous or untrue, knowing the dinosaur media has his back. The double standard is clear.

Paul Zrimsek said...

The fantasy world I'd really like to live in is one like Ron Paul's got, where every law I don't like is unconstitutional. But Obama's is almost as good.

Justin said...

Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guily of living in the "fantasy world" Hatch accuses Obama of inhabiting. The real problem in this country is that it is populated with people who are unable to recognize that. Sure, you can come up with some superficial distinction between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, but the truth is that there isn't one.
I'd bet if you looked hard enough you could find a quote from Hatch accusing the Court of "activism" in exactly the same manner that Obama did.
Althouse's observation is equally applicable to Hatch: "Now, obviously, [Hatch]'s attack on [Obama] is vulnerable to the criticism that it's incoherent because there are other times when he honors the Court precisely because it does strike down laws passed by democratically elected legislatures."

damikesc said...

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

Out of curiosity, hasn't the SCOTUS overturned laws many times in the past?

I guess they SHOULD have let the flag burning laws stand. Ditto all of the state limitations on birth control.

Heck, at least the people who passed those laws MIGHT have read them first. We know the ones who passed Obamacare didn't.

ugh the idea that republicans don't pick and choose which decisions are "activist" is a joke. republicans have used the term "activist judge" like it's going out of style for at least a decade now.

Read up on Kansas City and its "desegregation" plan.

Where IS the Right to Privacy in the Constitution?

How did a Right that doesn't actually exist (if one had a right to privacy, the IRS would be doomed because one's income is private) cover acts like abortion?

Amongst the conlawprofs, it's an idea so standard as to be boringly banal: The courts should vigorously enforce individual rights, confidently stepping up to a countermajoritarian role, but when it comes to the "structural" parts of the Constitution — like federalism and separation of powers — the courts should defer to Congress.

In THIS case, however, isn't this a direct attack on individual rights?

Chip Ahoy said...

This is all very well and good, these messages you send to us from the real world and they do amuse us so but we here in Reverso World where everything is opposite from yours laugh and laugh at your quaint notations when we think to apply these upside down ideas you send us. Ha Ha Ha Good cheer to you.

Justin said...

Someone please tell Bob Wright that the SCOTUS is a check on the legislative and the executive, please.

This is exactly why the Court should strike down the mandate. But I don't think Kennedy has the guts. We shall see.

Fen said...

Justin: Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guily of living in the "fantasy world"

I really hate pompus self-righteous Equivalence Fairies.


Sure, you can come up with some superficial distinction between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, but the truth is that there isn't one.

Wrong. For conservatives, an "activist" judge is one who *creates* laws instead of ruling on them. Please show how striking down Obamacare as a violation of the Commerce Clause is SCOTUS *creating* new laws.

MediaMatters must think you guys are knuckledragging morons to send you out with these talking points.

JamericanSpice said...

Well if the president had not sent out a veiled threat to the justices on the bill, Orrin wouldn't have had to say this quote which is very true

Justin said...

I really hate pompus self-righteous Equivalence Fairies.

Thanks for that. Real mature.

Wrong. For conservatives, an "activist" judge is one who *creates* laws instead of ruling on them.

I assume you would call, say, Lawrence v. Texas "activist." But the Court didn't create any law in that case. It *ruled* on a Texas law, and found the law unconstitutional. I understand that you probably disagree with the Court's interpretation of the Due Process Clause in that case. But it's not as if the Commerce Clause is particularly illluminating. It requires interpretation. Just like the Due Process Clause, it requires explanation through case law and other sources to understand what it means in any given context. With respect to both, it comes down to whether you agree with the interpretation or not. You can call me an "equivalence fairy" or whatever else you want but you're kidding yourself if you think there's some intellectually defensible justification for using the word "activist" to describe Court decisions striking down certain laws but not others. Here's a challenge: how about name a Court decision you agree with that you also think was "activist." If you're going to use that word, I think you ought, at the very least, to be able to do that.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Here's a challenge: how about name a Court decision you agree with that you also think was "activist."

