Here’s a guy who should have saved that law school tuition

Thank Allah for pass-fail!

Of course, as an affirmative action player he probably didn’t pay a thing but he’d be entitled to a refund if he had.

From James Taranto:

President Obama made a statement today whose ignorance is all the more stunning for his once having been a part-time professor of constitutional law. National Journal has the report:

Obama said he was confident Monday that the healthcare reform law will be upheld by the Supreme Court because it is constitutional.

“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,” he told reporters in the Rose Garden.

[Taranto]: Unprecedented?  Even Linda Greenhouse would mock him for saying that. Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison?

Marbury is the first case taught in constitutional law classes because it was the first case from the newly-created Supreme Court that established the principle that the Supreme Court could determine whether a law enacted by Congress was unconstitutional. Marbury found the law in question unconstitutional and overturned it. Now that was unprecedented, back in 1803, but even a community organizer affirmative action Harvard “lawyer” should know that Marbury established the very precedent he now claims would be unprecedented.

49 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

49 responses to “Here’s a guy who should have saved that law school tuition

  1. edgewater

    unfortunately, obama is not speaking to lawyers or judges; he’s attempting to incite the faithful to aggressively resist the idea that the court has any authority to review what the democrats have imposed on the nation via obamacare. this is the community organizer, not the harvard-trained lawyer speaking. and he knows what he’s trying to do by making these patently false statements. in a physical context, obama would be known as a thug.

  2. AJ

    Love your pass-fail caption. Wouldn’t want any firms seeing how job applicants might have scored on a test: they might dicriminate and only hire people who know what they’re doing.

  3. Dollar Bill

    It would take an enormously aggressive act of judicial activism — of the sort conservatives have always accused liberal judges of committing — to overturn ACA. I never liked the mandate in the first place — single payer is the only sensible strategy for our country — but it was a conservative workaround to keeping insurance companies from opposing single payer. Remember Romneycare? Now that Obama adopted the mandate, suddenly self. styled judicial conservatives are screaming about liberty and broccoli and the evils of Obamacare. It amazes me how a bunch of radical judges who enjoy government health care are about to casually toss aside legislation that provides health care to millions if Americans, all in their cramped, selfish, Randianview of liberty. You Teabaggers consistently bring out the worst in American life. Can someone please rid us of the likes of Scalia and Thomas and Alito?

  4. Anonymous

    Well, he earned the affirmative action Nobel Peace prize, didn’t he?

    Betting is that Columbia and Harvard were equally well earned.

  5. Daniel

    Don’t forget the switch in time that saved nine. But he is a thug.

  6. Not only Marbury, Chris, but more recently the SCOTUS declared unconstitutional several of Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that why old Franklin tried (and failed) to pack the court?

  7. AJ

    US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his landmark health reform law
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html

  8. Anonymous

    Wall Street Journal

    OPINION
    Updated April 1, 2012, 5:48 p.m. ET

    The Anti-American Nobel Peace Prize

    Norway’s judges don’t like the pro-freedom foreign policy of some U.S. presidents.

    By JAY NORDLINGER

    In 1987, the Norwegian Nobel Committee gave its Nobel Peace Prize to Óscar Arias, the president of Costa Rica. Central America was beset by war, particularly in Nicaragua, and Mr. Arias had crafted a peace plan. In Washington, the Reagan administration was highly skeptical. The Nobel committee told Mr. Arias they were giving him the prize to use as a weapon against Reagan.

    Robert Kagan writes about this in his 1996 book, “A Twilight Struggle.” Said Mr. Arias to Mr. Kagan, “Reagan was responsible for my prize.”

    We could argue that Reagan was responsible for some other peace prizes out of Oslo, too. George W. Bush may have had some responsibility for five more.

    In 2002, Nobel committee Chairman Gunnar Berge was blunt. After announcing the peace prize to Jimmy Carter for what the committee called his “decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development,” Mr. Berge said that the selection “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It’s a kick in the leg to all who follow the same line as the United States.”

    “Kick in the leg” is a Norwegian way of saying “slap in the face” or “poke in the eye.” And when Mr. Berge said “line,” he meant the approach that President Bush was taking in the War on Terror (as we used to know it). Mr. Carter was one of Mr. Bush’s most prominent critics.

    The year before, the committee had given its prize to the United Nations and Kofi Annan, who was then its secretary-general. This was weeks after the 9/11 attacks. One of the things this prize did was send a message to Mr. Bush: Don’t dare respond outside the U.N

    Oscar Arias, with the Nobel Peace Prize diploma and gold medal, in 1987.

    In 2005, the committee honored the International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei, then its director general. Was this another “kick in the leg”? The chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjøs, denied it, explicitly; but many had trouble believing him. A New York Times reporter expressed the general reaction when he wrote, “The award was a vindication of a man and an agency long at odds with President Bush and his administration over how to confront Iraq and Iran.”

    Two years later, it was Al Gore’s turn and that of another U.N. agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Once more, Chairman Mjøs denied that the committee was kicking anyone in the leg. Once more, many doubted him. President Bush was anathema to the environmental left, as to the left at large.

    In a quasi-official history, “The Nobel Peace Prize,” three Norwegian historians write, “The Committee hoped the prestige that comes with the Peace Prize would give Gore an even greater standing in the media and strengthen the Democrats’ fight for a new, eco-friendly USA.”

    There also was a personal element for Mr. Gore, who had lost the presidency to Mr. Bush in a spectacularly hard way. Just as people called the 2005 award a “vindication” for Mr. ElBaradei, they called the 2007 award a “vindication” for Mr. Gore.

    Finally came the 2009 award, which went to the new American president, Barack Obama. If George W. Bush was the committee’s nightmare president—and he was—Mr. Obama was its dream president. With its 2009 award, it was blessing a new day.

    The announcement said, “[President Obama's] diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.” At the prize ceremony, Chairman Thorbjørn Jagland echoed these words, citing “earlier American presidents who, above all others, were seen as world leaders also outside the United States: Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.”

    Reagan? The committee’s bête noire from the 1980s? Chairman Jagland went on to quote that president, who said that American ideals lived not only in America but “in the hearts and minds of millions of the world’s people in both free and oppressed societies who look to us for leadership.”

    That is exactly the sort of thing that Mr. Bush said, ad nauseam, for eight years. There will come a time when another conservative sits in the Oval Office. Will the Nobel chairman then quote George W. Bush, with wistful fondness?

    Mr. Nordlinger is a senior editor of National Review and the author of “Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World” (Encounter Books, 2012).

    A version of this article appeared Apr. 2, 2012, on page A13 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Anti-American Nobel Peace Prize.

    • I used to work with Dean Montgomery and I figured he’d win. But it’s not over – Judge Montz himself said, during the hearing, “why are we here, when this is obviously going up the the [Connecticut] Supreme Court? Stay tuned.

  9. Hu Nhu?

    Parrot Dollar Bill forget a couple squawking points: the law is “bi-partisan” and the mandate was a republican idea. Credit that great Republican V. Lenin.

  10. Libertarian Advocate

    Dollar Bill: You wrote: Can someone please rid us of the likes of Scalia and Thomas and Alito?

    Seriously? What you wrote could easily be construed as calling for someone to assassinate those justices. You are a dirtbag hypocrite.

  11. Dollar Bill

    Only the most diseased mind could possibly construe “ridding” as assassinating. Only Teabaggers think that way. I’m sure you got a chuckle when Ann Coulter joked about slipping some poison into SC justice Stevens pudding, a statement she actually made, and which I’m sure you found hilarious. Were you equally outraged at that clear call to murder? Of course not, because that’s not how Teabaggers operate. Double standards are your bread and butter. Spare me the faux outrage. The present SC is chock a block with extremist right wing judges–that’s a fact — and the sooner they retire from the scene, the healthier will be the state of our republic.

    • I refer you to Richard II – “will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Things didn’t go so well for Becket after that. As for hyperbole, what was the Left’s reaction after that Congresswoman’s shooting in Arizona? I remember them dragging out an old ad from Sarah Palin or somebdy showing the lady in the crosshairs of a scope and blamed the shooting on her. I assume you rushed to Palin’s defense then, correct?

  12. Anonymous

    The current SC actually is held in higher esteem than the rest of the Federal government. Obama has governed as Prez of the Dems and their ilk, as DB attests.

  13. CatoRenasci

    That was Henry II (1154-1189) not Richard II (1377-1399) who was vexed by Archbishop Thomas Becket.

