« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Testing the Media’s Testicular Fortitude

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  April 3rd, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

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.

Does the President believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade as the law declared unconstitutional a law passed by a strong majority in a democratically elected state legislature?

Hey, what about the immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama?

“I said ‘Congress’,” the President might reply.

Okay. Well in 2003 the United States Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by a larger margin that the previous Congress passed Obamacare and that majority was bipartisan.

Does the President now believe the Supreme Court was correct to uphold the constitutionality of “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress”? If so, does the President now retract his statement from 2007 where he attacked the Supreme Court for upholding “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress”?

Surely some member of the media has the testicular fortitude to ask just the last one.

But again, what of Proposition 8? Does the President believe the courts should listen to the will of the people?

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • davesinsanantonio

    a system of feeling good about their intentions. It is a system of “don’t do as I do, do as I say”. It is a system for control freaks who can be illogical if they want. It is a system of contradictions and inconsistencies, with a lot of hypocrisy thrown in.
    It is not about what is logical or fair, it is about doing what you are told to do by the government, which is obviously smarter than the people who elected it.
    So, war is peace, hate is love, and inconsistency is the bedrock on which we all can stand.
    And, you of all people should know they hate to be questioned with facts and things. And, the most unfair thing is to use a person’s own words against him. After all their “righteous” ends justify their evil means. So, when you question them you are the heretic who needs to be burned at the stake.
    So, as to your point about the testicular fortitude of the media … there is none, because they too are leftists who subscribe to all of the illogic and hypocrisy of the president. And, you will probably be hounded and lambasted for this one. But, that’s okay, because you have the testicular fortitude of truth on your side, and you know it.

  • michaelbowler

    It doesn’t matter if a law is passed by every single possible vote. In a Constitutional Republic, the rule of law is the overriding concern. The Constitution was written to prevent majority tyranny. Obama’s argument for why the SCOTUS shouldn’t overturn Obamacare is based on the concept of pure democracy…and has NO PLACE in a Constitutional Republic.

    What’s more is, Obama knows this and it is his intent to garner public opinion against the Constitution as part of the overall campaign to make the Constitution irrelevant. This has been the goal of the progressives for a long time…

  • renl57

    That ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice once advised a young Elena Kagan: “Do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

    Now that Obama is whining about the Supremes possibly overthrowing a law passed by Congress, maybe we should remind him of what Thurgood Marshall said. And to whom he said it.

  • WmCraig

    We have to own it.

    All the conservative donations to this organization or that one means nothing as long as liberals invest their money and their time and effort to control the media. Not long ago the New York Times became available. Where is the conservative action committee that made sure we bought that. This is what the progressives do to insure they can control the message.

    The same can be said for any of the major propaganda systems. The media, the entertainment industry, and education. The solution is the same. Own it. Conservative entertainment sells. Where is our backers.

    Complaining about the media is a waste of time. The progressives figured this out 100 years ago. If you want a responsive media, own enough of it to insure a balanced response.

  • digitalyoyo

    This is perfect. Thank you.

  • Ausonius

    (besides the elections of Clinton and MAObama in recent times) was the vote in the Athenian assembly during the War Against Sparta in favor of genocide against a small city (Melos): at the end of the war, the Athenians were afraid that their behavior against the Meilians would be used on themselves.

    A democratic majority cannot always be trusted: such a government depends on two unstable things, namely, the individual morality and intelligence of a voter, and the collective morality and intelligence of the electorate.

    Anybody who has seen males in a group knows that intelligence is not additive at many times. :)

  • rulken

    Truer words were never spoken! I commend you.
    Late last night, about 1:30 am here in the Philippines, I got a mail alert from ALIPAC,(Americans for Legal Immigration PAC). Check them out at
    www.ALIPAC.us
    Re:This past Saturday, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s team of investigating detectives held a second press conference to try and get the word out about their findings. There is a massive media blackout on this information that appears to be more extensive and powerful than anything we have ever seen before. Only World Net Daily and InforWars are carrying the ball so far on this one.
    Since the ALIPAC action network has proven successful at breaking through these media blockades before, we want all of you to know about the astounding and historical details of this investigation. We may take further steps to help the national media do its job correctly and we want you to be aware and prepared.
    Dictator Barack Obama has created his own unlawful form of Amnesty via executive memo, has been caught using our tax monies to buy assault rifles for for the illegal alien and drug smuggling crime gangs, and now it appears his documents are forged and his records are missing.

