Yesterday, Barack Obama lost his twelfth unanimous decision before the United States Supreme Court. His own Justices on the Court ruled against him. What is most striking is that Barack Obama is a former law professor. What is more striking is that his Attorney General, who is more invested in protecting the precious than upholding the law, did not try to protect his precious from these new precedents.
The cases are:
- United States v. Jones
- Sackett v. EPA
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC
- Gabelli v. SEC
- Arkansas Fish & Games v. United States
- PPK Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Horne v. USDA
- Sekhar v. United States
- Burrage v. United States
- Bond v. United States
- United States v. Wurie/Riley v. California
- NLRB v. Noel Canning
We can add a thirteenth with Arizona v. United States. To be sure, it was a 5-3 decision, but no Justice adopted DOJ’s theory that mere federal enforcement priorities—as opposed to federal statutes—trumped state law.
Then there are the additional Obama Administration losses in the October 2013 term as amicus curiae.
- Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer
- Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
- McCullen v. Coakley
In each of these cases, the President tried to either stretch the his own power, that of the federal government, or curtail the rights of individuals. In each of these cases, the Supreme Court rejected his argument. In Hosanna-Tabor, the Administration found itself to the left of even the ACLU.
Many of these cases have established new precedents the right can take advantage of, but were agreed to by liberal Justices. Again, this man was a law professor. And he has been notoriously unsuccessful before the United States Supreme Court. Were this George W. Bush's record before the Supreme Court, much of the mainstream media would be asking why the President is willing to work so outside the jurisprudence that even the most liberal members of the Supreme Court recognize.