  14. Anonymous

    The founders were very thoughtful in creating the 3 branches of gov’t in order to ensure proper checks & balances. Obamacare was a radical law created by 2/3 of the radical left wing branches of gov’t at the time – the law was never supported by a majority of the constituents, nor was it constitutional. Thankfully, the 1/3 was able to keep a radical law in check. Checks & balances work – very simple, yet effective.

  15. Libertarian Advocate

    DB: I’m sure you got a chuckle when Ann Coulter joked about slipping some poison into SC justice Stevens pudding, a statement she actually made, and which I’m sure you found hilarious.

    If you knew anything about me at all, you’d know that Ann Coulter disgusts me to my core. But of course you, like most narcissistic lefties – and I know many, inclusive of close family members – are irredeemably convinced of your own own intellectual and moral superiority – brainwashed really – and that you can somehow divine the thoughts and motivations of the “great unwashed ignorant hordes on the right”. There-in lies the root of your delusions; you’re just too stupid and arrogant to recognize the absurdity of your ideology.

  16. Dollar Bill

    So I get it. Short of passing right wing legislation, or forfeiting elections, there is no legitimate role for progressives when they are elected to office. Duly elected Democratic presidents will either be impeached or attacked by birthers as illegitimate or as an affirmative action baby. Legislation passed by duly elected Democrats will be attacked as unconstitutional.

    Question for you Teabaggers: If our majorities don’t count, and our laws don’t either, then what does?

    • Hitler was elected by a majority, DB, and the Anti-Sedtion Act was a duly-enacted law. Does that give either an unquestionable legitimacy? If not, why not? Discuss.

  17. Shoeless

    Bill,

    I just tea bagged your mom again. She’s gettin’ the hang of it (so to speak)!

  18. anon

    to Libertarian Advocate: Best damn smackdown of $Bill ever.

  19. Shoeless

    Obama is a progressive? To quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ”

    While the left seems to believe that they are “progressive”, the nanny state they so desperately want smells a lot like communism. Progressive my ass.

    After I tea bagged Bill’s mom, I shaved her back, so she might not be recognizable at first blush.

    I’m getting the hang of this obfuscation tactic.

  20. Anonymous

    O had no mandate for the law that was passed. In fact, O specifically ran against the mandate which is the core of the law.

    The vast majority of the public knows the law in unconstitutional-even a plurality of Dems.

  21. Dollar Bill

    After its horrendous rulings in Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United, it will not surprise me in the least if the Supremes strike down ACA. But the court’s reputation will take a huge, huge hit if does so.

    I think the Founding Fathers would have turned over in their graves to see a mute hack like Clarence Thomas sitting on the High Court, with a lifetime appointment, and enjoying govt-run health care, and a Teabagger wife lobbying on the side to overturn ACA, (no recusal for Clarence!), gleefully voting to deprive millions of their right to health care.

    What to do? Abolish life tenure for SC justices. That would get rid of aging, dessicated hacks like Scalia and Thomas, and it would make the SC appointment process a less crudely cynical actuarial contest.

    • Do you imagine the “founding fathers”, who you so revere, would recognize your concept of federal power? Have you ever read any of the writings of that period?
      Thought not.

  22. Libertarian Advocate

    DB: Question for you Teabaggers: If our majorities don’t count, and our laws don’t either, then what does? There you go again. Can’t you address any responsive commentary without resorting to coarse psycho-sexual innuendo?

    As for the “validity” of your majorities and your laws, they are subject to constitutional scrutiny by SCOTUS just like any laws passed by conservative majorities. If you can’t grasp that single simple concept then you are far dumber than I imagined.

  23. Dogfella

    Obama was a lazy associate prof who never worked hard enough to make it to the U. Chicago perm law staff. And yet we are saddled with loser as Commander in Chief. So terrible for our country to have such a loser as President.

  24. Dogfella

    “there is no legitimate role for progressives when they are elected to office”

    Billy Goat, if they obey the law and proceed ethically, what can anyone really say? Not much, they have to just grin and bear it. However, since Obama has committed so many transgressions, it’s like shooting fish in a barell in terms of criticisms and highly dubious, unethical and potentially illegal activity. This all of his own doing.

    It’s very clear that what Obama wants is a totalitarian state a la Russia or China. But we will not going quietly and allow this to happen.

  25. Anonymous

    Actually, Obama was not a professor, although he claimed to be.

