Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Remembering Samuel Alito’s Infamous SOTU “Not True”

012709_alito-e1383926809687-300x157Originally posted at The Blacksphere

In case America is still unsure, this is how Barack Obama rolls: If the Supreme Court happens to rule 5-to-4 to uphold a law the president likes, he applauds it and uses the decision as ammo to fire back at critics.

Regardless of whether or not a ruling violates the Constitution, if it serves the progressive goal of curtailing freedom or promoting depravity, such as Roe v. Wade, the president has nothing but respect for the bad decisions made by liberal judges.

On the other hand, if the majority should happen to rule 5-to-4 in favor of something Obama deems threatening to his power, rather than extend a similar deference to the high court’s wisdom, he’ll openly balk and attempt to undermine the concept of separation of powers in the minds of the American people.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) once said that “There were days when judges stayed out of politics. It would be nice to go back to those days.”  That is unless of course, men in black robes choose to politicize the law by coming down on the side of liberal policy, in which case judicial involvement is welcome.

Liberal Leahy made his ‘judges stay out of politics’ comments in response to the sort of pick-and-choose hypocrisy that took place in January of 2010 at Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address wherein he scolded the Supreme Court for ruling in favor of removing corporate campaign spending limits.

Obama did something unprecedented during the address while some of the Supremes were seated in the House gallery: Exuding his usual haughty, professorial sternness, he reprimanded the high court for its ruling, saying:

“With all due deference to the separation of powers… [the court]… reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

At the time, Vice President Joe Biden sided with Obama’s crack at disgracing the high court, calling the corporate campaign spending ruling “dead wrong” and saying “we have to correct it.”

Out of curiosity, while preparing to visit Asia in December, did the Vice President happen to take the time to point out that when Barack Obama told Americans that ‘if they like their insurance they can keep their insurance,’ he was “dead wrong?” Or did Mr. Biden bother to insist that, now that Americans are finding out that what the president told them was a boldfaced lie, “we have to correct it?”

Interestingly, neither Obama nor Biden thought right-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts was “dead wrong” when he voted on the side of the liberal judges to deem Obamacare a tax, something the President swore it was not.

Nor did the POTUS nor VPOTUS want to “correct it” when the court’s decision circumvented Article I, Section 7, Clause 1, which states that laws that raise revenue must originate in the House.

Yet, despite the Obama administration’s ongoing duplicity, time has a habit of vindicating the truth. In light of recent revelations, the President is not exactly the bastion of honesty that many originally thought he was, the words mouthed by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in response to being openly reproved by a constitutionally-ignorant constitutional law professor carry even more weight than they did three years ago.

The take-away from the 2010 State of the Union address, when the President inappropriately slammed the Supreme Court, was Judge Alito’s facial expression in reaction to what Obama said.

After the president launched his critical remonstration in the direction of the conservative arm of the court, Alito scrunched up his face, shook his head in disapproval, and joined Joe ‘You Lie’ Wilson (R-SC) in pointing out to America that what the president said was “not true.”

Now, three years after the Vice President argued in Obama’s defense that when he scolded the Supreme Court, “The president didn’t question the integrity of the court. He questioned the judgment of it,” the entire country is questioning both the President’s integrity and judgment.

At present, Texas Senator John Cornyn, Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, is trying desperately to take the Obama administration to task for misleading the American public in regards to Obamacare with the claim ‘if you like your plan you can keep your plan.’

Back in 2010, after the controversial SOTU incident, Cornyn argued that Alito must have had an “irresistible impulse” to react to the President’s open criticism of the SCOTUS’s decision. No argument here! When it comes to reacting to the absurd things President Obama says and does, he certainly inspires all manner of “irresistible impulses” in more than a few Americans.

Nonetheless, at the time Cornyn opined:

“I don’t think the president should have done what he did in trying to call out the Supreme Court for doing its job. They are the final word on the meaning of the United States Constitution, even when we don’t like the outcome.”

True!  But when Barack Obama rebuked the Supreme Court, what he may have done was unintentionally set a precedent that might come back to bite him on his…on his…never mind.

Following our esteemed leader’s example, Americans who “don’t like the outcome” and are openly critical of the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision can now say they’re emulating Obama. The president sent the message that it’s just fine to publicly admonish a powerful public official.

Now millions of Americans burned by his blatant lies can, with “all due deference,” do just what Sam Alito did – point out to Barack Obama that what he says is “not true.”

