Obama’s warning to Supreme Court concerning Obamacare

Did you really expect anything different? For those of you who are shocked and surprised at the words President Obama used yesterday concerning the health care act that passed with “a strong majority” (WTF?) in Congress, where have you been since 2008?

The goal of this president is to change the United States of America in a significant way. This “constitutional scholar” has now taken two public political shots at the Judicial branch, knowing the chief and other justices don’t call press conferences to defend their role as one of the (supposedly) equal branches of the federal government.

He’s openly said he’ll work around Congress if he has to, expanding Executive Branch powers along the way. At least they can try to defend themselves in public.

I call that tyranny, how about you?

For those of you who think Obama has successfully turned the tables on conservatives claiming the Court’s rejection of Obamacare in part or whole would be the same “judicial activism” we’ve been complaining about for years, that’s complete hogwash and I absolutely do not accept the premise. What conservatives and many others have complained about represents the true definition of judicial activism.

From the seventh edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, of which I have a hard-bound copy right here…

judicial activism, n. A philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy,, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu[ally], with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent.

What we complain about is the approval laws that are not constitutional and the destruction of laws that are constitutional. Don’t mix them up folks.

This discussion and disagreement is the result of decades where the states and the people have willingly given more and more power to the federal government. Now that the federal government is controlling almost every aspect of our lives through regulation and outright threats, we’re watching the beginning of the fight between the three branches of the federal government concerning control. Our only hope is a Judicial body who is willing to restrict Congress and the Executive to their powers as defined in the United States Constitution.

I have little faith.

Posted in ,

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. Lynn on April 3, 2012 at 8:21 am

    I call it tyranny, too.? I believe so strongly that our fore fathers gave us the most intelligent and well-planned government ever. It is up to us to protect it. As Paul Simon says, I feel it’s “Slip? Sliding Away”. BTW if you want to see real tyranny in action, see “The Hunger Games” . How far away are we from this? Sorry Steve off subject as always.

  2. JBS on April 3, 2012 at 8:48 am

    “Let ME be clear:
    I don’t need no stinkin justices to tell ME what is constitutional. I KNOW BEST!
    But, if they rule in MY favor, they are really a nice bunch of folks.”

  3. Don Lombardo on April 3, 2012 at 9:59 am

    No way he would say this unless he was tipped off that an unconstitutional vote was coming. And there is no doubt his mole – Kagen -? is the leaker.

  4. Murphy on April 3, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Isn’t that definition , Sotomayor’s resume?


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.