The Washington Post covers the battlegroud as Obama takes on the Supreme Court.
ObamaCare supporter Ruth Marcus expresses concern with Obama's approach:
There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is 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. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”
...
And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”
Troubling! To hear a response from the faithful I clicked theough to Obama Apologist Greg Sargent, who provided the sort of partisan hilarity I expected:
To the fainting couch! Obama attacked the Supreme Court and threatened it with a backlash, should it strike down his tyrannical scheme to impose a government takeover of health care on the nation!
That’s what many conservative writers and even some centrist ones are arguing. They are saying that Obama’s words about the Court yesterday were “unsettling” and a “witch-hunt,” and they’re likening them to F.D.R.’s efforts to pack the Court in retaliation for decisions striking down New Deal initiatives.
Yeah, those pesky conservatives and centrists! But we True Believers on the left have nothing to worry about!
We get a bit of history of FDR and then his close:
But what Obama said yesterday was not any kind of sign of this. It was not particularly aggressive or even all that remarkable.
Well, if campaigning against the Supreme Court is not all that remarkable, why is Sargent reaching all the way back to FDR for examples? Surely JFK attacked the court, yes? Or Nixon? Hmm, maybe the Obama-Nixon comparison is not what he is looking for...
Or maybe Sargent should mention the fiery, defiant speech Bush gave after the Supreme Court struck down parts of his detainee strategy. The one where Bush denounced their threat to American safety and criticized their management of his war. OK, I don't remember it either, but... maybe!
Obama Apolobots need to send better examples.
"UNPRECEDENTED": I don't think that word means what Obama thinks it means. Although to be fair, he has probably already copyrighted it for the title of his next autobiography. Well, I'll pay double for "UnPresidented" if its written in 2013.
TOO FUNNY: A Federal Appeals Court has asked a DoJ lawyer to write "Madison v. Marbury" on the blackboard one hundred times. Well, almost:
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law...
The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
At least they didn't ask for it to be submitted on toilet paper.
The community activist accusing the Court of activism. quelle fromage!!!
Posted by: matt | April 03, 2012 at 02:54 PM
W criticizing SCOTUS?
Pffft.
He owed them big time for his job, you wingnutz!
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 02:59 PM
egad
I still can't believe I heard Obama diss Ryans budget by saying "It is so far right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal." Really? You really want to diss the plan that lead to the greatest change of Guard in the House since at least WWII? Really? The guy is a Maroon.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 03, 2012 at 03:06 PM
He's just not that smart. The Pride of HLS. I wonder if he was tipped off. I know it would be a violation of the SC internal rules, but a wise Latina or a fair softball player might see those as "living" rules in need of reform.
He behaves as if he knows the outcome of the case. TK, helpe with my conspiracy.
Posted by: MarkO | April 03, 2012 at 03:07 PM
Despite Marcus, the Post carried the story about the remarks in the front section, couple of pp in, in a tone and under a headline that barely gives off a penumbra of the departure from precedent his intemperate remarks were.
Posted by: Clarice | April 03, 2012 at 03:08 PM
Anybody elses head spinning and remembering fondly the days of a semi somnolent TM and 800 comment threads?
There's just no pleasing me I guess. :)
Posted by: Ignatz | April 03, 2012 at 03:08 PM
P.S. RUTH, we've been telling you forever that he never was a "professor" of constitutional law. Now do you believe us?
Posted by: Clarice | April 03, 2012 at 03:09 PM
I can actually sort of keep up right now.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 03, 2012 at 03:10 PM
A Progressive friend of mine suggests Obama was tipped off about the verdict, and that's why he went off on the Court. His reasoning is that Obama's language would tick off Kennedy and Roberts, so he must have known that he did not have their votes.
Posted by: Appalled | April 03, 2012 at 03:10 PM
Ig, no you are not the only one.
There are only so many tabs firefox can handle.
Posted by: Stephanie | April 03, 2012 at 03:13 PM
I said yesterday, I don't think he was tipped off by a Justice. Almost every pundit left to right believed the Administration lost the case.
When Kennedy asked if the govt could compel citizens to engage in Congress so they can regulate it, he rather tipped his hand--i.e., thumb down.