I don't know whether you really meant it to come out that way, but that's a silly test. However one defines activism, surely a threshold condition for a decision to be "activist" is that it be wrongly decided?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Because democrats, and democrats alone, passed the ACA, it must be constitutional.

Remember what Nancy said when questioned about constitutionality.

Or, what was in the bill itself.

These are the answers of somebody either completely devoid of self-awareness, or some that is being deceptive.

So, re-defining what 'activism' means is well within the purview of progressives.

Christy said...

What does this mean? When Kagan leaked to the WH did she add that presidential pressure could change a wavering vote?

The Drill SGT said...

The saddest thing is that Obama doesn't seem to understand the role of the court. It could be that the Law is perfectly Constitutional and bad policy, or that it is good policy and un-constitutional.

Why is it that some of us think that Obama and the 4 liberals would say YES and YES to these two alternatives

while the Conservatives would say YES and NO.

for all O'bamas talk about activists, it seemed like the conservatives had the open minds and the 4 liberals already had written their decision in stone.

Bruce Hayden said...

We have discussed Sen. Hatch's motives here, but what about President Obama's motive's?

I think that if one were asked if it were more likely that Obama felt confident, neutral, or unconfident about the results of the case, after oral arguments last week, I think that a lot would think that it was unconfidence speaking. And, while the discussions and interior votes are supposed to be confidential, I don't think that many would be surprised if his former Solicitor General, now Justice, Elena Kagen, had picked up the phone to tell him or his people about the initial vote taken shortly after the oral arguments.

It would not be the least bit surprising to me that this statement by the President were the result of inside information concerning a negative initial vote by the Justices. And, one of the reasons that he would make it would be for battlefield preparation, lowering expectations, etc. for expected bad news this summer.

BUT, a more nefarious suggestion that been made, that this is a blatant attempt to pressure swing Justices (i.e. Justice Kennedy) by reminding them of their role vs. Congress' role, etc.

Rusty said...

Sorun said...
I always feel like we're hanging on by just our fingernails when it comes to how relevant the Constitution is to the federal government.




It's a "living document" don'tcha know.

Fen said...

I really hate pompus self-righteous Equivalence Fairies.

Justin: Thanks for that. Real mature.

Oh I forgot, since you're the one who played the "both sides do it" card, you think you're the adult in the room.

Pompous. Ass.

TosaGuy said...

If Kagan wanted to be a force on the bench during her tenure she would side against Obamacare and write the definitive opinion.

A vote for Obamacare will simply cement her role as just another lefty justice who offers nothing more than her vote...nothing more than another Sotomayor

The Drill SGT said...

Bruce Hayden said...
It would not be the least bit surprising to me that this statement by the President were the result of inside information concerning a negative initial vote by the Justices. And, one of the reasons that he would make it would be for battlefield preparation, lowering expectations, etc. for expected bad news this summer.

Good analysis as usual Bruce, but incomplete IMHO. I'd add an additional thought.

If and until he had inside knowledge of the initial vote, too much pressure could be counter-productive. However once he learned that the vote was 5-4 against, or worse, 6-3 against on some further portion, there would be less to constrain O'bama from trying to force vote back to a win for his side.

then the rest of your pre-announcement illegitimizing also applies as well

Patrick Ryan said...

All of you who have your panties in a bunch because a duly elected President throws a brush back pitch at a court that seems intent on striking down the individual mandate to ensure universal coverage. This is the same court that yesterday removed what shred is left of the Fourth Amendment. I mean: we get irritate by airport scans, but there is no outcry that any cop who arrests any citizen on any charge can strip that individual entirely before jailing him or her. Good God he should be throwing at their heads!

Tim said...

"Why are you making that conclusion? I didn't."

Your statement, "I would say to any politico: It must be nice living in a fantasy world called Washington DC." implies, as Hatch is a politico who lives in Washington DC, that he too lives in a fantasy world, and is also wrong.

Please tell me how I'm wrong in drawing that conclusion.

cassandra lite said...

Welcome to Hollywood, where political truths are self evident and only morons hold dissenting opinions.

Hagar said...

The way Obama put it sounded like a bit of a threat to me.