    Pretty shocking isn’t it?
    Where is the “freedom of press” now ?
    What the hell are our “elected” officials doing?
    Only these two obscured, News agencies have enough balls to print anything!

  • fredflintlock

    That was refreshing. Could it be that the president put in a call to Kagan after the preliminary, confidential closed door vote Friday? Hmm.

  • gregorysstewart

    What Obama was really trying to say was that the Supreme Court is only “Activist” when it weighs HIS laws against the Constitution.

    Try to remember that Obama is no great fan of the constitution. He believes that it is a charter of negative rights, and that it needs to become a charter of positive rights, like the right to confiscate property so as to shower it upon those that would support you.

    Obama is right to say that Obamacare was passed by a wide margin, if one is so inclined to discount the votes of all Republicans, and he is.

    He called Republicans the enemy during the 2010 elections. In his mind they are not even part of the government.

    And… Yes, its perfectly OK to overturn the will of the citizens of California. Why? Because your base thinks they are wrong. The California voters are made up of moral people, and Republicans and other Neanderthals who do not directly support the Obama agenda. These people need to be put in their place. They need to have the law handed down to them. These are not the people liberals talk about when they say “we the people”. Liberals, and Obama mean “we the people, just like me.”

    Eric, you need to realize the people who want to guard our borders don’t count. They are the enemy. The people who want voter ID don’t count. They are Bigots. Conservatives don’t count. They are bigots who are the enemy.

    Perhaps Orwell put it best: “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”

  • noveldog9

    Who needs a Constitution? We have Obama, and he knows more than all of us put together, or at least he thinks he does.

    Let’s vote him and his Democratic cronies out so we can have freedom and prosperity again….OK?

  • ihateliberals

    sorry for being so vulgar but let’s call it like it is. so if you don’t have them then you know what that makes you and I won’t be vulgar now.

  • DVPTEXFLA

    The article by Mr. Erickson points out the many different positions Mr. Obama has taken on the Federal Courts dealing with various statutes, both state and federal statutes. Obama lives in a world in which the MSM will not question him on his varying views of Court action, and one in which his supporters (those not in MSM) will nod and say yes Obama is right…..

  • funwithknives

    “Full Metal Jousting”? {Joust Kidding!}

    Time and again I try and fail to discuss anything of substance with The Progressive Minded. If it’s not having your own personal set of facts , to no deductive reasoning power to speak of, to pure and simple hatred of the Conservative Topic du’ jour, it’s just no fun or enjoyment at Progressive Central.
    Bile, invective, and disdain or the prerequsites for membership. More and more, this is Barry in a nutshell, is it not? Where’s all those smarts everyone left of the NYT, said he had?
    Counselor Obama, where is The Evidence?

  • hls87

    The IQ of any group equals the IQ of the least intelligent member of the group divided by the number of individuals in the group. This leads to the experimentally verified conclusion that an amoeba is smarter than any large group of human beings.

  • annie54

    Speech for the Republican Nomination at the 1964 Convention:

    ?I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.?

    Ahhhhhh for that kind of Republican Conservatism (sans
    The Establishment) again. . . . . . . .

  • zachv

    Proposition 8 removed the rights of a minority after it had been granted through the CA Supreme Court’s ruling. The Ninth Court did not rule it illegal for the people to respond to their judiciary through ballot questions or impeachment. It ruled it unconstitutional for the (slim) majority to target me and my rights.

    Still, Erick, you’re absolutely correct in regards to making the rest of the comparisons. Obama’s statement makes no sense, as it’s probably a last ditch attempt to bully the Court into upholding his law.

