Althouse: "Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?"

June 26, 2014

"Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?"

"It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported....'

24 comments:

Gahrie said...: When you keep getting slapped down by even your own appointees........; 6/26/14, 2:09 PM
David said...: That's interesting, but is it unusual?; 6/26/14, 2:10 PM
The Drill SGT said...: As Fund says, when you lose your own Solicitor General (Kagan), it demonstrates our positioning is way left of mainstream legal thought on the Constitution and Federal perogatives; 6/26/14, 2:10 PM
Original Mike said...: “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Don't the SC Justices know Obama was a Constitutional Law Instructor? How dare they?; 6/26/14, 2:15 PM
Curious George said...: First Black Presidents don't give a flying fuck about Constitutionality.; 6/26/14, 2:16 PM
SteveR said...: It would be nice if the media would do its job but meanwhile the administration acts like they are all that. History might do a better job.; 6/26/14, 2:19 PM
traditionalguy said...: Destroying the Bill of Rights here is Obama's first mission. Fund is amazed that liberals don't care at all about that.

Fear of unchecked abuse is a tool for a King. Militarized civilian agencies, IRStapo, a Lysenkoist EPA and a NSA keeping a dossier on every human is necessary for Martial Law. The artifact of a silly Congress is an out dated tool for governing by compromise without obeying a King.; 6/26/14, 2:25 PM
Robert Cook said...: Has the Supreme Court ruled against Obama's claimed (and acted upon) power to kill American citizens anytime, anywhere, on his say-so, without due process of law?

If they're concerned about the President's violation of our civil liberties--as they should be--the right not to be killed by fiat would seem to be paramount among the executive's claimed (and acted upon) powers about which they should be concerned.; 6/26/14, 2:28 PM
Drago said...: LOL

Laws.

What a quaint concept.; 6/26/14, 2:30 PM
Brando said...: Well, you gotta push your limits--I get that. What's important is that the other branches of government stand their ground. What's less fortunate is it seems the general public cares little about this sort of thing--they seem okay with an abuse of power as long as that abuse of power is being used to do something they favor. That's the banana republic crap that needs to go.; 6/26/14, 2:36 PM
donald said...: These cocksuckers have an ideology that is being rejected, Ceptin for the big one, where John Roberts injected that Barack Hussein Obama's argument was actually the exact opposite, so suck it bitches.

Who paid who for that one?

We are screwed.; 6/26/14, 2:42 PM
Nonapod said...: I guess that means the Supreme Court performed its job correctly at least 13 times in the past 18 months.; 6/26/14, 2:44 PM
MadisonMan said...: IANAL.

Is that batting record worse than previous President's/DOJ's records? I assume it is. The article says that the DOJ wins about 70% of the time, but that says nothing about the records of individual Presidencies.; 6/26/14, 2:52 PM
fizzymagic said...: Kind of hard to know how much weight to give that number until it is compared to past presidents.

I'm guessing it is high?; 6/26/14, 2:55 PM
great Unknown said...: Unfortunately, they have the win in the ACA, with the terrible consequences accruing from that. [That last phrase is troll bait].; 6/26/14, 3:10 PM
Hagar said...: and more to come.; 6/26/14, 3:26 PM
Original Mike said...: "Has the Supreme Court ruled against Obama's claimed (and acted upon) power to kill American citizens anytime, anywhere, on his say-so, without due process of law?"

Who would have standing to bring that suit?; 6/26/14, 3:28 PM
Original Mike said...: Vickie McKenna just claimed Obama's win rate is 37%.; 6/26/14, 3:46 PM
Revenant said...: Has the Supreme Court ruled against Obama's claimed (and acted upon) power to kill American citizens anytime, anywhere, on his say-so, without due process of law?

No case about it has reached them, so far as I know. The families of one of the dead people could sue, but if any of them have it hasn't reached SCOTUS.; 6/26/14, 4:02 PM
madAsHell said...: ...but he was an adjunct professor of Constitutional Law!!

I'm also wondering why none of his former students have come forward with classroom anecdotes.; 6/26/14, 5:06 PM
Leo said...: Remember when they were like "We won't defend DOMA because we think it's unconstitutional." Shouldn't all of these cases be much clearer than that so they shouldn't have defended them even more?; 6/26/14, 5:08 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: During the 2008 election, Obama supporters were fond of claiming that Obama was a constitutional law professor.
Apparently he wasn't a good one. Do you think that there are any lawyers out there now, bragging that they learned con-law from Obama?

Over at TPM they are claiming that this foul decision tilts the table in favor of the Senate, because they can simply refuse to confirm an appointee.
This means that ignorance of the constitution on the Left goes far beyond the current occupant of the Whitehouse.; 6/26/14, 5:15 PM
Zach said...: Obama keeps getting slapped down because he keeps advocating absurd positions. Did he really think the Supreme Court was going to rule that the President could decide whether the Senate was in session when the Senate disagreed? The only reason it was 9-0 is because there are only 9 justices.

Most administrations have very good records in front of the Supreme Court because they're strategic about what cases they put before it. The President has lots and lots of lawyers working for him, and he really ought to be getting good advice about whether putting a particular case in front of the Court will advance or hurt his interests.

Looking at Obama's terrible record, it's hard to avoid the impression that he's winging it. He's arguing weak cases because he wants a particular outcome, not because he thinks that he has a strong legal basis for that outcome. And he's not paying attention to the legal advice telling him that his argument is weak.

Even if you thought you had a strong argument, the NLRB is an odd hill to die on. Without the illegal appointments, the board doesn't have quorum, so you throw several years of rulings into doubt when you inevitably lose in court.

A wise legal strategy for challenging the pro forma sessions of the Senate would be by appointing someone to be head of the Agency for Nothing in Particular. Then the appointee's individual contributions to the agency's mission is obscured.; 6/27/14, 12:27 AM
Larry J said...: bert Cook said...
Has the Supreme Court ruled against Obama's claimed (and acted upon) power to kill American citizens anytime, anywhere, on his say-so, without due process of law?

Killing American citizens anywhere, anytime? That would be wrong. But if an American citizen joins the enemy side in active combat against US forces, he just made himself a legitimate target of war. You don't read Miranda rights on a battlefield. If you can capture that person, then fine. Try him for treason. If you can't capture him, he doesn't deserve any better treatment than anyone else shooting at us.; 6/27/14, 7:42 AM