Fen said...

Patrick, I think its your panties that are in a bunch. Good God, take a valium or somesuch.

the individual mandate to ensure universal coverage.

Doesn't matter how grand the design is. Its not constitutional. You don't like it, move to the UK.

Fen said...

However once he learned that the vote was 5-4 against, or worse, 6-3 against on some further portion

If I (as Obama) had learned the decision was going 6-3, I would have done just what he did - to peel one liberal vote off so I had manuever space to whine about the 5-4 "partisan" decision.

He may be talking to Ginsberg or Sotomayor.

NitneLiun said...

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the federal courts defer to the U.S. Constitution instead of Congress? If I'm wrong, then I guess my political science diploma has no more value than toilet paper.

damikesc said...

All of you who have your panties in a bunch because a duly elected President throws a brush back pitch at a court that seems intent on striking down the individual mandate to ensure universal coverage.

How DARE they...try and abide by the Constitution.

But it's not the first time this President issued a dishonest dispute with their decision or demonstrated that he's just too stupid to grasp the basics of a case. He was every inch as bad with Citizens United.

And nice to issue a "brush back pitch" to a branch that cannot respond. I love that he bemoans bullying --- but there isn't a bigger bully in the US than Obama.

This is the same court that yesterday removed what shred is left of the Fourth Amendment.

Which makes his incessant bitching relevant...how?

I mean: we get irritate by airport scans, but there is no outcry that any cop who arrests any citizen on any charge can strip that individual entirely before jailing him or her. Good God he should be throwing at their heads!

Notice who isn't upset about the decision at all?

Yup, Obama.

Patrick Ryan said...

Fen wrote:
"Doesn't matter how grand the design is. Its not constitutional."
damikesc wrote:
How DARE they...try and abide by the Constitution.

That's the question before the court isn't it? Didn't know you were Con Law Scholars as well as an expert of Florida's criminal law.(see yesterday's comments)

Here's hoping you never need healthcare or are wrongly arrested for a fine already paid. Otherwise you are obliged to bend over and take it up the butt. So says the commerce clause and what used to be called the 4th amendment.

Simon said...

Patrick Ryan said...
"This is the same court that yesterday removed what shred is left of the Fourth Amendment. … [T]here is no outcry that any cop who arrests any citizen on any charge can strip that individual entirely before jailing him or her."

I think you need to go back and read Florence with considerably greater care and attention.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Patrick Ryan

Really? Stick to the issue at hand, please. Duly elected, selected, whatever, its clear this president doesn't give a rip about anything but his legislation or his reelection.

This man can stand in front of SCOTUS and call them out without batting an eye. He can whine about them not being 'elected'. WTF is Kathleen Sebelius, Patrick? I sure as hell don't want her making decisions about my or my family's health choices/life, I can tell you that.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

When the president is sworn in, isn't he bound to uphold the constitution???

Or, as some might like us to believe, is he obligated to promote his signature/his party's legislation???

Is this all about POTUS self-aggrandizement??? Dreams of his father???

That's what SCOTUS is for, to police against rogue 'administrators' and legislators like we have, now.

Fen said...

Patrick: That's the question before the court isn't it? Didn't know you were Con Law Scholars as well as an expert of Florida's criminal law.(see yesterday's comments)

The only reason we appear as Con Law scholars and experts on Florida is law is because... we can actually comprehend what we read.

You should try it sometime. Instead of relying on whatever libtard site's interpretation that has your panties all bunched.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Patrick: "Here's hoping you are never wrongly arrested for a fine already paid. Otherwise you are obliged to bend over and take it up the butt."

Patrick died next Friday. He got into a dispute at the Occupy rally and police arrested him and took him to jail. Overnight, Patrick Ryan was repeatedly stabbed to death by a repeat offender who had smuggled a shiv into the general population.

Patrick's wife is using his death to launch a crusade for searches of all inmates admitted to the general population so "this travesty will never happen again".

Mrs. Ryan was awarded $1.4 million in damages from the state of Florida. She was last seen boarding a plane to Europe with some character named Fen, laughing "what the hell was I thinking?"

