The President’s Alternate Liberal Progressive view on the Supreme Court

He was the farthest left-wing partisan in the U.S. Senate. Rather than vote for a Maverick who would have given them direct access to the presidency Progressives voted an inexperienced person of questionable origin and questionable loyalty to this country and its constitution into the White house.

Barry Hussein Soetoro has the nation split yet again down partisan lines. Some believe that he knew exactly what he was saying when he threatened the Supreme Court over his unconstitutional health care law. (In addition, if Justice Elena Kagan secretly communicated last Friday’s vote to the president she should immediately be made to recuse herself and in addition, whatever mechanism that is in place to remove a justice from the court should be employed again her.) Others believe that the president’s remarks regarding the court were so astonishing ignorant that it is unbelievable that he was a law student perish the thought that he was a senior law lecturer at the University of Chicago (He was never law professor as the lying narrative advances)

His provably false remarks weren’t aimed at Supreme Court justices, but rather at uninformed Americans, especially liberals (is there any other kind?). The most divisive president in history is setting up yet another straw man for his re-election campaign, one that fits directly into his strategy to divide and conquer.

Joseph Curl’s article “Divide and conquer” opines that the president is so deviously political that he is purposely manipulating all his liberal sycophants at the Supreme Court’s expense (see story)

Author and Commentator Ann Coulter believes that the president’s comments were made out of startling ignorance. Every first year law student should know of the case Marbury vs. Madison which formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. If this president could may his statement against the court in light of this case, if he isn’t ignorant of the case then the alternative is he is intellectually dishonest.

"Liberals are often trying to push this idea that judicial review means overturning any act of Congress, or rather judicial activism. Judicial activism is anything when the Supreme Court doesn’t obey what the Constitution says, like when they invent rights to abortion, rights to gay, and rights for criminals to go free if a specific Miranda warning hasn't been read to them."—Ann Coulter

Nevertheless Coulter finds the president’s remarks perfidious (see 1:51 video)



I believe that Liberals have created an alternative view of reality. It is a psychosis, a derangement of personality, a loss of contact with reality causing deterioration of normal social functioning.

The president is such person. He keeps saying he has belief that an unconstitutional law with be upheld by those whose responsibility is to judge whether laws are constitutional and reject laws that are not. To say that he has belief and certainty that the court will uphold an unconstitutional law is remarkably out of touch with reality.

Either the president is out of touch with reality or he believes that he can create his own reality by speaking things, which be not, as though they were. If he believes he has the power to create his own reality that would explain why he says that things that he does.

The president’s alternate view on the court is that the court will adhere to his will to his words. This president believes that all of the world will bend to his will.

Which also means that president Soetoro believes his word preempts the Constitution. We’ll all see if the court holds that same view.

Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer and Kagan the Supreme Legislature of the United States of America

At this time, the whole of the American government under Barry Hussein Soetoro is acting extra-Constitutionally. The president and his entire Party must be removed from office starting this November and continuing until every Democrat and Moderate Republican pays for what they have done to America.

No longer can the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States be called a court if they do what some experts contemplate them doing.

Experts believe, by reason of questioning that certain partisan justices posed regarding ‘severability’ the third day of the health care hearings, the court is about to strike down only part of the Obama health care law as unconstitutional while they leave parts of the law in place.

If these Justices do that, they will in fact become a supreme legislative body instead of a court. They will create new legislative scenarios in which the monstrous health care law that a Democrat congress created behind closed doors, will be forced to morph. Obamacare the over 2,000-page law was not read in Congress nor was it read by anyone in the White house before the president signed it. If the Liberal wing of the court plus so-called Conservatives Kennedy and Roberts (as rumored) decide to only strike down part and not all of the healthcare law, that act will be a pure political act. By that act the court will change the oversize law into separate little stand-alone laws that will need new infusions of taxpayer moneys to survive if the mandate is struck down alone.

Needlessly to say this was not the intent of the healthcare law. Democrats, including the president, repeatedly told the American people that the health care law’s intent was to bring down health cost and cover all Americans. The law will not accomplish either goal in its original form or in whatever form the Supreme Legislature of the United States chop it into if Ginsburg and her posse have their way.

