Little-Acorn
07-06-2010, 01:51 PM
The L.A. Times has published an opinion piece, placed by mistake in the "News" section, on upcoming conflicts President Obama may face in the Supreme Court.
http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-na-court-roberts-obama-20100706,0,7184862.story
The headlines read:
"Obama and Supreme Court may be on collision course
"The president's agenda on healthcare and financial regulations sets the stage for a clash with the Supreme Court's conservative majority."
And the article is full of dramatic pronouncements of how one justice is "steering the court to the right", while others are steering it some other way, etc.
But the author of this opinion piece, misses the relevant truth by a wide sea mile.
No, Obama is NOT on a collision course with "conservative" USSC justices.
Obama's on a collision course with the Constitution.
The Constitution lays out limited powers for the Federal government to exercise, limited areas where the Fed govt may make laws, and explicitly forbids it any others. Obama's agenda is based almost entirely on making laws and exercising powers far outside those allowed limits.
That entire article is written as though Constitutional conflicts are the fault of the Supreme Court, and in particular the fault of whatever justice(s) rule against liberals.
That's like saying John Dillinger was on a "collision course" with whichever cop shot him in front of the theater that day.
No, Dillinger was on a collision course with the laws that said you couldn't rob banks, import illegal booze, threaten innocent people, shoot them etc. It's wasn't the cops' fault that Dillinger wound up well ventilated. It was **Dillinger's** fault, for breaking well-established, well-known laws. Once he started doing that to the extent he did, he was a Dead Man Walking, no matter which cops happened to be assigned to the beat that day.
Likiewise, Obama is not on a collision course with John Roberts, or Antonin Scalia, or Clarence Thomas. They just happen to be the cops currently on the beat, whose job it is to protect and uphold the Constitution. They didn't make the laws Obama is violating with his socialist big-government schemes... but they have proven to be pretty good at applying them as the lawmakers (Congress and the Framers) intended. If Obama doesn't like that, then he should find another country to rule, where they don't have those laws.
The only reason the article even APPEARS to hold water, is because there are several justices on the Supreme Court who are NOT very good at their jobs - the same jobs Roberts, Thomas etc. do so well. But the fact that the bad justices are bad, doesn't change what the laws say or intend. Fortunately, we have a (bare) majority of justices who usually do their jobs correctly, and tell people who are violating the law, that they are violating the law.
It's the law that has a conflict with what Obama is doing, not the Justices. The fact that some of the justices also have a conflict with the law, doesn't change what the law says and intends. It just means we need to get some new justices - justices who understand that their job is to uphold laws created by others (Congress and the Framers), not to make up laws they would like to see themselves.
http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-na-court-roberts-obama-20100706,0,7184862.story
The headlines read:
"Obama and Supreme Court may be on collision course
"The president's agenda on healthcare and financial regulations sets the stage for a clash with the Supreme Court's conservative majority."
And the article is full of dramatic pronouncements of how one justice is "steering the court to the right", while others are steering it some other way, etc.
But the author of this opinion piece, misses the relevant truth by a wide sea mile.
No, Obama is NOT on a collision course with "conservative" USSC justices.
Obama's on a collision course with the Constitution.
The Constitution lays out limited powers for the Federal government to exercise, limited areas where the Fed govt may make laws, and explicitly forbids it any others. Obama's agenda is based almost entirely on making laws and exercising powers far outside those allowed limits.
That entire article is written as though Constitutional conflicts are the fault of the Supreme Court, and in particular the fault of whatever justice(s) rule against liberals.
That's like saying John Dillinger was on a "collision course" with whichever cop shot him in front of the theater that day.
No, Dillinger was on a collision course with the laws that said you couldn't rob banks, import illegal booze, threaten innocent people, shoot them etc. It's wasn't the cops' fault that Dillinger wound up well ventilated. It was **Dillinger's** fault, for breaking well-established, well-known laws. Once he started doing that to the extent he did, he was a Dead Man Walking, no matter which cops happened to be assigned to the beat that day.
Likiewise, Obama is not on a collision course with John Roberts, or Antonin Scalia, or Clarence Thomas. They just happen to be the cops currently on the beat, whose job it is to protect and uphold the Constitution. They didn't make the laws Obama is violating with his socialist big-government schemes... but they have proven to be pretty good at applying them as the lawmakers (Congress and the Framers) intended. If Obama doesn't like that, then he should find another country to rule, where they don't have those laws.
The only reason the article even APPEARS to hold water, is because there are several justices on the Supreme Court who are NOT very good at their jobs - the same jobs Roberts, Thomas etc. do so well. But the fact that the bad justices are bad, doesn't change what the laws say or intend. Fortunately, we have a (bare) majority of justices who usually do their jobs correctly, and tell people who are violating the law, that they are violating the law.
It's the law that has a conflict with what Obama is doing, not the Justices. The fact that some of the justices also have a conflict with the law, doesn't change what the law says and intends. It just means we need to get some new justices - justices who understand that their job is to uphold laws created by others (Congress and the Framers), not to make up laws they would like to see themselves.