Posted by: Clarice | April 03, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Ignatz, at least with the Narcisolator you can jump right to the end of a thread so long as it's one of the 10 in Recent Comments.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | April 03, 2012 at 03:17 PM
A Progressive friend of mine suggests Obama was tipped off about the verdict
Is this what's unprecedented? Has anyone ever heard or read of such an accusation before?
Posted by: Extraneus | April 03, 2012 at 03:17 PM
I still can't believe I heard Obama diss Ryans budget by saying "It is so far right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal."
Remember, it's just a diversion. SO how much are you paying for gas?
Is anyone here from Dallas Fort Worth? Check in and say you are okay.
Posted by: Jane | April 03, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Which Dismantlement Czar should President Romney appoint first? I'm torn between HHS, Education and Energy but I find myself leaning towards Education due to RSE's reports.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 03, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Which Dismantlement Czar should President Romney appoint first? I'm torn between HHS, Education and Energy but I find myself leaning towards Education due to RSE's reports.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 03, 2012 at 03:23 PM
HotAir has some quotes.
Romney:
Lamar Smith: Etc.Posted by: Extraneus | April 03, 2012 at 03:24 PM
His reasoning is that Obama's language would tick off Kennedy and Roberts, so he must have known that he did not have their votes.
Maybe so - but it was only the first vote. Now he's salted the ground when he didn't have to. I don't get it. Maybe Kagan told him it was hopeless.
If it was Kagan who tipped him off, of course.
But if that is true, it is going to be very bad news for Kagan in future. I can't imagine her fellow Justices will take kindly to it and it certainly won't help her persuade them to a different line of thinking. I had initially been worried that she might turn out to be formidable in that department.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 03, 2012 at 03:24 PM
Wow, a new captcha system. Two words now instead of one.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 03, 2012 at 03:24 PM
I'd like to see a contest among the creative types here to draft the tongue-clucking, tut-tutting NYTimes editorial that would follow such an "unprincipled, reckless and irresponsible" (for example) attack on the Nation's Highest Court if it had been made by a Republican president.
Lead off, bgates.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 03, 2012 at 03:26 PM
Yike. Here's a pic on weather.com from Dallas:
Semi trailers flying through the air.
Posted by: hit and run | April 03, 2012 at 03:28 PM
Until I see some evidence, I won't entertain the idea that anything was leaked to Obama.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 03, 2012 at 03:28 PM
yiminy crickets, hit.
Posted by: Clarice | April 03, 2012 at 03:32 PM
As an FYI, FDR is reported to have had warning of Supreme Court decisions in advance. I have not heard of that lately.
DOT -- the guy who posted this unprompted on his facebook was a lawyer currently working for the administration. He's not in a position to know anything for certain, as he works for an agency, not the WH, but, because of what he does, I give his speculation some weight
Posted by: Appalled | April 03, 2012 at 03:33 PM
I don't know if we'll ever see any hard evidence, DoT. I just don't understand why Obama would go out of his way to insult the Court after the Administration took such a beating last week. You'd think he'd say something like "this is a sound law and we're confident the Court will agree," etc, in the usual manner. Why not compliment them?
Then again I'm not the smartest guy in the world like he is.
That Dallas pic is terrifying.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 03, 2012 at 03:34 PM
I too find it hard to believe that anything was leaked to El JEFe. It's painfully clear that some of the justices are more than a little sympatico with Bammy, but to risk something like this against their careers seems a bridge too far to cross. Well, meybe the ACLU scrunt since she's likely to retire soon.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 03:35 PM
You'd think he'd say something like "this is a sound law and we're confident the Court will agree," etc, in the usual manner. Why not compliment them?
Glad I was drinking water and not soda when I spewed it all over my monitor reading that last sentence, Porch.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 03:39 PM
I know, lyle, hard to believe, isn't it.
I don't know why any former members of the Obama adminstration should be trusted on anything, however.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 03, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Drudge is reporting significant damage at Six Flags in Arlington. Isn't it spring break in Texas, so the park was open?
We were at Carowinds for spring break last year when tornadoes were in the area. Terribly frightening. Not really any good places to go for cover, and if you went to your car, you were stuck in traffic trying to leave. In your car is not where you want to be in a tornado.
Posted by: Stephanie | April 03, 2012 at 03:44 PM
I *really* hope those trailers were empty, hit.
