According to America’s top Constitutional Law Professor turned President of the United States, the Supreme Court should not overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.”What about the people, acting through the democratic process, to amend their own constitution?I ask because in California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional for the people of California to amend their constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Most damning, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion pretty clearly says that when judges act and the people choose to amend their constitution in response, such an amendment is unconstitutional.Will anyone in the media ask the President if, based on his logic about the Supreme Court, he supports the voters in California who sought to pass Proposition 8?“No, no,” he might try to retreat. “I’m talking about when the Supreme Court tries to rein in rights.”Well then, does the President believe government funded health care is a right?Likewise, does the President support the legislatures of the several states enacting Voter ID laws through a democratically elected legislature?But wait . . . there are more questions the media should ask the President if we’re going to hold everyone accountable for their words and not just Republicans.Please click here for the rest of the post.
For a guy who graduated from Harvard Law, Barack Obama is not really very well versed on his law or his legal history. Speaking out today about the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare, Obama offered this stunning and completely ahistorical nugget:”Ultimately, 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.”Look, I’m not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with anyone, but the fact remains that since that decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been “unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without serious challenge ever since.I would seriously like to know, and I hope the press gets Obama on the record on this – is it President Obama’s contention that the Supreme Court’s only role in reviewing legislation is to double-check the count on the roll call vote to make sure that a majority in fact voted for the law and to check the President’s signature for possible forgery? Because, I mean, if that’s what we’re going to go back to, I’m open to having that discussion but we are going to have to figure out what to do with several hundred SCOTUS decisions that have taken a decidedly different view.Of course, in making these comments Obama is exposing himself yet again as a cynical hack who is devoid of anything resembling shame. In 2003, the United States Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by substantially larger margins than Obamacare. When the Supreme Court refused to strike down this law, which was passed by a “democratically elected Congress,” then-Senator Obama threw an absolute hissy fit about the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld the clear will of Congress (and the vast majority of the American people).Please click here for the rest of the post.
I don’t really know what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. What I do know is that this story has resulted in at least one homicide – the self-inflicted homicide of the media’s last shreds of credibility. And it isn’t just conservative blogs that are noticing – even straight news sources have begun to notice the shame with which the media has covered itself during this entire sad saga. The Washington Post reported Friday that NBC’s egregious editing of Zimmerman’s 911 call will be “internally reviewed,” which is as close as you will ever get to an admission of a very serious screw up from a major news organization.The most stunning admission yet came from something called a Touré, which is apparently an MSNBC contributor. Touré apparently got tired of being on a television channel no one watches so he went on Piers Morgan last week to take Piers to task for the journalistic crime of getting both sides of the story.Please click here for the rest of the post.