Barack Obama’s Silence Speaks Louder than His Words

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

When President Obama disagrees with something, it doesn’t take long for him to impulsively express his disapproval in a public forum, especially when he believes doing so will further his policy goals or bolster his waning popularity.  But while what he does say sends a strong message, what he chooses not to say can send an even stronger one.

On the issue of gay marriage, the President has verbally identified himself as being in the process of “evolving” from anti- to pro- same-sex matrimony. When Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and innocent people were killed in Tucson, the President very publicly insinuated that conservative incivility contributed to a violent climate, and then goaded the nation toward mutual respect.

Barack Obama has even been brazen enough to verbally try to “intimidate” the Supreme Court “by wrongly suggesting that a ruling against the health care overhaul would be ‘judicial activism,'” as well as promote policies that restrict the Catholic Church’s right to adhere to its core religious convictions.

Above all, the President has never been reluctant to articulate his support for abortion on demand, and free contraceptives for everyone, nor has he hesitated to speak out against bullying gay teenagers, rebuke radio talk show hosts calling female college students derogatory names, or respond to criticism over his family taking extravagant vacations.

Yet with such strong opinions on these and many other issues, when those on the left do to conservatives exactly what the President has expressed indignation over when criticism is directed toward him, his policies, or liberals in general, Barack Obama’s deafening silence signals that his outrage is quite selective. With President Obama, his silence oftentimes speaks louder than his words.

A prime example of that tendency was exhibited by his speaking out in the Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh incident and failing thus far to do likewise in the Dan Savage/Christian kid-bashing incident.

After Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke took to the national stage to advocate for Catholic institutions to provide insurance that covers free birth control and abortion, Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” two comments for which he later apologized.

In defense of Sandra Fluke, Barack Obama jumped into the fray when he called the third-year law student to express his support for her brave stance.  At the first press conference of 2012, Obama, who Jay Carney had already explained felt Limbaugh’s comments were “inappropriate,” revealed his motives for picking up the phone and dialing up Ms. Fluke.

The President said he did so because “he was thinking about his own two daughters,” saying:

One of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about…I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.

I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves arguments and disagreements and debate.

Those sentiments, although noble to some, are proving to be exclusive and only expressed when Barack Obama defends the left.

Recently an incident took place where “inappropriate” remarks were directed by a gay activist toward children who were also “engaging in issues they care about.”  Yet thus far there has been no comment from the President who, on behalf of a left-wing feminist, had tripped over himself rushing to her defense.

Dan Savage, ‘It Gets Better’ founder/”Savage Love” sex advice columnist/gay activist/White House reception guest of Barack Obama, was supposed to be sharing an anti-bullying message at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association (JEA ) and the National Scholastic Press Association. Instead, Savage used the opportunity to exercise his civic duty and bully the kids who came to the conference from Christian schools in the area.

At one point, Savage described for the teenagers how “good his male partner looked in a Speedo” and told them, “I hope you’re all using birth control.” After Savage, “Evolve Already ” promoter of marriage equality for gays attempted to savage the book of Leviticus, the Apostle Paul, and his letter to the Romans, 100 offended high school students quietly stood up and filed out of the auditorium.

Feeling bullied by the students refusing to listen to his vulgar tirade, the anti-bullying speaker then “began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant ‘pansy assed.'”

Continuing on with a level of mistreatment that far surpassed Limbaugh’s two-word insult, Savage told a room full of high school students that “there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it …being gay is wrong,” and encouraged them all to “ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

Based on how quickly Barack Obama raced out to the microphones to address what he felt were demeaning comments directed toward the frail Ms. Fluke, is Obama planning on doing likewise and officially distancing himself from Dan Savage by publicly addressing his “inappropriate,” anti-Christian remarks?

When he’s finished straightening out Mr. Savage, will the President then be phoning the children who were called ‘pansy asses’ by his abusive White House guest, as he did Sandra Fluke ?  Will he tell the kiddies their parents should be proud of them for the dignified way they respectfully dismissed themselves from the awkward confrontation?

Afterwards, at his next press conference, will Obama share that he thought about how terribly his Christian daughters Sasha and Malia would have felt being singled out and insulted in such a public way, just for going to a high school journalism conference?

Will Barack Obama condemn verbal and religious abuse of any kind and remind America “The remarks that were made don’t have any place in the public discourse.” Or will Mr. Obama send a strong but silent message of agreement to the anti-bullying bully Dan Savage by choosing to say absolutely nothing at all?

