Attention leftists: what if Obama used his executive powers to overrule the court on this one?

Supreme Court refuses to permit enforcement of Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban.

The Supreme Court on Monday blocked Arizona from enforcing a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, in the latest blow for states that have tried to enact strict abortion laws.

The high court declined to hear an appeal from Arizona, leaving in place a prior ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that determined the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decision effectively strikes down the law.

“Oh,” say our leftists, “Obama would never do that,” and they’re right; but the next president might. Which is why principles matter, and should matter, even to the wacky left.


Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “Attention leftists: what if Obama used his executive powers to overrule the court on this one?

  1. Libertarian Advocate

    CF: Are you really asking for principled behavior from those who’re constitutionally incapable of it?

    • Yos

      Leftists are principled, however; Power first, Advance the Agenda second. Third principle: There are no other Principles. I don’t see lack of principles as such.

      Therein lies danger to the Left’s holy institutions: Should a libertarian-minded Executive and DOJ follow the precedents set recently…

      …what am I missing?

  2. Peg

    Exactly. (Christopher’s point still on the $$$$ – even though the $Bill’s of the world have no clue to what he is referring.)

  3. So the 10 Commandments will be illegal soon ?

  4. FF

    OK, confused. Arizona passes a law, some baby-killing fascist liberal decides they don’t like this law and appeal to a District Court, which upholds the law. The baby-killing liberal, probably dying to force someone to use contraception at this point against their God-given natural law rights, appeals this ruling to the hippies on the 9th District Appeals COurt in San Francisco, who promptly overturn the law as unconstitutional. Arizona decides the entire world is falling apart and appeals to the Supreme Court, where they were sure that Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Roberts will bring the light of Jesus and common sense back to the world, when alas, they are let down, as the law is found to be unconstitutional

    Therefore, OBAMA!

    Got to say this one’s a stretch

    • Someone doesn’t like Utah’s law banning gay marriage, goes to court and gets it declared unconstitutional. Supporters of the law appeal to the Supreme Court justice with jurisdiction over the 10th Circuit, in this case the gay lady, Sotomayor, and she issues a stay of the lower court’s order validating gay marriages until the full 10th Circuit court of Appeals can hear the case. Obama, a politician who just two years ago was still on record as opposing gay marriage, now feels that the matter has since “evolved” to a point where there’s a fierce moral urgency to marry off the gays immediately, orders his DOJ to ignore Justice Sotomayor’s ruling and grant federal recognition to Utah lovers.
      Lefties like you and JHR see nothing wrong here and scratch your heads when it’s pointed out that that same abuse of executive authority can be used against you when power changes hands.
      None so blind ….

      • JRH

        Chris, you’re either refusing to read the Court order you’re so outraged to see “ignored,” or you’re willfully misconstruing both the Court’s stay and the DOJ’s response. It’s just not true that DOJ is ignoring the Court’s order, which, again, has nothing to say about “federal recognition” of the 900 or so already performed marriages. None so blind, indeed!

  5. Jon Riverside

    So terrible, my wife is 22 weeks today, we sat in bed this morning and and felt our unborn baby kicking, minus the politics here, thinking of this makes me want to cry.

    • Anonymous

      But it’s in the constitution! I think James Madison wrote it himself. It’s right there in Article IV. “A Woman shall in any State on Demand, having Jurisdiction over her body, remove her unborn fetus up to 24 weeks at will, or having deemed it necessary to promote her general Welfare, through full term.”

      • JRH

        Clever, Anonymous. The same argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit Connecticut from banning the use of contraception. Related arguments hold that Brown v. Board of Education came out the wrong way. Want to take those two up?

        • Well the constitution is supposed to stand for something, JRH, and adding imagined rights does not strengthen it. One welcome development in the process of reigning in executive power came today, when the entire Supreme Court, liberal and conservative, apparently took a very dim view of Obama’s (and to be fair, his predecessors’) expansive view of the executive’s power to make recess appointments.

        • JRH

          Sure, it stands for lots of things. But the argument that it “only” includes rights that appear plainly in its text is a radical one, indeed — and it would have the effect of washing away things that both liberals and conservatives have come to see as fundamental to what makes this country great. Is Brown a misguided adventure into a world of “imagined rights”? Serious question.

          • Brown I held that the state cannot discriminate between citizens because of their race. That’s a violation of the 14th Amendment. Was it “interpreted” into the original understanding of the 14th Amendment? Some say yes, some no, but there is a perfectly legitimate argument to be made – and I would make it – that racial discrimination by the state violates the 14th as written.
            Griswold, and its “right of privacy”, on the other hand, was a stretch, as were most of Justice Douglas’s perceived penumbras. That doesn’t mean I disapprove of the result, but there were legislative ways to accomplish the desired result and those should have been used instead.

  6. JRH

    You keep trying, but you’re still unable to point to an instance of Obama “overruling the Court.” The post about the DOJ’s reaction to the stay in the Utah case was way off the mark.

    • jB

      The doj moved the balls closer to the pocket. The doj is stepping into a state’s rights issue. You know, one of those checks against federal power. Soon the beer will kick in and with that confidence, they’ll start taking direct shots.

      Little by little a little later.

  7. anon

    This funniest breaking news headline of 2014 is just off the NYT wire.

    Health Care Plans Drawing Older, Less Healthy People

    As Gomer said SO well:

  8. after reading the comments in this string, i still think that CF is the smartest guy on the page– other than walt.