Just another car on the train…

of disrespect of the American people:

(White House press secretary Jay) Carney on Wednesday said Obama’s remarks (on the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare) were the object of criticism “only because a handful of people didn’t seem to understand what he was referring to.”

First there was the president basically referring to rural voters as “bitter clingers.” Then there was the attorney general referring to the entire country as a “nation of cowards.” Next up there was the president again, saying that America had “gone soft.” And now, we have the president’s press secretary saying that those who think the president was trying to intimidate the Supreme Court don’t know what they’re talking about.

Intimidation or not, though, Obama’s argument is bullshit on at least a couple of levels.

“I am confident this law will be upheld because it should be upheld”? Apparently our Harvard-educated lawyer president has never heard of a circular argument, or argument by assertion.

“(P)assed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? He has also apparently never heard of an appeal to authority.

And then, of course, there’s the old “precedent must be respected” canard. Taken on its face, one could conclude that Obama supported the decisions the Supreme Court reached in Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Kelo v. New London. (Ponder the irony of the first two.)

I can hear the lefty caterwauling now. “Hey, you know that’s not true!”

Maybe not, but why should court precedent only be respected in certain instances? Why should federal laws be exempt from the judicial review to which city, county and state laws are rightly subject? Just because the Supreme Court has let every abomination passed by Congress stand since the 1930s doesn’t mean it should continue to do so. If they’re going to do that, why have a Supreme Court at all?

Advertisements

Tags:

2 Responses to “Just another car on the train…”

  1. majmike Says:

    Passed by a large majority? In the House of Representives the bill passed 219 to 212. Not exactly a landslide. In the Senate, they attempted to pass the bill without a vote by “deeming” it passed.

    The so-called “Constitutional Scholar” is in over his head and reveals his status as an empty suit. Many of us recognised this in 2007.

  2. southtexaspistolero Says:

    Maybe it was a landslide because 219 was a lot more votes than they thought it’d get…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: