The bully in the dunce cap

Charles Krauthammer (video here) has a few choice words for our Constitutional Law Professor  part-time law lecturer in Chief:

“Here’s the president talking about respect for the law and implying there’s partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama’s case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a ‘train wreck,'” Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News’ “Special Report” this evening.

“It’s perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That’s not partisanship, that’s logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that’s been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated,” Krauthammer said on the panel.

“Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What’s he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn’t a broad of a majority that he implied,” he added.

And, oh my!  Could he be wrong about MORE?

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journalnoted that Obama, facing questions from journalists, had cited the case of Lochner v. New York (1905) as the last time the Supreme Court had overturned an economic law passed by Congress:

Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um [pause], we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.

Obama was wrong on three counts: Lochner was not decided in the 1930s; it was not the last time an economic law was overturned; and it involved a state law, not a federal one.

But Obama’s interpretation of Lochner is an interesting one, and points directly to the influence of Derrick Bell and his radical Critical Race Theory approach to constitutional jurisprudence.

And now a federal appeals court is wondering if Obama knows anything about the law or the role of SCOTUS….  (bolding mine)

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, suggesting it wasn’t clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

How embarrassing.  The whole world can now see that we have a president who is not just a bully, but is clueless about how the government he “leads” works.  Oh, and Mr. “I’ll Say Anything to Get Elected, Even One Thing to One Group and the Opposite to Another Group” doesn’t understand why SCOTUS members are not elected????

And now he’s being required to write a paper on the subject, to see if he can prove that he was listening in class!  Besides stipulating how many pages and that it should be single-spaced, they probably should have also mandated that he not leave the “ly” off of adverbs!  Because it is looking increasingly like our “president”, our “constitutional law professor” at the helm, went to !!!

Ready on Day One.

Pfffttt.  He shouldn’t even have been passed out of high school.

87 Responses

  1. I’m pretty sure that Barack knew better – he just thought he was pulling one of those eleventy-demented chess moves he is so famous for,

  2. The problem as I see it is this- the dumbed down population he claims as his base do NOT know better. How many of the OFArmy know the first thing about how our government works? How many slinked through what passes for a high school education today without ever hearing about the three co-equal branches of government?
    Sad(ly) I think there are quite a few out there who will believe his BS.

    And they called US low info voters. sheesh

  3. Don’t worry, plenty of his ‘followers’ know better. They just don’t care. Any bunch that would chuckle and watch while delegates are taken from one candidate and arbitrarily given to another to drag his sorry ass over the line, would do or condone ANYTHING.

  4. good morning ((((UPPITY’S))))))

    man this president deserves a reaming—–embarassing is only the beginning of his mess

    He should have NEVER been president——i’m sure they will lie their way out of this

    LORAC: good POST as ALWAYS!!

  5. O/T but on indirectly:

    O’s illegal alien drunken uncle back on the road. As with all of O’s illegal alien family members who “coincidentally” live in Gov. Deval Patrick’s Massachusetts, the law does not apply to them, even when they endanger others thru their irresponsible drinking habits:

    Onyango Obama, President Barack Obama’s illegal alien uncle who was arrested in August for drunk driving, is back behind the wheel after losing his driver’s license last week.

  6. Yeah we covered that. Twice. Just kidding. he gets to drive to his job at the…liquor store.

  7. […] Lorac has a great round-up on the pushback at Obama’s assertion that that SCOTUS overturning Congress would be “unprecedented.” The country has certainly seen a lot of unprecedented unpresidenting ever since since Obama occupied the WH. What are your unfavorite historic unpresidential Obama actions? […]

  8. Didn’t Obama used to teach constitutional law? surely that makes him smarter than the supremes [duh]. Actually we should be glad he is not teaching it any longer.

  9. Great post Lorac!

    It is astonishing some of the crap Obama spouts, yet the media for the most part ignores his gaffs. PMM you are correct most of the sheeple don’t know any better and they won’t unless the talking heads on their TV tell them…….mind control, one set at a time.

  10. Yes I’m sure he taught how the Constitution sucks.

  11. Once again, can you imagine if a female running for president ever said something like this??? (Notice I didn’t say a female POTUS….yeah, like THAT’S gonna happen!)

  12. Apparently, Mr. Obama taught “Con Law III” which doesn’t cover the basics (separation of powers, etc.) it was a course on “Racism in the Law”….here’s his syllabus:

  13. I see the Republicans are blocking the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act. And they wonder why women want to spit on them.

  14. Aw, wish lady isn’t following me anymore! I guess that makes her grammar rules all right.

  15. Dobermann compares himself to a $10 million chandelier.

  16. Dunce and Bully. YEP. Nailed.

  17. Stark and obvious media gender gap.

  18. […] Thanks lorac. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post.   […]

  19. Reblogged this on theconservativehillbilly.

  20. This is something I’ve been waiting to see – how will obama deflect blame when he cannot blame everything on Bush or Hillary.

    He is blaming Romney for high gas prices. This is so hysterical and insane and yet it is so much the obama campaign repeating its usual schtick.

    Romney raised our gas prices. You can’t make this shit up.

    At least when Romney hands out free food (with Ryan, potential VP?) he doesn’t pretend he’s not like obama did when he drew crowds with free booze and food and concert tickets and t-shirts and promised to pay their mortgage get them all new cars and free gas…

  21. Ryan? Eddie Munster as VP? Paul Ryan a heartbeat from the presidency is a frightening thought.

  22. Doberman is a cheap chandelier knockoff that fell from the ceiling.

  23. I’m loving this major b***h slap by the 3-judge panel ! And this quote from the WSJ is just too funny not to share:

    “It’s not exactly that this is false; there are ways in which Obama’s career reflects American exceptionalism. Perhaps one could even argue that his tendency toward self-aggrandizement reflects an extreme form of American individualism.

    But really, doesn’t he have an aide who can tell him that the symbol of America is not the bald ego?”

  24. I could kick myself. So much attention on that frigging cheating lying sack of crap that I forgot today is the anniversary of MLK Jr death.
    And he was a man who deserves to be remembered. He walked the walk, took responsibility and helped other people. He was a true uniter. Unlike he who sucks all the oxygen from the planet.

  25. Fembots! ROFLMAO! Bald ego- bwahahahaha
    linkie please!

  26. OMG Femobt. Hilarious!

  27. It’s about 1/2 way down the page:

  28. Thanks imust for posting the link! I was looking at this …

    Greta is looking for a serious discussion about Hillary being POTUS. So far most comments are negative. Let’s give her some positive ones.

  29. Great post Lorac!As always love Wednesdays. :)

  30. I have gone to battle at Greta’s before fembot…..serious CDS over there…not sure I’m up for it. Some places are so sick and deranged that they best be left to fester in their own filth…JMO.

    Maybe I should clarify a bit. I don’t mean that Greta is that way….just the people who comment on her blog. I suppose it’s because it’s a FOX program the site attracts the far right. I’ve found Greta to be the most balanced on Hillary. Lately though, she’s taken to having Limbaugh, Rove and Bolton on her show giving commentary. Well, Limbaugh she doesn’t interview, she puts a lot of clips up his rants.

  31. fembot, thanks for the Greta link. I gave my 2 cents.

    but imustsay imust is right, there are bots and publicans over there in droves that gang up on sane people. During the primaries Greta’s site had a lot of Clinton supporters there too and they were always on the ready to battle with the trolls.

  32. I just went over there and saw your comment karen. Looks like there’s a few more sane people since I was over there earlier. Still outnumbered though. I liked all the favorable to Hillary comments I could find.

  33. The whole album Slipstream by Bonnie Raitt can be streamed at this NPR link. Not sure how long it will be up, so listen while you can.

  34. I went back and made another comment, imust. I can’t take the Alinisky bullcrap they always toss at her feet. What doo-doo they sling.

  35. I just made a comment at Greta’s blog.

  36. My Ani-book came!!!!

  37. James Carville on Sanitary Pad: “He was like a chicken with his head chopped off. The chicken is dead. The only person that don’t know it is the chicken.” Santorum “can flop around all he wants to [but] they’re not going to nominate him.”

    Okay, I know Carville can be a cajun lizard head double talker but I can’t help find him humorous at times. I still chortle over him saying that if Hillary gave Barky one of her cajones, they’d both have one.

  38. I still chortle over him saying that if Hillary gave Barky one of her cajones, they’d both have one.

    That’s a keeper karen. lol

  39. I went to Greta too this afternoon and left a comment…

    And yes, Carville has his moments! Actually though he said that is Hillary gave Obama one of her cojones, they;d both have two! :)

  40. {{{{{{{{{SophieCT}}}}}}}}}}}}

  41. Lorac!!! Great job — your last paragraph is killer! Single spaced indeed!

    Someone needs to remind him that there arethree distinct branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial — and one does not get to bully the other into submission. Gee whiz, those founding fathers really knew what they were doing after all.

  42. Hmmm. I seem to be talking to myself…I’m sooooooooooo lonely!

  43. Oh lorac, another bang up post! :)

    It’s perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That’s not partisanship, that’s logic.

    Logic. Facts. History. Three branches of American government.
    All very much in short supply by The [S]elected one and his advisers and writers.