  • wlcjr

    health care is a right. I assumed that since he supported single payer he meant the govt should provide it.

    He also supported violating the 1st ammendment rights of the Catholic church (but not the muslims wanting a mosque near ground zero… hmmm) and the contract rights of insurers.

    What a disaster of a President.

    Mitt is not my favoriate candidate, but he avoids my short list of convicted murderers and communist dictators that I would not vote for to avoid 4 more years of this clown.

  • ceili_dancer

    He’s the President, our job is not to go back in time and declare everything null and void. It’s go out there and kick some tail and make sure we get as many conservatives elected in every facet of government.

  • acat

    There’s so many better reasons to oppose Obama, why do so many get bogged down on *that* one?

    Mew

  • ceili_dancer

    The prop was an amendment to the CA constitution. This was a state issue and the federal court should have had no right in deciding the case.
    The trick for gay marriage is to change peoples hearts and show them it is not the big boogey man that some put it out to be. Eventually, the ballot box would prove that right. Having a court come out and dictate for everyone and MAKE people accept it will not move someone either emotionally or logically to your position. Quite a few people will just dig in their heels and fight for their comfort zone.

  • ragstoriches

    your cause.

    “Proposition 8 removed the rights of a minority”

    False premise #1: Some right to marry the same sex exists in the first place. This has yet to be proven and the burden of proof is on the claimant. From whence does such a right come? Historically, it is society that determines whom can marry whom, and thus whatever society and its supported form of government decide is the rule that governs.

    False premise #2: It removed the rights of a “minority.” Prop 8 is equally applied to everyone – regardless of orientation. Whether one wants to exercise those rights or not is irrelevant, the fact is that everyone is allowed to marry equally under the law and is subject to the same restrictions.

    Simply stating you have a right does not make it true. Claiming it is unequally applied also does not make it true.

  • woodmom

    First: If Obama’s opinion were upheld there would be no balance of power.
    Second Activist courts make law by how they rule on cases. The SCOTUS evaluates judgments based on the constitution.
    Obama is so stupid and uneducated that his diploma must be made of toilet paper. Harvard should be ashamed.

  • woodmom

    I like this because I am afraid that the government’s plan to marginalize the Christians in this country has a real goal of removing the word “inalienable” from the bill of rights.
    Then all rights of the people will be given by the government and you know where that will take us.

  • zachv

    #1: Marriage is not a right? That comes as a surprise to me. Both the Loving and Zablocki courts found that marriage if a fundamental right, which I think speaks to an even more basic right of association. The right to be intimate and love.

    In addition, if it is society that determines who can marry whom, I’d like to hear your opinion of the six US states and some odd dozen countries that perform marriage.

    #2: That’s the vilest and most hateful of an excuse for an argument I have ever heard. Segregation applied equally to everyone regardless of race. Whether or not blacks wanted to exercise their rights is completely irrelevant? They were allowed to live “equally” under the law and are subject to the same restrictions.

  • Ausonius

    Your equation is truly scary when applied to Leftists! :)

    And as FunWithKnives points out above, where is the evidence for their claims?

    But that is precisely the problem: their “evidence” is often an emotional appeal, a “feeling” that rich people cannot ipso facto be honest, that all millionaires HAD to have done SOMETHING shady to become that wealthy…unless they are liberal miillionaires willing to support class-warfare candidates who will try to squelch Conservative millionaires by giving tax breaks to the former, known as leveling the playing field.

    BIG BRObama’s cabinet cannot be particularly stupid, but they can be blind to evidence (e.g. Communism does not and cannot work: ask most Russians or Poles or Romanians over 30.), and their judgment can be overwhelmed by the appeal of emotions.

    Hence – according to recent polls – some women tend to give the nanny state Dems the edge, even though the evidence shows that we are in fact harming our children by following nanny-state policies!

