Tag Archives: supreme court

Did Roberts cave to media pressure and the Bully ‘Bama?

As legal scholars study the Supreme Court’s decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion–and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage. If so, it would appear that the Chief Justice may have succumbed to the bullying meted out by President Barack Obama, who attacked the Court in the aftermath of oral arguments in March, when Obamacare seemed headed for certain defeat.  http://alturl.com/e547p

Justice Kennedy visibly upset about decision:   http://alturl.com/6grm3

If Roberts did this for media approval he is a fool.  Because the very first time he rules in a way the “NYT” does not agree with, they will try to ruin him any way.

Posted:  07.02.12 @ 8:42 a.m.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama: Refers to Supreme Court as “An unelected group of people”

That’s the Supreme Court he’s talking about.  He actually said “unintelected”.

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Obama said.

It certainly was not passed by a “strong majority” and isn’t every law that the Supreme Court considers a law passed by a “democratically elected congress?”

I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld.

And again, that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency.

He sure is counting on people being “ignert” as Al Sharpton says.


Posted:  04.3.12 @8:29 a.m.

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Courts, Uncategorized

Barack is Kagan’s “Hero”

No wonder her good friend, Barack, has nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court.  Here she is praising his “brilliance” in 2005.

During a 2005 Harvard Law School award Luncheon now-Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan lavished praised for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and explained the “privilege” of attending the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “I have something of a political background, myself,” she began. “When the Democratic National Convention came to town, I asked some friends of mine for some tickets and I went each night to the convention,” she said.

Kagan said no one paid attention to the speakers, until the night Obama spoke. “He opened his mouth, said a few words and the place was mesmerized. You could of heard a pin drop. In part that is because of all the rock star qualities he has: the eloquence, the magnetism, the great looks, the brilliance,” she praised him. “When he opens up his mouth, you know you’re getting the real deal,” she continued. Kagan called Obama a “hero.” She concluded that Obama is “truly one of the great public servants of our time” and gives many “hope” in the future of the country. (Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Sept. 17, 2005)

See video of this syrupy hero worship Here.

Now that we have experienced about a year and a half of his “magnetism and brilliance” we know he hasn’t a clue what he is doing, and if he does know, it’s even worse, since he is conducting the destruction of the country.  It seems Ms. Kagan has just about as much experience as he does.

We do not need an Obama rubber stamp buddy on the Supreme Court.  Please, Republicans, do your duty and oppose this nomination.

Posted:  05.12.10


Filed under Barack Obama, Human Interest, Law, politics, Uncategorized

Wrong reactions, bad decisions

There are so many intances of this administration being off the mark that it would be impossible to mention them all.

Here’s a few of the worst in my opinion:

If there was ever a time when the president should have been outraged, it was the killing of the soldiers at Ft. Hood by one of their own.  Not only one of their own, but one who is a high ranking officer charged with a duty of counseling soldiers. I think this was one of the worst, if not the worst, acts of treason in history, and obviously an act of terrorism and yet the president gave a tepid “don’t jump to conclusions” response.

Then we have the panty bomber on Christmas Day and another slow response and reluctance to call an act of terrorism what it is.  He had betowed on him constitutional rights and then the plans for his skin grafts began. He was with AQ, he said he was with AQ, and even Osama bin Laden has since claimed him.  It took, what, four speeches before the president admitted the connection to AQ.  First reaction.  Wrong reaction.

Then we come to the decision to try terrorists in New York City, buying a prison in Illinois to put them in, the funds for this being included in the budget proposal just submitted to congress. In the case of Shiek Mohammad, at least three members of the administration – Holder, Robert Gibbs, and even the president himself – have declared him guilty and are assuring everyone that he will be executed – will meet his maker and pay for murdering innocent people and so forth.  Good.

But wait a minute.  The reason given for trying him in a criminal court, bringing him to U. S. soil and giving him constitutional rights, is to show the world the exellence of our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence being a very key element of the system.  He is presumed to be innocent and yet the White House has already declared him guilty and, in fact, have executed him before the trial is held.  What’s the old joke? “we’re going to execute him once we give him a fair trial.”  It just becomes ridiculous at some point.

And, last but not least, the visual of members of the Supreme Court, being insulted and reprimanded by the president and then having the members of congress who surround them all jumping up and applauding him for doing so, is just stunning and chilling.  The arrogance of these people is jawdropping.  Here you have the executive and the legislative branches of the government ganging up to disrespect the judicial branch.  It does not matter that they disagreed with the recent decision of the court, the president standing there
as head cheerleader at the State of the Union address, intimidating the court  (or maybe it was a Saul Alinsky ridicule), is just a perfect example of the kind of leadership he has provided.

This is not even to get into the unprecedented spending and the submission of the new 1.6 trillion dollar budget — after the president says, the federal government cannot “continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences,” saying it is unacceptable to act “as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money.”

It’s like one continuous Saturday Night Live skit.  You only stop laughing when you remember it’s for real.

Posted:  02.02.10


Filed under Barack Obama, Courts, Human Interest, Law, politics, President Barack Obama, Uncategorized

Standing in the Need of Prayer


In an unprecedented move, the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, asked the state’s highest court today to strip scandal-plagued Gov. Rod Blagojevich of his powers.

“I recognize that this is an extraordinary request, but these are extraordinary circumstances,” Madigan said at a news conference.

It was not immediately clear when the Supreme Court might take up the matter. The justices also have the discretion to deny the attorney general’s request.

The move came as the governor prayed with several ministers in his home before heading to his office, telling them he is innocent and will be vindicated “when you hear each chapter completely written,” according to one of the pastors.

Posted:  12.12.08

Leave a comment

Filed under crime, Human Interest, law and order, politics, Uncategorized

What do you know, I don’t agree with the Supreme Court

The Constitution, states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

I believe the question before the court was should habeas corpus have been suspended in relation to these prisoners — or was 9/11 a case of rebellion or invasion of the public safety? And was the Military Commissions Act of 2006 constitutional?

Another question would be, how is it a person who is not a citizen of the U. S. comes under the protection of the Constitution? When we say “our Constitutional Rights”, I don’t think that includes everybody on the planet, especially our enemies.

“The petition (for habeas corpus) must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The right of habeas corpus is the constitutionally bestowed right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned.”

Question: Who bestowed on these guys, who are not American citizens, the rights of the Constitution?

I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision. But then five great minds have spoken.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized