simply un-obama-lievable
on 04/03/2012 at 07:08 AM
So much to comment on, so little time…
I go back and forth between whether obama is truly as ignorant and incompetent as he appears, or whether he is a shrewd, malicious master of manipulation. The best I can come up with is that he is an ignorant and malicious affirmative action twit. He got where he is not because of ability, but because of the affirmative action variation of the Peter Principle.
As for his statement that “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,” Good God Above!!! Can he really be that ignorant?
It would not be unprecedented. SCOTUS has been doing that for centuries.
“...a strong majority...” Really? The final vote count in the House was 219 for (all democrats) 212 against (all the republicans plus 34 dems who switched ranks and voted against it). In the senate the vote was 60 for (all democrats) and 39 against. I wouldn’t call that a strong majority.
Regarding Kagan, there was a little noise a few months back on the recusal issue, but it died away. I’m with you - how on earth can she sit in judgment of a law she helped craft? It does raise several interesting constitutional questions, though. Who do you approach to get a supreme court justice recused? If one is recused, that raises the possibility of a 4-4 tie. What happens then? Does the tie go to the runner? Who is the runner - the plaintiff or the defendant? Boy, if you think the 2004 election vote was a mess, can you imagine a supreme court tie decision? Wouldn’t that be fun…
Right, Kagan. My goof, I thought it was Sotomeyer. And thanks for knowing the vote counts; it was darn close in the house but 3:2 in the Senate, which the Dems controlled.
Obama is both malicious and a twit, the Affirmative Action Anarchist, the Useful Idiot In Chief.
Stuttering Clusterfuck Of A Miserable Failure. Him and his ugly wookie.
You do know that Kagan recused herself 29 times last session and - are you ready for it - 89 times already this session. She should have recused herself - as the main reason she recused herself so much - is because she was the Solicitor General -which is the reason she should have recused herself in this case.
I wonder if it was leaked that he lost the first decision vote - the ‘unelected’ members of the Supreme Court have been ruling against Congress, the Constitution and the American citizens for decades - it is why the Democrats Bork all Republican nominees to the Court.
I believe Kagan will do what she was nominated to do, I think Ginsberg has an anti-Constitutional attitude at the moment - so I see a 7-2 decision against Obamacare.
Which would explain the (p)Residents belligerent attitude toward the Court - which he has done at the SOTU before.
Maybe there can be a 9-0 decision (such as in the recent Hackett decision) - just to put The Won in his place.
I can always dream.
I can only find source that Kagan recused herself 25 times - so I will go with that until I find the other source I had read. Still when it wasn’t the (p)Resident’s ‘legacy’ legislation.
Nice to see your still taking up the good fight gang.Happy thoughts.
OMG - I just found the perfect response to this “unprecedented” comment from Dear Reader: [from a comment at American Thinker, More Evidence that Obama is Learning Disabled]
So how many unpassed laws has the Supreme Court over turned?
We The People need to stick their ignorance, their stupidity and the complete lack of reality and rational thought back at them each and every time they utter the most stupid lies and distortions in an attempt to destroy America.