    He was a “senior lecturer”. When the Clinton campaign brought this up, “O”s campaign leaned on U of C and they said altho not a prof, O functioned as one.

    So they supported his lie.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

    • A teaching assistant is indeed not a professor nor is he likely to ever become one, at least in law schools. I thought Obama’s actual role in academia was thoroughly exposed during his first campaign but as usual with big lies, the falsehood never dies. It still amazes me how a man of literally no accomplishments could have been elected. Kind of disappointing, too.

  26. Dollar Bill

    It’s a pretty amazing turn of events that the mandate –designed by conservatives to prevent health care free-loading– is now viewed by commenters on this site as an affront to human liberty. Yet I hear no outcry from these same commenters as the Supremes uphold the right of police to strip search any of us, even if there is no evidence of contraband. CF is ready to man the barricades on TSA searches, but applauds when the Supremes empower the police to strip search any citizen on any charge before jailing him or her. Where is the outrage from you liberty-loving Teabaggers? None that I can see. Move along. Nothing to see here.

  27. Shoeless

    Where did anyone come out in support of strip searches (other than Walt)? Please show me where anyone on this site is whooping it up over this ruling.

    Crickets…..

  28. Dollar Bill

    Shoeless: I would wager you that CF and his band of phony libertarians are in broad agreement with this strip search ruling. You see, according to Randbots, this is a perfect illustration of their notion of freedom. In their view, it is fundamental to liberty that property and wealth be protected from govt coercion. But police powers are a different story. Recall that CF heartily endorses NYPD spying on Muslims and Occupy. In CFs view, the police should have the right to force individuals suspected of nothing more than failing to pay a fine to get naked, and spread their cheeks for a policeman. Ah, sweet liberty!

  29. Shoeless

    So you have nothing to demonstrate this assumption. As a libertarian myself, I view strip search ruling with the same concern as a congress that tries to force group health care on me (at my expense). . I am consistent in my views, while you are not.

    I would wager that you are homophobic or have the closet ghey (NTTAWWT) with your ad nauseum tea bagger references, but I would have as much evidence as you have presented above regarding a libertarian’s view on strip search laws.

    • Oh you have much more evidence than he has, Shoeless. His repeated hostility toward gays is almost always indicative of a deep seated hatred of gays and his own homosexual yearnings. It’s all very sad but unfortunately, quite common among liberals of TPDB’s type.

  30. Dollar Bill

    Notice CF dodging his views of the Supreme’s strip search ruling, in an attempt to prove his libertarian bona fides, and disguise his crude, authoritarian views. Shoeless, CF is no libertarian, if there ever was any doubt.

    • Actually, Tea Bag Bill, since I made no reference to it originally I felt no need to respond to your assertion that I support it. That would be like joining in your homophobia or racism – why would I want anything to do with your agenda?

  31. Daniel

    I think they made the right decision on the strip search. He was arrested for an outstanding warrant and was being taken to a secure enviroment, ie jail. Don’t want anything brought into the jail now do we? What I find troubling is the warrant had not been canceled. He should be able to sue for that mistake.

  32. Anonymous

    Appeals court fires back at Obama’s comments on health care case
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

    O is looking dumber and dumber. Now the 4 libs on the court are stuck looking as partisan hacks if they vote to uphold Obamacare after their side was destroyed in oral arguments and O attacked the Supreme’s independence. Even the many usual libtards are appalled at O’s astounding lack of legal understanding.

  33. NRA

    It would take an enormously aggressive act of judicial activism — of the sort conservatives have always accused liberal judges of committing…

    Rubbish.

    Activism is a consequence of a theory of jurisprudence that permits “living, breathing” interpretations that provides for “updates” to the meanings of the Constitution that results in “penumbras” and the like. Activism relies heavily on the blatant redefinition of terms and meanings of the Constitution as intended and written. On the other hand, overturning bad law is old hat.

    Enter $B. His blatant redefinition of “activism” may at first blush be obviously fraudulent, but one must score he/she/it marks for a certain… poetic consistency, yes?

    …and for unintended humor too: “Activism” is what functionally defines the difference between “conservative” (originalist or often constructionist or textualist) interpretation and “liberal” (results or intents oriented) authoritarian debauchery. “Activism” is what defines a liberal justice; it’s not some Sunday afternoon romp in a closet.

    Surely there’s a free Wiki somewhere for a refresher on “Theories of Constitutional Interpretation”?