    It just does not FEEL that way! :)

  • zachv

    Segregation or Obama’s health care law, regardless of however much support that’s derived from a majority of a democratically elected Congress; what’s unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

  • sherrij

    The inconsistency of the argument that Obama makes demonstrates a cultural flaw in the bigger picture ? the incompetence of our culture?s ability to reason, which we have undermined by removing the absolutes that support an argument; without absolute truth, upon what premises can we persuade? To what do we appeal? We have built our moral framework on the shifting sand of what is expedient to the individual at any given moment ? ?how does it make me feeeeeel??
    As a result, our educational system and schools of ?higher learning? have failed to equip students with the necessary skills to articulate and defend their positions. The outcome is an ever-growing segment of students and adults who for the most part have never learned to apply logic or reason to solve problems or have civil discourse. All they have learned to do is filter decisions through the lens of self- and immediate-gratification. These deficiencies are clear in our media and our leadership.
    It?s no wonder our president, the media and liberals in general can change positions like they do their socks ? never having been taught to reason, to dialogue, to examine arguments put forth by others and evaluate their merit and having no absolute truth upon which to secure the premise of the argument, any premise that fits the immediate purposes will do. If the opposite argument is expedient for tomorrow?s purposes, so be it.
    Our postmodern educational system has failed us ? painfully so in this area – and the chickens are coming home to roost.

  • ww2nd95

    thing seems like a non issue to me.. Honestly if someone wants to marry someone whatever their gender, they should be able to. And I honestly think same sex advocates have an argument against being told to be happy with a civil union.. but that’s for another thread. My problem is, conservatives keep pushing this issue over and over.. when poll after poll shows Americans are becoming much more at ease with the thought of same sex marriages, but Republicans want to continue to fight this battle.. It’s a losing argument, that needs to be dropped. Again.. this feeds into the narrative that we’re nothing but old white men, who don’t care about other people’s rights.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    what cracks me up is their logic. When an activist court decides to stretch the constitution to fit their ideology, they then give later courts the precedent to do the same. Its pretty neat how the legal system is designed to allow big government to grow under progressive courts. The good part is the Supreme court can also make new precedent, which they will be doing in this case no matter the outcome. That’s what is so darn safety about this case. Everything can be considered in the benefit of the health of the nation. If Congress thinks the nation will d be more healthy if everyone drank two glasses of milk a day, they will have the PRECEDENT needed to justify that law. They will likely be right, we may be a healthier nation if the government can force us to live a certain way, but that does not mean we want them to have this power. If I want to drink mountain all night while studying for my PHY 303 statistics of behavioral & social science, darn it I’m going do it. The government never should have this power. Being correct does not always mean its right.

  • ww2nd95

    by Hillary and we see where she is now.. completely outside of the public eye, which I think was a calculated move in of itself by Obama.

    I don’t like his policies, like most of America and I think his inexperience in a leadership position has shown itself time and time again, but he’s not stupid. We have to be careful when we underestimate any opponent, no matter how good it may feel, because when we do that, it comes back and bites us in the a**. when we least expect it.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    until it was too late. My point stands, this administration is attempting to win big for the progressive cause. The court should not want to be known as the court that drew major blood of American freedom. We are not others countries, and that’s why we are so great.

  • zachv

    n/t

  • Tbone

    If it were, I could marry whomever or whatever I please.

  • streiff

    the fact that you need a “marriage license” should have been a clue.

  • streiff

    check the votes every time it is on the ballot and get back to me. It is a winning argument and more than that it is the correct moral position to hold.

    Deviancy doesn’t become normal. Ever.

  • zachv

    We are slowly winning state by state, heart by heart. Someday soon I’ll get to marry the one I love. =)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAvQp5y4jcw

  • lapert

    mean I don’t have a right to bear arms?

    The court has recognized this right in Skinner and in Loving.

    That does not of course mean that the right is absolute – but it is still a right.

  • Tbone

    If you truly understood the history of the right to bear arms, you wouldn’t use it as analogy because you would understand that it is an inapplicable example.

  • Martin Knight

    What’s your objection to it? How does it affect you?

  • demsaresatanic

    That the Gramsci/Alinsky model which the lying rats have been following since the sixties is a logical method to destroy this country is confirmed by the results. You underestimate them when you pass it off as “a system of feeling good about their intentions.”