Last night, President Obama said in his SOTU:
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
And what was the SCOTUS' reaction? Watch Justice Alito:
Democrats have no clean hands when it comes to Congress appointing Judges. Let me count the ways:
1) Bork
2) Justice Thomas' "High tech lynching,"
3) Holding up most of President George W. Bush's lower judges
4) Judge Alito's Supreme Court hearing where his wife was in tears.
I repeat: Democratic partisans and federal officals have no standing to complain when it comes to the Judiciary Branch appointments and rulings. If I was Senator McConnell, I'd say hold up every single Obama Judical appointment, and that is before the SOTU. And after, the song remains the same.
Now, President Obama (who voted against two of Bush's nominees to SCOTUS) wants to go to war. Let him. Every Democratic campaign everywhere against them this year. Imagine how will that affect the next few votes and issues coming up the river....
The word, is "karma," Democratic partisans and intellectuals, such as Glenn Greenwald, have yet to understand it. But it will be their undoing. (psst, two questions: Why do Democratic partisans allow themselves to listen to ex-pats or non-Americans when dealing with American Politics? And why has Glenn Greenwald never read the Elements of Style? "Brevity is the soul of wit," said someone whose words will outlast all of us partisans)
And something President Obama, the Democratic Congress and Democratic Partisans such as Steve Benen and Rachel Maddow should ask themselves: The Democrats had Congress for 40 years, uninterrupted, yet during that time they did not pass Government Run Health care. Why is that?
If either of them answer that question, they will be honest partisans and not hacks.
My questions: What is President Obama's endgame with going to war with SCOTUS? and Why do Democrats rely on ex-pats or non-Americans when dealing with American Politics (i.e. Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Arianna Huffington, etc. et. al)?
His point in going to war with SCOTUS is because he can't control them and therefore they are a threat. This president wants what he wants and SCOTUS doesn't bend to the president so he'd like to go to war rather than respect them. It's pathetic actually especially for someone as educated as he is.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict between President Obama and the current SCOTUS is reminiscent of the conflict during the Roosevelt administration over the New Deal Programs that led to abortive court packing plan of 1937.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I am curious about the thoughts of the readership on whether the nationalization of the health care industry will be upheld by the high court should a constitutional challenge be brought against the legislation.
The history of the court demonstrates a broad spectrum of varying degrees of antipathy possessed by Justices on the subject of the nationalization of an industry.
A fairly recent illustration occurred Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), which, dealt with the attempted nationalization of the steel industry by President Truman.