Dems Prepare for War on SCOTUS

Thursday, June 28,2012 could be one of the most politically infamous days in Obama history !!

The Eric Holder contempt vote and the Supreme Court rulings on ObamaCare will probably highlight Obama's day.

The democratic machine might be waging war right here at home.

story from Breitbart -- by Mike Flynn, 27 Jun 2012

Tomorrow, at around 10:30am EDT, the Democrat-left-media complex will launch the most aggressive and sustained attack on the institution of the Supreme Court in the history of our Republic. When the Court throws out at least some portion of ObamaCare tomorrow, President Obama and his partisans on the left and in the media will effectively declare war on the third co-equal branch of government and seek, in every possible way, to undermine the legitimacy of the Court.

Already some desperate "has-beens that never were" are being "consulted"

They have already tried to lay the groundwork for their attacks. Politico today even unearthed disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner to test-drive the coming partisan attacks against the Court. Glimpses of these attacks have been around since oral arguments back in March, but when the reality of the Court's rejection of Obama's signature "achievement" becomes clear, the ferociousness of the attacks will be like nothing we've ever seen. It bears repeating: the left is willing to destroy the credibility of the Supreme Court in order to defend their policy failure.

I wonder why on Earth they would want any opinions from Anthony Weiner ??

You remember him right ?

He was the moron Congressmen that sent that "porno" message to that young girl last year.

It cost him his job and sent him to a mental institution for observation so they said.

His ex-wife is also a trusted aid to Hillary Clinton, and is a Saudi with family ties to the Muslim brotherhood (all while Weiner is Jewish) never could figure out that agenda.


Long article about how we may see some real attacks on the Supreme Court.

source

seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the court? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

if he undermines the courts, we lose due process and the right to a fair trial..

Almost everything the HObama administration does seems like they are trying to get rid of the system of "checks and balances".

allllll I can think of is George Orwell

reply to post by xuenchen

This amounts to nothing more than a temper tantrum.

Our "Narcisicist-in-chief" is having a hissy-fit.

Deal with it, Barack. You ain't god.

From the Huffington Post today:

The Histrionic Headlines:

14 HOURS... Future Of American Health System On The Line... Whole Law In Jeopardy... 'No Case Law, No Precedent, No Serious Argument' For Striking It Down... The Supreme Court On Trial... House Progressives Will Seek Single-Payer Plan If Mandate Goes Down... Final Predictions

Supreme Court Health Care Decision Will Define The Future Of The American Health Care System

An odyssey that began during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt and dominated much of President Barack Obama's first term in the White House could conclude Thursday at the Supreme Court. With it could end the best hope to date for the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and the hundreds of millions more burdened by rising costs.

(Emphasis added)

No Case Law, No Precedent, No Serious Argument' For Striking It Down

Two years ago, when President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, the idea that its individual mandate provision was unconstitutional was laughable. There was no case law, no precedent, and frankly, no serious argument that the federal government's Commerce Clause power didn't give it the authority to mandate purchase of health insurance if it wanted to. That's why Democrats didn't bother looking for a clever alternative—many of which were available—in order to avoid including an explicit mandate in the law. They didn't think they needed to. Of course it was constitutional. Even Randy Barnett, the law professor who popularized the activity/inactivity distinction that opponents latched onto as their best bet against the mandate, initially didn't really think it was anything but a long shot.

The Supreme Court on Trial:

Before this week, the well-being of tens of millions of Americans was at stake in the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act. Now something else is at stake, too: The legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Single-Payer Health Care Favored By House Progressives If Court Strikes Down Obamacare

WASHINGTON -- The last thing House progressives want is for the Supreme Court to strike down President Barack Obama's health care law. But if the high court rules Thursday that some or all of the law is unconstitutional, progressives are ready to renew their push for the model of health care they wanted all along: the single-payer option.

Final Predictions:

On Thursday, just after 10 a.m., the big moment will finally arrive: The Supreme Court will hand down its ruling on the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature piece of domestic legislation. The central question about the proceedings: Will the court strike down the law or its key component, the individual mandate, as March's contentious oral arguments signaled it might do? Or will the court uphold its constitutionality?

It is worth noting, in regards to the "individual mandate" issue that this issue is an ex-ante issue (before the fact) and even if the Supreme Court does rule in favor of it, this does not prevent any individual from non-compliance and arguing that their rights are being violated, which would be an ex-post (after the fact) issue. At the moment, the "individual mandate" is merely a policy argument for and against. Once it is implemented it now becomes an entirely different matter.

Even if the SCOTUS were to hold the entire package is Constitutional, the matter would be far from settled.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is worth noting, in regards to the "individual mandate" issue that this issue is an ex-ante issue (before the fact) and even if the Supreme Court does rule in favor of it, this does not prevent any individual from non-compliance and arguing that their rights are being violated, which would be an ex-post (after the fact) issue. At the moment, the "individual mandate" is merely a policy argument for and against. Once it is implemented it now becomes an entirely different matter.

Even if the SCOTUS were to hold the entire package is Constitutional, the matter would be far from settled.

This is a very important note here JPZ and one that the Supreme Court Justices most surely have in their forefront of their deliberation upon the matter. Lower courts will be inundated with rights violations if the entire package were to be upheld. Not to say this should be the reason they would rule one way or another, but once the policy is set and those who still see it as a violation of their Ninth Amendment Rights (the Right to not be forced to engage in commerce via governmental force); nonetheless, interesting period is coming ahead.

I would say now is a good time for the unemployed to become well versed in Constitutional Law and become a lawyer; ha!

Dems Prepare for War on SCOTUS

Today will be a difficult 'reality check' day for the left.
They are already pulling out the race card on the Holder thing ....
ATS Thread - Black Congressmen to walk out of contempt vote
I'm sure they'll pull the same crap with the SCOTUS ruling ... pull the race card .. it's what they always do when they are wrong and get called on it ..

Originally posted by xuenchen

His ex-wife is also a trusted aid to Hillary Clinton, and is a Saudi with family ties to the Muslim brotherhood (all while Weiner is Jewish) never could figure out that agenda.

Studying the Saudi royals will reveal that they are all JEWS The first clue is their allegiance to Israel. Look it up OK? For real...........most people don't have a clue though - they are known as the The Donmeh Jews,............

Here's one example of many online articles..........
Intel Report Suggests That Saudi Royals Are Crypto Jews.
www.pakalertpress.com...

Here we go.

Gov. Deval Patrick cautiously predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare, the controversial health care reform program which will see its fate decided this morning.

The “truly conservative” ruling would be one that upholds the legislation, Patrick said.

“But we know this is an activist court,” Patrick said, hedging his bet, “so I don’t know how it’s going to go.”

www.bostonherald.com...

reply to post by xuenchen


This isn't that relevant.. but I would just like to add that Anthony Weiner's wife (ex now?) was also super fine.

See:

reply to post by Vitruvian



vitruvian = cryptojewologist

nyuk nyuk nyuk.

I'm really frustrated with these politicians who care more about scamming the American people rather than following the laws that are meant to protect us.

It's funny how they always turn to SCOTUS when they want to put down the Republicans, but now SCOTUS has a real possibility of turning down their precious slave programs, they're turning on SCOTUS.

I hope they choke.

I wonder when America will WAKE UP and realize neither party has the American peoples' best interests at heart.

But this has every chance of being turned down because 26 states sued Obama over it for being unconstitutional.

Sooooo..... critizising SCOTUS is terribad, right?