Cornhuskers Choose Life – American Thinker – April 9, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

A bill put forward by the state of Nebraska, hoping to impose further limits on a woman’s right to choose, has the Cornhusker state once again embroiled in debate, this time over abortion.   The proposed Abortion Pain Prevention Act seeks to address the issue of late-term abortion by making the procedure “illegal after the 20th week of pregnancy…because of some medical evidence that a fetus can feel pain at that stage of gestation.”

The controversial legislation garnered national attention from pro-choice groups who view the potential ruling a direct challenge to the 1973 case that made feticide lawful. Truth is the First Church of Molech considers any action that even remotely admonishes extreme abortion practice on equal par with pillaging Vatican City.

Since Roe v. Wade’s inception individual states have intermittently proposed laws that have successfully placed restrictions on abortion. As a result, activists on both sides of the issue wonder whether a bill, which seeks to institute a time specific ban on the procedure, could potentially work its way through the legal system all the way to the Supreme Court and become the subject of abortion’s next litigious battle.

National Right to Life spokeswoman Mary Spaulding Balch said, “This bill is about recognizing that the state has an interest in an unborn child who is capable of feeling pain.” If the law passes, Nebraska will be the first state to ban late-term abortion, “based on the controversial notion that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.”

Dr. Jean Wright, an anesthesiologist specializing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, offered an illuminating metaphor in congressional testimony.
”[A]n unborn fetus after 20-weeks of gestation, has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain. In a fashion similar to explaining the electrical wiring to a new house, we would explain that the circuit is complete from skin to brain and back.”

Despite the obvious, if acknowledging fetal pain means curtailing late-term abortion, legal groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights who tout “reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right” remain determined to ignore the “human right” a living fetus possesses to be spared excruciating pain.

While some medical experts testified at the Nebraska hearings that a fetus is able to feel pain at 20-weeks, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a statement saying it knows of “no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain.

One wonders, does the Hippocratic Oath grant dispensation to doctors to ignore the fact that at 20-weeks, unborn babies breathe and swallow?  Do some obstetricians and gynecologists feel morally justified, in light of “no legitimate scientific information,” to execute children with four full layers of epidermis, including ridges for fingertips and layers that form palms, feet and future fingerprints?

If there is even one scintilla of likelihood that fetuses experience any pain during abortion, shouldn’t those whose vocation is to bring children into the world err on the side of sparing human suffering?

Although no one disputes that at 17 – 19 weeks of gestation a baby can hear its mother’s voice and move around — pro-choice America still question the extent of the ordeal a 20-week fetus experiences when being suctioned or burned during instillation saline abortion. Harvard Medical School anesthesiologist Roland Brusseau told the “Omaha World-Herald that the topic was ‘complicated and controversial’ [because] when a fetus undergoes a medical procedure in the womb…doctors usually use an anesthetic.”

What an innovative idea! If the infliction of undue torment is a concern for women committing murder, maybe forced miscarriage advocates can circumvent the effect of the Abortion Pain Prevention Act by proposing anesthetizing unwanted infants, in utero, before forging ahead with dismemberment. What’s more, an anesthetization proposal could serve to alleviate maternal guilt by ensuring doomed offspring expire by way of pain-free execution.

Administering anesthesia would be a tidy solution to the debate–sort of like the humane method of death by lethal injection.

It’s either that or denial similar to the type Democrat Nebraska State Senator Danielle Conrad exhibits when refuting, “the issue of fetal pain [as] a misnomer,” contending, “medical evidence is inconclusive.” Is the esteemed state senator so committed to “choice” she refuses to admit pain is involved when babies are flayed alive by high concentrations of salt laced amniotic fluid? Possibly Senator Conrad is not privy to the knowledge that fetuses thrash around for an hour or more before expiring.

At 80 years of age would Ms. Conrad welcome “inconclusive medical evidence” determining octogenarian pain thresholds?

As support for abortion in American society continues to wane, it’s obvious a devoted segment remain undeterred in the quest to dispose of as many children as possible.  Pro-choice activists reveal shocking levels of barbarism when accusing “this particular Nebraska bill [of not being] subtle at all,” based on language explicit in its intent to shield viable human beings from agonizing death.

It is highly unlikely the “pain” debate will result in placing further nationwide limitations on an unjust law. However, in the interim one thing has been accomplished, the discussion surrounding Nebraska’s Abortion Pain Prevention Act has confirmed, without question, that those void of feeling and humanity are not abortion’s victims, but its advocates.

%d bloggers like this: