Tuesday, April 03, 2012


The Genius Who Is Our President

I think President Obama is a functional moron on several subjects, most subjects, in fact; and I will continue to believe that until I see his SATs and college transcripts. But I have some proof in the meantime.

Here and here. From the first speech:

Ultimately, 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.

Strong majority? Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote in the House 219-212. If four people who voted yes change to no, then it doesn't pass. Few votes in the House are any closer. It crept across the filibuster line in the Senate 60-39 again with no Republican votes. Has President Obama been living on our planet since his election?

But the real moronic statement is "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law..." You mean like in Marbury v. Madison, 1803? And over 150 times since then? That sort of extraordinary step? This guy was Harvard Law Review Editor and is supposed to have taught Con Law in a decent Law School. Complete moron.

Then there's this from the same speech:
And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care.

"I think the justices should understand..."? Who does this guy think he is? King? The justices are members of a co-equal branch of the government. Since when does the President lecture the Court what it should or should not understand?

From today:

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

Lochner v. New York was decided in 1905 and did not involve the interstate commerce clause. Just two and a half decades off, professor.

A.L.A. Schlecter v. United States (the sick chicken case) was in fact decided in the 30s and struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act 9-0 in 1935 stating that the act was beyond Congress' power under the interstate commerce clause.

How about United States v. Lopez (1995)--gun near school prohibition beyond commerce clause power--or United States v. Morrison (2000)--violence against women federalization had nothing to do with interstate commerce? I admit no rational person would think guns near schools or violence against women are interstate commerce (but then again, neither would anyone think homegrown wheat or pot, for personal use only, would be interstate commerce either--see Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich respectively).

(h/t James Taranto, who points out the uhs and long pauses you don't usually get in the transcript)

UPDATE: I said three Republicans in the Senate voted for Obamacare. No, that was the wasteful stiumlus. Corrected now.


Hayward over at Powerline has some good stuff on the topic of Obama as Con Law professor.
If you visit Powerline, don't miss the post about the campaign contribution by Illegal Contributor.
Not only is he a moron, he has no class, and is a failure as a politician. No politician worth his beans would bluntly insult and gratuitously alienate his poli-opfor and the SC justices the way he has.
His actions do seem to defy explanation, unless he's setting up a narrative to take the sting out of the Court ruling against him by calling it, wrongly, conservative court activism. Even that's a stretch. Maybe he's just not very good at this after all.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?