Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

View Article

Search Articles

Some people are shocked, shocked, I tell you, that President Obama would challenge the majesty of the Supreme Court.
Get real. Court-bashing is as American as apple pie.
Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt all challenged the court. For years after Brown v Board of Education, “Impeach Earl Warren” signs lined Southern roadways. Republicans still denounce “activist judges.”

Today the court, like every institution in America, has become sharply polarized. The court has polarized – and politicized – itself.
Politics is like the NFL: If you want to play, get ready to take a hit.
In 2000, the court stopped the vote-counting and declared George Bush President. Then the court gave us super-PACs. Now it may take away health-care reform.
Maybe Chief Justice Roberts wants to sabotage the Obama Administration. Maybe he has been trying since he screwed up the oath of office.
Blaming the court could be good politics for Obama. A good villain is always good to have in a campaign.
“Hope” may not be quite the voter-motivator this year that it was four years ago. But “Anger” might do the job.


Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

4 comments on “Obama v Roberts

  1. Chris says:

    Obamacare is a huge power-grab by the Federal Government — of course it’s going to be looked on skeptically. And, the court should not be swayed by the argument “no supreme court has overturned a president’s signature accomplishment” argument. The law’s constitutionality is unimpacted by whether it’s a “signature accomplishment” or not.

  2. dap916 says:

    There is only one response that should be made here to what you’ve said (which is actually just a regurgitation of the talking points that have been made by just sooooooo many other democratic/Obama supporters on this issue) is that if this was George W. Bush saying what President Obama has been saying about the SCOTUS, it would have gone viral against Bush not only in the mainstream press but all over the Internet and on just so many blogsites and in liberal venues like Media Matters and the like.

    You really haven’t posted anything here with any kind of originality.

  3. Carbine says:

    “The court” didn’t give us super-PACS–the founding fathers did when they wrote the First Amendment into the Constitution. Perhaps you think they should have carved out an exemption to free speech for those Americans who choose to speak collectively via a corporation, such as a newspaper or a union.

    And the court can’t “take away health care reform.” All it can do is tell the president and the Congress that they must respect the Constitution when crafting health care regulations. It can be done. Had the Obama campaign/administration made a sincere effort to work with Republicans on the issue they would have found many solutions that respected the limits on federal power established in the Constitution. Instead they chose to break the law, so now they are in danger of having to start all over. The Obamanauts have no one to blame but themselves for their arrogance.

  4. Carbine says:

    The Supreme Court did not give us super PACs, the founding fathers did when they wrote the First Amendment. Nor did they give us George W. Bush as president; remember that a very meticulous examination of the ballots by media organizations showed that Bush did in fact receive more votes in Florida.

    Obama’s attack on the court last week, like his attack on the court during one of his State of the Union addresses, is indeed outrageous, even if not entirely unprecedented. And dap916 is absolutely correct in pointing out that had George W. Bush made a similar comment he would have been pilloried by those (such as Gary) who now buck and shuffle to cover up and distract from Obama’s revealing gaffe. “Constitutional law professor” my fanny–this guy doesn’t understand the first thing about the Constitution.

Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :   Terms Of Use   :   Privacy Statement