And landed somewhere away from people.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 03, 2012 at 03:45 PM
To the Left, the end always justifies the means.Read your Alinsky or Lenin.
The difference is that the Right considers it judicial activism when a court invents a new right, such as, say, gay marriage or to an abortion.
The Left considers judicial activism to be any decision that overturns their agenda i.e. pretty much the coda of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or Obamacare.
The Left were terrified that Kagan would have to recuse herself, but through the mystical magic of Washington, she did not and was not challenged by her colleagues.
This was one reason why the left went so hard after Thomas. Political calculus.
As far as I can tell, the president's threat was one of the most serious in our history and the man has already proven to have no respect for the other branches of government.
If I was Breyer, I would, even if dissenting with a majority opinion that overturned the law, still tell explain to the president the roles and functions of each branch, and then to shove it.
One of the primary requirements for the law is respect for its application. In not respecting the laws on illegal immigration or a number of other matters, Obama and Holder are undermining our democracy.
Posted by: matt | April 03, 2012 at 03:47 PM
I dunno DOT, the rules don't apply to this president, never have. I mean who would have thought he would make illegal recess appointments, or sue states when he disagrees with them, or create laws with no congressional oversight, or refuse to turn over 1000's of docs requested by Congress?
I don't think this president cares what you should or should not do. It would not surprise me in the least if Kagan gave him a call. Sad really.
Posted by: Jane | April 03, 2012 at 03:47 PM
If anyone leaked the vote to the WH, I would suspect a clerk. Something like "You didn't hear this from me but Justice _______ was really pissed when s/he came back from the conference."
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 03, 2012 at 03:49 PM
I'm confused. The decision was made last Friday and is water under the bridge. Zero's finger-wagging can't change it now. Or does he think the decision is not written in stone yet?
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 03, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Only he doesn't. He never has. And none of his Amen caucus ever challenges him on it.
Obama gets away with con law murder over and over and his peers refuse to indict him. Except Richard Epstein who has lambasted Obama repeatedly for having done no peer review, never had his own work reviewed by peers, and has never sought to defend or argue on behalf of his peers.
In other words, a total complete phony.
There they go again. This is the number one problem with Obama. His supporters all presume he should know these things because, duh, dude went to Harvard Law and taught Con law at UofC Law School. Silly Conservatives and Libertarians. This guy knows his stuff.Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | April 03, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Looking at the Dallas pic, all I could think of were flying monkeys and the phrase, "and your little dog, too!"
Posted by: sbw | April 03, 2012 at 03:56 PM
It's not written in stone Jim. Once the opinion and dissent are written Judges can and do switch sides.
Posted by: Jane | April 03, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Republican Party’s Jewish Outreach Liaison Jokes about “Money Obsessed Jewbags”
Dani Gilbert, who has been a staffer in the office of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), was recently appointed as the Democratic National Committee’s Jewish outreach liaison, according to her Twitter feed.Photos publicly available on her Facebook page depict her engaged in the kind of youthful displays that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made increasingly common and problematic for young Washington staffers.
In one photo, Gilbert is seen kissing paper currency of undetermined denomination. The caption at the bottom of the photo reads “JEWBAGS.” A comment left on the posting refers to Gilbert and a coterie of female companions as the “Jew cash money team.” Other photos depict Gilbert as a bit of a party girl, including one featuring an assortment of condoms.
Sorry, that was the Democratic Party’s Jewish Outreach Liaison.
Posted by: Neo | April 03, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Clarice,
When Kennedy asked if the govt could compel citizens to engage in Congress so they can regulate it, he rather tipped his hand--i.e., thumb down.
I think you mean't commerce but I like your typo better:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 03, 2012 at 04:01 PM
One article said one of the tornados (estimated at half mile wide) was first spotted 20 miles south of Ft. Worth, and then photos of it were shown near Arlington (home of Six Flags).
That would put it on a path not too far from GMax, but hopefully to his south.
mrs hit and run has contacted my parents who live in Dallas . . . they're ok but hunkered down.
Posted by: hit and run | April 03, 2012 at 04:02 PM
Doesn't Sue live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area?
Hope all y'all are safe down over there.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 03, 2012 at 04:02 PM
It IS a heckofa typo. I did mean Commerce.