Where is the money going to come from? According to every reputable source, the United States is out of money. If this Court does anything besides strike down this complete unconstitutional law, they could conceivably be responsible for bankrupting America. All of this because the court attempted to placate left wing Democrats who forced through the President’s 2,000 plus page law. (see stories here and here)

I have never been more disturbed than in the three days of last week listening to the arguments before the Court regarding the unconstitutionality of the health care law, a law incidentally which was passed only by Partisans of the Democrat Party. When the bill was in Congress Democrats controlled both the Congress and the Presidency. Passing this bill was a strict partisan act.

What has become apparent; not only to me, but also to everyone watching this important case is that there is a subjective and partisan wing on the Supreme Court what will adjudicate only by partisan ideology and nothing more. It is apparent that these partisans can do no more than view the cases before them ideologically. It is clear that objectivity is beyond the scope of the present Supreme Court.

Because of Progressives and Democrats, this is no longer a nation of laws. The constitution is no longer in effect. The Democrat Party as corrupted the courts, the congress and the presidency.

In addition, the weak Conservative appointments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy ensure the Progressive Democrat destruction of America. Experts that know the court are warning that these men are susceptible of “going along to get along” with the Liberal bloc on the court.

For these justices this case will not be decided by the constitution or the law. This case will be decided by opinion; this is why, the court’s so-called liberal wing –Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—indicated by their questioning that they would uphold most of the healthcare law even if the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional. That would be disastrous for the country.

What that means is various parts of the Obamacare law will be enacted upon the American people in a weakened economy therefore the Supreme Court will be responsible for the economic fallout which will inevitably ensue.

All of this will occur because partisans on the court will not have done their jobs by completely striking down an unconstitutional law. They instead will cut the baby up as Solomon threatened to do in the biblical account. One must note that Solomon was wise enough not to actually cut a baby in half. No one is accusing the partisans on this court of having Solomonic Wisdom.

At this time, the whole of the American government under Barry Hussein Soetoro is acting extra-Constitutionally. The president and his entire Party must be removed from office starting this November and continuing until every Democrat and Moderate Republican pays for what they have done to America.

Supreme Court could put 2008 Democrat Elections in Jeopardy

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would rule on whether U.S. voters must show a government-issued photo identification at the polls, a divisive issue ahead of next year's national elections. – James Vicini

What could possibly keep Democrats from voting in the all important 2008 Presidential elections? Photo I.D.s that’s what! That’s not me talking that’s what Democrats believe.

Democrats have challenged, all the way to the United States Supreme Court, a state of Indiana requirement which requires all voters to show photo I.D.

Apparently Democrats walk around and/or drive without any photo identification and asking a Democrat for photo I.D. would cause an undue hardship on voters in the upcoming 2008 Presidential elections.

Preposterous you think! You think that I’ve gone over the deep end? No but that is exactly what lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Indiana Democratic Party will be arguing before the Supreme Court as they attempt to make a case that such a requirement on voters in American elections would cause an unfair burden on the right to vote, especially on the elderly, poor, disabled or homeless.

It’s just like the ACLU and Democrats to think about all those unprotected voting groups out there who are without identification. I’m just wondering why their most important unprotected voting group, people who are in this country illegally, are not named! (Wink, wink)

The ACLU had better discuss this with my HMO, one of the largest in my state; because they now require that I show a photo I.D. before they will administer treatment or medicine and if I have to be seen by a doctor I am now required to show I.D.

That requirement began within the last 5 years or so and being the curious sort that I am when I first noticed that my medical card was no longer enough for identification, a card which they issued, I enquired as to the reason why? A very busy clerk answered that the hospital wanted to ensure that it was me who was receiving medical care. Hmmm?!?

Now I don’t know the living arrangement of people who share my HMO but I do see and have seen quite a few elderly, disabled and people who appeared to be around the same income level as myself and in the 5 years that this requirement has been enforced I haven’t heard anyone claim that showing photo I.D. has placed an undue burden on anyone seeking medical treatment.

What’s interesting is that a party that believes that Government can reform the health care system in this country a huge undertaking no doubt and one which would require identifying the elderly, poor and homeless in this country is opposed to making sure the citizens of this country are ensured of their rights to vote and those rights are protected by showing a photo I.D. when participating in the electoral process.