  44. Another black eye to all the institutions that graduated The Won.

  45. The separation of powers. That was like 4th grade social studies.

  46. So again, Mr. President–who was John Marshall and what is judicial review?

  47. But PMM – My feelings about MLK are muted. To me, it’s like politicians saying we’ve made “democracy” in the mideast – when the women aren’t equal. MLK worked hard mostly for black men – he still felt women were second class and was quite the womanizer. I still like him more than Malcolm X, though!

  48. Anita I just checked the quote from May 4, 2008 and I had it right. There are dozens ofsites with the quote the way iwrote it.

    Other times the saying was used might have been your way but not the first time.

  49. Another great lorac Wednesday. I just opened my book a little while ago! Laker and I have been looking it over. I just want to say that the chapter titles are fabulous. I love them. They’re a story in themselves. Am just starting Chap one.

  50. I listened to blog talk John smarttonight and there is an interesting postulation about obama’s extreme reaction to the Supremes being bandied about over there by some regulars. If there was a leak and the leak said more than 5 to 4 – either 6 to 3 or even 7 to 2 that it would explain his panic response.

    If he loses his high road attitude of I tried but the republicans on the court stopped it —then he loses his base – for wasting time and being a loser and a fool.

    If Sotomayor votes it down he can’t cry unfair.

  51. You guys are going to LOVE it, socal and laker!!!


    The bad guys win…. the battle.

    The good guys are gonna win…. the WAR!

  52. Verrrryyyy interesting, Karen. I’ll have to go listen to that blogtalk radio.


    What about Ani doing blog talk radio shows?????? There’s John Smart, but there are others, as well! That Paula Abeles had/has a blog talk radio show – she wrote the also recently released Admit the Horse – so she might be interested in interviewing Ani!

  53. Karen for Clinton — My apologies!! I had seen it the second way, but I am sure you are right, that it was rewritten over and over and morphed like a game of telephone!! Thanks for the correction! :)

  54. LORAC!!

    I am doing blog talk radio — this coming Monday night on Betty Jean Kling;s show at 7 pm Pacific time — here is the link…

    Listeners can call in: 347-838-8011 to speak with the host (and with Anita!)

  55. Lorac,

    I AM doing blog talk radio — Betty Jean Kling’s show, The Majority United — this coming Monday night, April 9th at 7 pm PST….

    Listeners can call in: 347-838-8011 to speak with the host (and with Anita!)

  56. Lorac!!

    I am doing Blog talk radio this monday night, April 9th at 7pm PST

    I am trying to post a link butcannot get the post through….

  57. Lorac,

    Anita Finlay will be on blog talk radio — Betty Jean Kling’s show, The Majority United — this coming Monday night, April 9th at 7 pm PST….

    Listeners can call in: 347-838-8011 to speak with the host (and with Anita!)

  58. Lorac,

    I AM doing blog talk radio — Betty Jean Kling’s show, The Majority United — this coming Monday night, April 9th at 7 pm PST….

    Listeners can call in: 347-838-8011 to speak with the host (and with Anita!)

  59. Here is the link: — don’t know wht it would not post with the other section of my comment…

  60. Sorry –I cannot get the link to the show to post…

  61. karen for C,

    Interesting postulation. Just seems like Mr. JD Constitutional scholar I Won, is having a hissy fit trying to get his way.

    If he loses, it is postulated he may carry on like this in the WH.

  62. “…….men grant to themselves and each other certain ‘credibility’ that women have to earn”.

    Oh my my my.

    Your book is blowing my mind.

  63. I see the Republicans are blocking the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act. And they wonder why women want to spit on them.

    I did a post on it. And added the fact that this is sexual assault awareness month. Lovely timing by them.

  64. Wish I could cross post that.

  65. Crier thank you for your blog tribue to my RIP cat. It’s heartwarming to know a friend remembers. I still miss him.

  66. Ani, Dances and I just had an exchange about your book and we are picking our 2008 scabs reading it. This means you truly did capture the essence of that shit storm. As I read you, I realize how many times you had to do rewrites just to get past the Infuriating stage into the Observer phase. It must have been emotionally exhausting.