Bender said...

Scalia warned against this --

"whether it would 'subvert the Court's legitimacy' or not, the notion that we would decide a case differently from the way we otherwise would have in order to show that we can stand firm against public disapproval is frightening. . . . In truth, I am as distressed as the Court is--and expressed my distress several years ago, see Webster, 492 U. S., at 535--about the 'political pressure' directed to the Court: the marches, the mail, the protests aimed at inducing us to change our opinions. How upsetting it is, that so many of our citizens (good people, not lawless ones, on both sides of this abortion issue, and on various sides of other issues as well) think that we Justices should properly take into account their views, as though we were engaged not in ascertaining an objective law but in determining some kind of social consensus. The Court would profit, I think, from giving less attention to the fact of this distressing phenomenon, and more attention to the cause of it. That cause permeates today's opinion: a new mode of constitutional adjudication that relies not upon text and traditional practice to determine the law, but upon what the Court calls 'reasoned judgment,' ante, at 7, which turns out to be nothing but philosophical predilection and moral intuition."
--Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (Scalia, dissenting)

Bender said...

Scalia, continued --

"What makes all this relevant to the bothersome application of 'political pressure' against the Court are the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools. As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we Justices were doing essentially lawyers' work up here--reading text and discerning our society's traditional understanding of that text--the public pretty much left us alone. Texts and traditions are facts to study, not convictions to demonstrate about. But if in reality our process of constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments; if we can ignore a long and clear tradition clarifying an ambiguous text, as we did, for example, five days ago in declaring unconstitutional invocations and benedictions at public high school graduation ceremonies, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ___ (1992); if, as I say, our pronouncement of constitutional law rests primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people's attitude towards us can be expected to be (ought to be) quite different. The people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school--maybe better. If, indeed, the 'liberties' protected by the Constitution are, as the Court says, undefined and unbounded, then the people should demonstrate, to protest that we do not implement their values instead of ours. Not only that, but confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into question and answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their constituents' most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional rights, and seek the nominee's commitment to support or oppose them. Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our Constitution has somehow accidently committed them to the Supreme Court, at least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body is put forward."

Patrick Ryan said...

Fen,

Your breathtaking arrogance is exceeded by your colossal arrogance. Try reading this without moving your lips. For the record I prefer commando.

Stay well

Fen said...

Can't hear you, you're dead.

And seriously, you didn't get the point? Not even gonna walk your tantrum back with a "well gee I guess if I was in jail it would be nice if the other perps weren't admitted into my cell with weapons"..

Fen said...

BTW, your wife said size *does* matter afterall. Sorry.

Maybe you can haunt us in Rio. If you can keep up.

Bender said...

Read up on Kansas City and its "desegregation" plan

This is why our Republic will never be safe so long as it is in the hands of Anthony Kennedy, who would go so far as to rule that it is constitutionally a-ok for judges to have the power of taxation, to order the imposition of taxes over the refusal of the people's representatives. (To hell with "no taxation without representation," one of the founding principles of our very birth as a nation.)

Maybe Kennedy will act to save the Republic this time, or maybe he will act to undermine it yet again. Who knows???

Joe Schmoe said...

Bruce, I agree with your thoughts, and would add that Barry's motives include something even more basic.

He's very, very desperate. He's realized that Ocare is all he has to show for his 4 years in office. If this gets thrown, he looks bad in a couple of ways. One, he has no achievements. Nothing, nada, nyet. Seriously, one of the worst presidencies ever. He gambled on health care when he should've focused on the economy.

Two, he's supposed to know the law, so he looks incredibly incompetent to the average voter. Seriously, if he can't get matters of law right, what can he do?

Kagan also has massive face to save in this case (I mean that figuratively; she may also have a massive face). She looks equally incompetent if it gets tossed. Obama is the affirmative action hire; Kagan achieves a feminist milestone by becoming the first woman who failed upward to get on the high court. Although I'm not sure how Ginsberg got there.

Harvard Law sucks butt. Talk about fantasy world.

Can't we get a justice from a state school for a change?