Posted by: Clarice | April 03, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Gabe, Obama has argued that it is "judicial activism" to find a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. He's said stupid things before. How long before we stop thinking "He's just cynically making a stupid argument because he thinks Americans are stupid enough to buy it" and start thinking "He is stupid and is making a stupid argument"?
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 03, 2012 at 04:06 PM
In not respecting the laws on illegal immigration or a number of other matters, Obama and Holder are undermining our democracy.
Aided and abetted in no small part by the media.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 04:08 PM
Listening to Fox News on Sirius driving to pick Frederick up at school they were bringing the local Fox affiliate reporting in Dallas and it was scary. They were reporting up to 3 twisters at the same time. Serioius stuff over there.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 03, 2012 at 04:08 PM
Jim Rhoads,
You have me daydreaming about Justice Kagan returning to her office, ashen faced and having to grab a trash can 'cause she couldn't make it to the restroom.
I agree re a clerk or clerks rather than a Justice.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 03, 2012 at 04:09 PM
I'm giving myself the Mr. Obvious Award for...well, being obvious re the media. Thanks to everyone who participated in today's contest.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Thx, Jane, I see.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 03, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Who posted what, Appalled? Haven't seen what it is you're referring to.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 03, 2012 at 04:13 PM
Obama's Uncle Stinky, an illegal alien who was ordered deported in 1996 and who works in a liquor store and hangs out at a bar, got arrested for DUI and other charges after nearly hitting a police cruiser outside said drinking establishment. He subsequently lost his license to drive last week for a span of 45 days, after which he was granted a "hardship license" to drive on the basis of a letter from the liquor store that said he needs his license to earn a living. Only in America.
Now ICE is claiming that they are filing to deport him. I suspect that another letter from the liquor store is in the offing.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | April 03, 2012 at 04:14 PM
I live 80 miles east of the DFW area. However, my children are right in the middle of it.
GMax is in the middle of it. I'm hoping he shows up soon. I don't know how to contact him to see if he is okay.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 04:17 PM
My granddaughter is in lockdown at her school in "duck and cover" mode. She's 7. Her mother is about to go nuts wanting to get to her.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 04:19 PM
The Kid's blog is up and running again. First post is a preview of his pending trip up to the Western North Carolina mountains for Easter break.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 03, 2012 at 04:20 PM
Right now, the tornado warnings are 2 counties over from me. It is drifting my direction. But right now, we just have heavy rain.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 04:20 PM
Men arrested after deputy finds calf in backseat
It was a Honda Civic, btw.Posted by: Extraneus | April 03, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Normally, I would agree that it would be a law clerk, if there was a leak, rather than a Justice. However, after reading Clarice's Pieces on Sunday, Justice Kagan strikes me as a
dumb broadlooney, liberal doofus - bandying about phrases like "boatload of money" and "wow. wow."NO ONE in Obama's sphere has any ethics at all. I think Kagan would call and warn him in a heartbeat - and definitely do it herself, personally.
Posted by: centralcal | April 03, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Oh, golly, Sue! Hope all your family and Gmax get through this okay and that it is all over soon. I read somewhere the warnings stay in effect until 8 pm - yuck.
Posted by: centralcal | April 03, 2012 at 04:24 PM
GMAX,
Hope you guys are safe. Check in soonest and let us know.
Sue,
I know Porch in the People's Republic of Austin but outside of GMAX who else is in the DFW metroplex? Wasn't there an Anne or was it Scarlet Ann who was from Texas?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 03, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Hit's photo is the Flying J at I45 and I20. Hubby had a dr. appt. to check out the status of his broken neck and was so happy to learn he could ditch the neck brace. He was tired of the whippersnapper telling him to be more careful, putting his thumb and forefinger together, telling him, "you came this close, bubba." So Hubby leaves the doc's office at Presby, travels down I45 to meet one of our truck drivers at the Flying J, and then continued on down 45 to Corsicana. Five minutes after he left the Flying J, he got a phone call from the driver telling him not to worry, the tornado missed him! Our driver had just left when the tornado hit. He saw it, though. And Bubba came "this close" again.
I don't know if anyone was hurt. Hubby is very busy on the phone and I can't get through.