  67. Thanks, Upps — glad to hear it!!!!!

  68. Uppity Woman, on April 5, 2012 at 12:43 AM

    Yes, I was expressing this just last night to Lorac, that I had to re-write this book several times in order to get to this place…

  69. Listeners can call in: 347-838-8011 to speak with the host (and with Anita!
    Monday & Wednesday Nights:

    The Majority United for Equality for All
    Time: 10:00 – 11:30 pm ES
    Free Us Now for Equality for All
    Time: 10:00 – 11:30 pm ES

    Call In # : (347) 838-8011 + 1
    (to connect to Host and join the discussion)
    Link to Both Shows:

    There is a live, on-air discussion, with expert guests on the program’s topic.
    Listeners are provided a Chat Room to interact while the program is live!
    Listeners can join in the discussion by calling in and pressing # 1 to automatically connect to the host, Betty Jean Kling. Be sure to let her know that you are on the phone by announcing your registered name or user name.
    (347) 838-8011 + 1
    Note: You must be registered with BlogTalk Radio to participate in the Chat room during the show. Your user name appears in the chat room and lets the host know you are a listener.
    You can register with BlogTalk Radiobefore the next show by clicking here:
    (347) 838-8011 + 1

  70. I think that’s all the info needed for the blogtalk place Ani will be at on Monday……?

  71. Thanks, Lorac. I may have written a book but obviously, I am a luddite!!!

  72. Wish I could cross post that

    Why can’t you?

    Of course the unmentioned thing is that the more the Repubs act up it benefits you-know-who, who doesn’t deserve it.

  73. You want me to call in to a bully of a woman who came here, crapped all over people on this blog, wrote a post entitled STUPID UPPITY WOMAN after I threw her out of here, and attacked PMMom in that post? Oh yeah that’ll happen.

    Want screen shots?

  74. Who said that?

  75. “…….men grant to themselves and each other certain ‘credibility’ that women have to earn”.

    Well said.

  76. Thanks, towncrier…actually that is something I quoted (and attributed) in the book from Cleta Mitchell, lawyer and former legislator…it is a great phrase.

  77. Applause to Ani for bringing up a great phrase from the recesses up to the forefront.

  78. Ani the quote is in your book. Cleta Mitchell?

  79. Ani, i just fished you out of spam. It’s because that blog name is blocked on this blog, unfortunately. I fished one of them out though. Sorry bout that.

  80. No worries, Uppity. Yes, I quote a paragraph from Cleta Mitchell, It is from an article she had in WSJ — she was a former Oklahome legislator writing about her experiences in the chamber.

  81. It was Right On too!

  82. *sigh* What might have been…

  83. I love that photo Monster! I saw it in the comments on another blog and was trying to google it to find out more about it.

  84. Monster, ain’t it the truth.


  85. That’s only true in politics, where two useless parties play ‘Gotcha’ day and night. In real life when somebody commits adultery, nobody bothers asking what party they are in. In fact, in real life political parties only matter to extremists. If you have a problem hanging out with somebody who isn’t registered in the same party as you are, you might want to ask yourself exactly why this is so important, unless you or the other person are/is an annoying extremist. Most people are not. It’s only in the past few years that party even mattered to a soul. Nobody dated somebody based on their party. People didn’t refuse to marry a good person because they weren’t a registered “whatever”. It’s all just plain silly bullshit. Most peole who are normal ask themselves which is the best candidate when they vote for mayor, or assembly person or an elected official who is really going to affect the community. Most people are a member of their community first. I have voted for people from both parties and I will continue to do so. I have seen people from my party running for office, when I wouldn’t hire them to wash my car. Why on earth would I vote for this person? There was also a time where relgious extreme assholes were few and far between. Churches that spoke in tongues and other hocus pocus were regarded as strange and they stuck together. Nobody cared because they didn’t want to hang out with them either. None of these things had any importance. What mattered in picking a husband or a wife were far more important things. Like honesty, integrity, kindness, being a good and caring person. Nobody even asked what political party someone was in, much less give a rat’s ass. When I see these ridiculous websites where you can find someone living in the same pigeon-hole you live in, I just cringe. It’s all so stupid and narrow-minded. I am not my Party first. In fact, my party is so full of shit, it’s not even on the list of things I Am. And so is that Other party. I wouldn’t even WANT to hang out with a person who puts something as shallow as a political party First. The content of my character is NOT summed up in which political box I checked at the DMV.

  86. I’m laughing here because I had a conversation with a friend about gays and lesbians and marriage, and she was just gobsmacked that marriage would be so important to them. She felt that Sure! Why shouldn’t they get married and be miserable like the rest of the world? Hahahaha. I explained that it had an impact on many things the rest of us take for granted as our Right –and it was very symbolic of freedom and equality. It was about commitment. And legal rights in cases like hospitalization and advocacy, and other things that we take for granted, without realizing that gays and lesbians don’t have that freedom. The freedom to Be There when a partner is sick — and be legally entitled to make decisions. The freedom to soak each other in a divorce after years of acquiring things together. lol. THAT, she understood.

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers

%d bloggers like this: