"We are confident this will be upheld, because it should be upheld," The Lightbringer said in a joint press conference in the Rose Garden with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderón.1
Oh really? Just like that, it "should be upheld?" That's your reasoning, Mr. …President?
No. That's the reasoning of a five-year old who has just been asked why they think they should be allowed to stay up later. "Because I should," replies the child.2 No logic, no reasoning, no argument offered. The self-centered, unsympathetic brain of a small child seeks no consideration for anything except its own self interest.
There are those that would bristle at my comparison of the leader of the United States with a spoiled brat. But I think y'all are smarter than that. The vast majority of my readership either agrees with me that the #occupywhitehouse participant is a coddled, selfish, narcissistic individual that has no concern for the nation at large and its position within the world view, but rather subscribes only to his own whims and personal, Ayers-inspired and Chicago-shaped agenda.3
The Anointed One did not disappoint with the rest of his commentary:
"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."
I know, right? How can you argue with such logic?
The fabulous and erudite Dr. Thomas Sowell did, and likely will continue. Thankfully.
He reminds us that the Supreme Court has been doing that very thing – overturning a law passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress – for 209 years. Wow. Extraordinary, indeed.
And he also reminds us that Mr. Law Professor chooses to ignore the act setting that precedent – one even a junior high civics student should know: Marbury v. Madison (1803).4
You really need to read Dr. Sowell's article. He points out in very clear terms that the Emperor is nekkid.
But you also need to read this report from CBS News (of all places), citing where the 5th Circuit of the Appeals Courts have ordered – not asked, not requested, but ordered – the DOJ to
"[…] submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power."
I expect spelling counts, too.
If you follow the article's updates, you'll see where the SpinMeister attempts to "clarify" his position:
"Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be 'unprecedented' in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care."
Potayto, potahto. I especially liked the reporter's dig in the last line of that update:
"And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday."
Did you get the sarcasm there, or am I imagining that?
The 5th Circuit did get in a last spank, in the 6:55 update.
"In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's [sic l/c] comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws 'have troubled a number of people' and that the suggestion 'is not a small matter.'"
I'd love to quote the whole thing – it's fantastic – but do yourself the favor and go read it. Especially the last paragraph.
I am honored to be included in the 'Bama triumvirate's5 discussion of this topic. (Honestly, they've been discussing while I've been digesting.) It was suggested in that conversation that the following video might be shared with the POTUS:
… especially around 2:12. It's definitely like a circus up there, that's for sure.
But they've also reminded me of something else: that this was not a bill passed by a "strong majority." This was a bill passed by a very slim margin (219/212 in the House; 60/39 in the Senate6).
Of course, any victory in the eyes of the such a One is a victory indeed, and so it can be blown out of proportion and paraded as such for the sake of the party. Especially when one has the right contacts in the media (read: all) to do so as completely as possible. Kind of like the "never let a good crisis go to waste" attitude of some of His advisors.
ETA: Maestro Blatt adds some more numbers for your crunching pleasure at GayPatriot.
Though assuming things go my way for once, it still won't be time for rejoicing. The MarketWatch article reminds us, via Rick Weissenstein, that this is likely the Anointed One's way of injecting a bit of spin into things. If this is overturned, then the charge during the rest of the election season will be running against the "activist" SCOTUS and the eeevilll Republicans that filed suit in the first place.
Yeeeah. This is going to be fun. Not.
1. Greg Robb, MarketWatch.com., April 2, 2012.
2. Unfortunately, it's also sometimes the rejoinder of the harried parent: "Because I said so."
3. The rest of the readership thinks I'm full of shit and only reads for their amusement, or because their boss at the DoJ said they had to.
4. Do they still teach that in school?
5. 'Seester, Bo, and Terri, three of the finest minds I know.
6. OpenCongress.org, where only 29% of the website's users support the bill.