Posted by: holly | April 03, 2012 at 04:24 PM
The trailers were being tossed around in the southeastern part of Dallas. From listening to WBAP, that tornado was much larger than the one in the Cleburne, Joshua, Arlington area.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Extraneus -- I thought sharing the backseat of a Celica with a German Shepherd was bad!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 03, 2012 at 04:25 PM
I was just fixing to say holly is in the area. And here she is.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Good grief. Now it's "judicial activism" to apply a plain reading of the Constitution and enforce the concept of "enumerated powers"?
Gotta admit, I've said some intemperate things about court decisions where jurists found rights to privacy or penumbras that authorized things like gay marriage or complex bussing schemes to ensure diversity . . . or any other decision where they usurped the functions of the legislature. But I'm having little difficulty in drawing a distinction between things like that and a finding that forcing everyone to buy health care isn't listed as one of the congressional powers in the Constitution.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 03, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Sue, let us know that your kids are okay Anyone know GMAX's number? This feels like deja vu to me. Same time of day that we got hit last June - well almost, ours was a 5:13. I can still see the path out my window.
TC and Rocco called me for the following hours while I ran around trying to help, and reported back to JOM. I'll never forget that.
I wish I could help. It's like 10 seconds that changes a lifetime.
Posted by: Jane | April 03, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Jane. Paging Jane. Will Jane please report to Dallas with trees.
Posted by: sbw | April 03, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Centralcal 4:21 Bingo.
Liberals have no ethics. PERIOD.
Posted by: Gus | April 03, 2012 at 04:31 PM
bandying about phrases like "boatload of money" and "wow. wow."
Just wait until we read her dissent and witness her learned tones of ZOMG! WTF! CUL8R!
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 04:32 PM
I think Kagan would call and warn him in a heartbeat
Fingers crossed that she already has...oh, I don't know...say around 7pm last Wed.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Daughter's flight to Dallas was diverted to Houston. Be safe,Texas folks!
Posted by: marlene | April 03, 2012 at 04:36 PM
Gosh, I've got my fingers crossed for everyone and their loved ones.
Posted by: Clarice | April 03, 2012 at 04:37 PM
This is how stupid and thuggish he is: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has called his bluff and is asking DoJ to justify Obama's statement on whether the 3rd and equal branch has any rights in determining the constitutionality of the laws.
Now this is a real Wow, Wow, BFD!
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 03, 2012 at 04:42 PM
God bless the 5th.
I have no doubt we'll learn every judge on the panel's history in the next few hours, including any embarrassing photos they may have on their PCs.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 03, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Good reminder, Clarice. Prayers and crossed fingers for all who are in the way of these twisters.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Papa hit and run just emailed, subject: Tornados
"They are very close by on all sides but so far have missed us if only by a little bit. So far so good."
Posted by: hit and run | April 03, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Rob,
All 3 Republicans (of course:) Guy asking the question and shaking his finger is a Reagan appointee - I guess you could say he was pissed.
OT: Had to post this from Dave Burge (Iowahawk) Tweet LOL
David Burge @iowahawkblog Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
#AskVP after plagiarizing Neil Kinnock, have you ever wondered why no one has ever plagiarized you?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 03, 2012 at 04:52 PM
I have no doubt we'll learn every judge on the panel's history in the next few hours, including any embarrassing photos they may have on their PCs.
I have no doubt they will withhold tornado victims funds as a result, and sue the state for a few things, and target the state's best businesses for lawsuits and a few other retaliatory things, and the media will sit on its hands.
Hit, have you now heard from your whole family?
Posted by: Jane | April 03, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Obama, to your chagrin, has gone on the offensive. You've had your way with him, and now he's demanding your DNA for the rape kit.
It's perfectly acceptable to criticize this politicized court.
Here's my prediction on ACA. Affrimed 7-2 with Outliers Scalia and Thomas having a rare fissure. The reasons? Well, they are an elite group if super-egos, acutely aware someone else will be writing their History. They (despite protestations to the contrary) are still stung from Bush v. Gore and have been seeking some equitable isle of refuge to recover their bona fides.
Ego; it's all too simple.
Posted by: Tory, Tory, Tory. | April 03, 2012 at 04:59 PM
DoT:
Who posted what, Appalled? Haven't seen what it is you're referring to.
A facebook friend of mine who works in the Administration (I have exactly one of those) made the comment. His speculations are not public.
Posted by: Appalled | April 03, 2012 at 05:01 PM
Tory3, what color is the sky on your world?
