I have a link to Ann Coulter's response to Obama's response to the Supreme Court which will appear in the Daily Sun on Sunday. For those of us watching the Masters this is an opportune time to get some reading competed ahead of time.

Ciaco

Verilli not administration's worst lawyer, after all - HUMAN EVENTS

Originally Posted by rubicon

I have a link to Ann Coulter's response to Obama's response to the Supreme Court which will appear in the Daily Sun on Sunday. For those of us watching the Masters this is an opportune time to get some reading competed ahead of time.

Ciaco

Verilli not administration's worst lawyer, after all - HUMAN EVENTS

Except that Ann Coulter has the facts wrong. Read her article carefully. I would also think that a lot of people when addressing a lay audience would call a "bill" a law as not to get too bogged down in technicalities.

"In the former case, U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act -- which was, by the way, a "duly constituted and passed law"! And then the court did it again in U.S. v. Morrison, when it overturned another "duly constituted and passed law," the Violence Against Women Act." (from above linked article about laws that the US Supreme Court overturned).

Both of these laws hardly look like they are economic in nature.


I always take whatever Ann Coulter writes with a grain of salt. She almost always writes for the affect it has on people and not towards the facts. She basically puts tongue in cheek and spits at any Democrat she has taken up as a target.

Originally Posted by rubicon

I have a link to Ann Coulter's response to Obama's response to the Supreme Court which will appear in the Daily Sun on Sunday. For those of us watching the Masters this is an opportune time to get some reading competed ahead of time.

Ciaco

Verilli not administration's worst lawyer, after all - HUMAN EVENTS

Great post, however I doubt that any of those who seem to simply adore whatever he says or does will even read it, let alone discuss it. I hope you dont mind if I add to your thread as THIS IS A HUGE HUGE ISSUE.

We have a SITTING US PRESIDENT SAY THIS...

"Obama said it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the court overturned "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." He added that such a move would be a good example of the lack of judicial restraint that conservative commentators have bemoaned for years."

NOW this pretty serious...you say it was just a GAFFE..it will blow over....

This from one of Obama's prior students....


"By Thom Lambert

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.."

Former Obama Law Student Speaks Out... - Thom Lambert - Fox Nation

This from a student where Obama was TEACHING constitutional law...he was TEACHING.....

The normally leftish leaning USA TODAY...

"President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law."

Fact check: Obama's Supreme Court remarks

Yep, they used the word ABSURDLY WRONG to describe the remarks from a man who TAUGHT constitutional law...

Now, everyone makes mistakes..but, to me, this indicates a number of things....first, this is the single most political WH in the history of this country....second, this president is the single most arrogant man to hold this office...he NEVER said he was wrong..he NEVER apologized as most past presidents have done...he had his press secy make a futile attempt to explain it. He will do whatever it takes to get an edge politically, BECAUSE as you read, he HAD to know he was wrong, didn't he ?

This all concerning a bill that the Speaker of the house said "we need to pass it to understand it" and who admittely never ever read it. This, all concerning a bill where he lied to all of us and did nothing but make backroom deals and ignored the REASON for the bill, health costs, tort reform for example.

Scary.....and this an opinion piece from the Washington Post, a piece which by the way, while unsure of how to take such comments, is wary of making a big deal of it, BUT says this...

"His comments indicate that he still grapples with how to handle the presidency and that we’re still witnessing the on-the-job training required when you elect a part-time state senator and a “community organizer” as president of the United States.

"Granted, this is the second time that I recall in which Obama has publicly taunted the court. It’s not wise; it’s not what a good president does. And in my view, Obama’s not a good president. But I don’t think what he said is a game-changer or an issue on which we should invest too much time and emotion."


Obama's Supreme Court comments weren't treasonous, just wrong - The Insiders - The Washington Post

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Except that Ann Coulter has the facts wrong. Read her article carefully. I would also think that a lot of people when addressing a lay audience would call a "bill" a law as not to get too bogged down in technicalities.

"In the former case, U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act -- which was, by the way, a "duly constituted and passed law"! And then the court did it again in U.S. v. Morrison, when it overturned another "duly constituted and passed law," the Violence Against Women Act." (from above linked article about laws that the US Supreme Court overturned).

Both of these laws hardly look like they are economic in nature.


I always take whatever Ann Coulter writes with a grain of salt. She almost always writes for the affect it has on people and not towards the facts. She basically puts tongue in cheek and spits at any Democrat she has taken up as a target.

Hi Taltarzac: Perhaps I did miss something but I thought that Coulter was making your point in that she said that the Clinton Admiistration stretched by labeling these case as econoimc regulation and hence in step with the Commerce Clause as did Obama with his ObamaCare.

Also please don;t discount the Marbaury Decision which has set precdent since the 1800's concerning judicial review. It is one of the most celebrated cases concerning the U.S. constitution and hence her remarks concerning the law professor(Obama) since Obama was said to have taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

Personally I get a kick out of Coulter's writing style just as I have with Jon Daily who mocks Republicans. We need to stay true to our beliefs but we also need to lighten up.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Great post, however I doubt that any of those who seem to simply adore whatever he says or does will even read it, let alone discuss it. I hope you dont mind if I add to your thread as THIS IS A HUGE HUGE ISSUE.

We have a SITTING US PRESIDENT SAY THIS...

"Obama said it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the court overturned "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." He added that such a move would be a good example of the lack of judicial restraint that conservative commentators have bemoaned for years."

NOW this pretty serious...you say it was just a GAFFE..it will blow over....

This from one of Obama's prior students....


"By Thom Lambert

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.."

Former Obama Law Student Speaks Out... - Thom Lambert - Fox Nation

This from a student where Obama was TEACHING constitutional law...he was TEACHING.....

The normally leftish leaning USA TODAY...

"President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law."

Fact check: Obama's Supreme Court remarks

Yep, they used the word ABSURDLY WRONG to describe the remarks from a man who TAUGHT constitutional law...

Now, everyone makes mistakes..but, to me, this indicates a number of things....first, this is the single most political WH in the history of this country....second, this president is the single most arrogant man to hold this office...he NEVER said he was wrong..he NEVER apologized as most past presidents have done...he had his press secy make a futile attempt to explain it. He will do whatever it takes to get an edge politically, BECAUSE as you read, he HAD to know he was wrong, didn't he ?

This all concerning a bill that the Speaker of the house said "we need to pass it to understand it" and who admittely never ever read it. This, all concerning a bill where he lied to all of us and did nothing but make backroom deals and ignored the REASON for the bill, health costs, tort reform for example.

Scary.....and this an opinion piece from the Washington Post, a piece which by the way, while unsure of how to take such comments, is wary of making a big deal of it, BUT says this...

"His comments indicate that he still grapples with how to handle the presidency and that we’re still witnessing the on-the-job training required when you elect a part-time state senator and a “community organizer” as president of the United States.

"Granted, this is the second time that I recall in which Obama has publicly taunted the court. It’s not wise; it’s not what a good president does. And in my view, Obama’s not a good president. But I don’t think what he said is a game-changer or an issue on which we should invest too much time and emotion."


Obama's Supreme Court comments weren't treasonous, just wrong - The Insiders - The Washington Post

Bucco: This White house plays out like the keystone kops. What an embarassment for America