Monday, March 12, 2012


The Supreme Court scheduled three days of oral arguments (March 26-28) on various aspects of Obamacare--an unusually long presentation of legal arguments for any case. Not content with its briefs and upcoming advocacy, a March 9th New York Times story reveals:
White House Works to Shape Debate Over Health Law

The White House has begun an aggressive campaign to use approaching Supreme Court arguments on the new health care law as a moment to build support for the measure seen as President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, hoping to shape public opinion on an issue at the center of the battle for the White House and Congress.

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.
Stripping out the weasel words, the Executive Branch is "coordinating" with outside groups to orchestrate demonstrators to intimidate the Judicial Branch as it decides a major case. So much for separation of powers! So much for speech rights being limited to human beings. So much for the most famous case in American law: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.").

And you thought the President was a Constitutional law scholar. Wrong--he's a Chicago ward heeler promoted beyond his level of competence.

(via reader Doug J.)


Anonymous said...

Roy: Unfortunately "beyond his level of competence" may turn out a question not of evaluation, but of what dimension gets evaluated. What if SCOTUS rules his direction?

suek said...

I wonder if perhaps his efforts might trigger the opposite response in the Supremes...if they are affected in any way at all.

To be honest, I don't think the effort is to influence the Supremes - I think it's all for print coverage. You know..."Look at how strong the support for Obamacare is" on all the front pages.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> Wrong--he's a Chicago ward heeler promoted light years beyond his level of competence.

You left out a couple words. I fixed it fer ya... ;oP

OBloodyHell said...

I'm with sue, the libtard idiots get to claim "we tried, but the courts reversed us!"

This is the usual clarion call of the incompetent, to blame someone else for anything that's not properly done in the first place.

Warren said...

What an incredibly petty, juvenile move -- just what a community organizer would do. Too bad Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger can't be there.

The case is about judicially enforced limits on federal power.

How is Obama going to help his case by trying to intimidate the Justices?

Wonder if anybody in the WH questioned this idea.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> Wonder if anybody in the WH questioned this idea.

The Obama WH, where the REAL dittoheads live? Nawwww...

Warren said...

Obama warns opponents against 'using religion as a bludgeon in politics'

Carl said...

That's because only bludgeons should be used as bludgeons in politics.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> That's because only bludgeons should be used as bludgeons in politics.

So liberal "witicisms" are ok for that use?

Along with liberal "solutions", liberal "compassion", liberal "reasoning"...?

Bob in LA said...

Are you surprised at the tone of the oral arguments?