Posted by: xbradtc | April 03, 2012 at 05:07 PM
Not a clerk. Untraceable. But, his immediate outrage is unprecedented. I will believe anything about him. He's proven himself to be unmoored.
Posted by: MarkO | April 03, 2012 at 05:09 PM
My daughter just sent me a text that she has my granddaughter and she is fine.
Jane,
Unless something else happens, the daughters are fine.
However, I am taking cover now. The sirens are going off. Be back soon.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Brad -- I suspect that's Dana/Cleo/"Ben Franklin".
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 03, 2012 at 05:13 PM
What's another constitutional crisis to Obama.
Thank god the USMC still upholds the Constitution.
Posted by: Tollhouse | April 03, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Wow, indeed, JiB! Good for those judges.
Sue - glad your daughter and granddaughter are safe, now you stay safe too!
Posted by: centralcal | April 03, 2012 at 05:18 PM
and that, sir, is the difference between the law and the left. The Left posits ego and ulterior motives to everything because that's the way they roll.
Posted by: matt | April 03, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Obama, to your chagrin, has gone on the offensive.
Too late for me; I've been offended by this fraud since he showed up in the Senate.
You've had your way with him, and now he's demanding your DNA for the rape kit.
Classy. Did you hear that gem in your Critical Rape Studies class?
They (despite protestations to the contrary) are still stung from Bush v. Gore and have been seeking some equitable isle of refuge to recover their bona fides.
This the same Bush v. Gore where Bush won ALL the recounts according to the NYT?
Ego; it's all too simple.
Yep. None bigger than the fraudulent ConLaw prof in the WH.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 05:20 PM
We just got the all clear here. Watched 2 tornadoes form north of us, probably 10 miles from me.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 05:23 PM
None bigger than the fraudulent ConLaw prof in the WH.
I wonder if he ever actually took Constitutional Law, or if he only had the type of "class" Derrick Bell taught.
And what he taught, in turn. The pic of him drawing "power relations" on a chalkboard doesn't speak well of the odds he actually talked about the Constitution...
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 03, 2012 at 05:26 PM
BTW, I'm more than happy to give him some of my DNA: stool for a tool.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 05:27 PM
Good to hear, Sue.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 03, 2012 at 05:31 PM
Romney fundraiser to rich donors: You don’t want a Huckabee/Palin ticket at a brokered convention, do you?
Now that's just stupid. He has it almost locked up, and some of us are trying to get on board. Shouldn't they be working to make it easier?
Posted by: Extraneus | April 03, 2012 at 05:32 PM
- Taranto in today's BOTW
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 05:33 PM
For the record, I have satellite internet and will probably not be able to post much until all of the storms are gone. Right now I'm watching one (actually 3) travel up I-30 towards me from the Greenville area. Fun times in Texas when the bluebonnets bloom.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 05:33 PM
And for T3, who dropped by earlier: If this is O going on the offensive, I can hardly be more encouraging of this strategem. Ignorance and arrogance is just what I want to see more of. I hope you have AxlePlouffe's ear. Go get 'em, son.
Posted by: lyle | April 03, 2012 at 05:37 PM
They just issued a "tornado emergency" for Hunt County, which is the Greenville area. I am told a "tornado emergency" means it is like what hit Lancaster and Cleburne earlier today.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Hunt County is the county over from me towards the DFW area.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Sue,
Post when you can so we know you are safe. Are you seeing tornadoes or storms?
Posted by: Jane | April 03, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Tom; I think the expression you run from is 'Judicial review'. Article III has no provision.
from wiki;
The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.[9]
The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:
“ The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Posted by: Tory, Tory, Tory. | April 03, 2012 at 05:53 PM
It's appalling that any president would have the effrontery to lecture the Supreme Court about a pending case.
There's something very appealingly "Chicago" about Obama. Not even a pretense of decorum, just straight to the veiled threats and fist-pumping.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 03, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Jane,
Both. The tornadoes we saw were north of me, but there is one on the ground about 18 miles from here in a small college town. They have the kids there in the basement of the college. It will also go north of me. The one in the Greenville area is the one I'm concerned about now. I am due northeast of that area and that is the direction the tornado is traveling. It has gone back up in the clouds and no warnings are going off.
Posted by: Sue | April 03, 2012 at 05:55 PM