Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (128914)	4/4/2012 11:53:59 AM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224744

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 President Thomas Jefferson Obama John Marshall I’m sending Villanova a letter, requesting a refund of my law school tuition. Apparently, the scholarly gentleman they hired to teach me constitutional law back in 1985 was a total fraud. He actually taught me that the Supreme Court had the right to strike down legislation it deemed to violate the supreme law of the land, even though they were unelected to that office. I totally believed him, and based the rest of my legal career on that principle. Now, I find out it’s a myth, just like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Who knew? President Obama, that’s who. Earlier this week, our Legal Scholar-In-Chief made the following statement in support of his health care bill, and it sure sounded like a veiled threat to some in the legal community: I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. There’s a big difference between a ‘duly constituted’ law, and a ‘constitutional law.’ And the whole idea about judicial activism involves courts usurping the power of the Legislature and ‘creating’ laws or rights as they did in Roe v. Wade. It’s not activist to strike down a law that is fatally flawed, no matter how much John and Janie Q. Public might like it. There are two ways of looking at Obama’s comment, and neither flatters him. The first is that he was pandering to the leftists in his midst, playing politics with the court just as he did in the Citizens United case . The second, more ominous possibility, is that Obama truly believes he and he alone is the final arbiter of constitutionality. Thomas Jefferson had the same kind of delusion when he attacked his cousin John Marshall’s ability to review the constitutionality of legislation, and the greatest Chief Justice who ever presided over the court smacked him down in a genteel but definitive way. Marbury…boom! Madison…thwack! And the principle of judicial review was born. At least, that’s what lawyers used to think. Now, given that President Obama (who must be smart because everyone tells us he is) has disabused us of that flawed constitutional notion, I’m starting a Facebook page demanding reimbursement from Villanova. They have some explaining to do.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (128914)	4/4/2012 12:17:26 PM
From: lorne	8 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224744

Obama's lying, again Thomas Sowell sets BHO straight on history of Supreme Court decisions by Thomas Sowell Wednesday, April 04, 2012 wnd.com One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring. That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether he thought the Supreme Court would uphold Obamacare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional. He replied: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” But how unprecedented would it actually be if the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional if it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? The Supreme Court has been doing precisely that for 209 years! Nor is it likely that Barack Obama has never heard of it. He has a degree from the Harvard law school and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. In what must be one of the most famous Supreme Court cases in history – Marbury v. Madison in 1803 – Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress null and void if these acts violate the Constitution. They have been doing so for more than two centuries. It is the foundation of American constitutional law. There is no way Barack Obama has never heard of it or really believes it to be “unprecedented” after two centuries of countless precedents. In short, he is simply lying. Now there are different kinds of liars. If we must have lying presidents of the United States, I prefer they be like Richard Nixon. You could just look at him and tell that he was lying. But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are. He is also counting on something else – namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies. One of the many ways of lying smoothly is simply to redefine words. Barack Obama is a master at that as well. In the comment on the case pending before the Supreme Court, President Obama said that he wanted to remind “conservative commentators” that they have complained about “judicial activism” – which he redefines as the idea that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” First of all, every law the Supreme Court has overturned for the past 209 years since Marbury v. Madison was “a duly constituted and passed law.” Second, the “judicial activism” conservatives have complained about was judges making rulings based on how they felt personally about the issue at hand, rather than about what the Constitution of the United States said. In recent years, great efforts have been made to redefine “judicial activism” in terms of judges declaring laws unconstitutional, instead of “deferring” to Congress or other government institutions. But what is the Constitution’s Bill of Rights supposed to protect the ordinary citizen from? Government institutions! If judges are to defer to the very institutions the Bill of Rights tries to protect the citizen from, what is the point of having a Bill of Rights? As for Supreme Court justices being unelected, that has been true since the Constitution was created. That was done deliberately, so that they could render their judgments without fear of political repercussions. If unelected Supreme Court justices are to automatically defer to elected officials, that again raises the question of why they are there at all. Why are the taxpayers paying their salaries and housing them in an expensive marble building – just so that they can go along to get along? It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama’s lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.