Obama is not fit to serve much less teach....

[brent]

Anyone else stunned at how ignorant...forget that...FREAKIN STUPID Obama is? He was a constitutional scholar and professor at Harvard? Boy, what crap are they teaching in those snooty law schools?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... e=timeline

Obama really showed his power to unite by blaming the Republicans...."Social Darwinism"....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-s ... ws-future/
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is forcing Obama to explain his reasoning on this. OOPS! How dare they challenge the deity?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_1...lth-care-case/

Maybe Rush is right. These people like Obama see The Law as political, and the means to get what you want done, whatever that is. They see it as a way to control people as opposed to it protecting and empowering the people.

[Preacherman777]

I couldn't agree more. A+

[executioner]

I'm in agreement also; this man and his policies are very dangerous. We truly need to be praying about this election and what we as conservative Christians should be doing. I'm really scared about what the next 2-3 yrs will bring for our nation.

[p-freak]

That's not good, but it's less worse than what I've heard and read about Bush and Santorum.

Isn't this just a case of a president being briefed badly by his team? I can imagine that this happens regularly since you can't be an expert on everything.

[gman]

I still hear people say that the don't like Romney, and they would rather have four more years of President Obama with enough conservatives elected to congress to create a log jam. The problem with that, as evidenced by his recent swipe at the Supreme Court, is that the president doesn't care about the other branches of Gov't. He is doing all he can to go around the other branches, render them irrelavent, and consolidate power at the executive level. If congress opposes him, he will do whatever he can to get his way done anyway. Guys like Bush, Santorum, Romney, etc. at least respect the other branches of Gov't. A more conservative congress is great, if the president respects them.

[CatNamedManny]

I'm going to go ahead and say calling anyone "FREAKIN STUPID" is not something we should be doing as followers of Christ, much less calling duly elected leaders such terms, which would seem to be in opposition to Romans 13. And, yes, that goes for previous left-wing criticism of George W. Bush. Passion is fine, and you're entitled to your opinions, but name-calling is immature and unwarranted.

Regarding the column itself, I can't speak for what Obama was trying to say, but it is true that it is extremely rare for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by duly elected majorities of Congress and signed by the duly elected president of the United States, except in cases where the rights of an oppressed minority group were at stake – in which case, those rulings were handed down with significant majorities (9-0 in Brown v. Board, for example), not 5-4 decisions on partisan lines.

Of course, James Taranto is quite familiar with misstatements on health-care reform. He's been peddling the death-panels lie for years now. Seeing his byline on a column makes me take out the salt shaker. Regardless, the fact that Taranto is even nitpicking whether Lochner was decided in the 1900s or 1930s shows he's missing/obscuring the broader point: No one considers the pre-New Deal court a good court, and when it began striking down elements of the New Deal, it suffered such a huge political blow that it subsequently reconsidered its positions and began upholding those elements instead. If the current Supreme Court is being discussed in the same breath as the politicized, libertarian Supreme Court from the 1900s-1930s, whose rulings helped exacerbate the Great Depression and prolong the recovery from it, then that proves Obama's point, not Taranto's. But it's far more entertaining to pretend how stupid someone is than actually engage the argument, isn't it?

I find it interesting also that you reference a Fifth Circuit judge's tantrum from the bench about Obama's remarks. Aren't judges supposed to be apolitical? Again, this incident reinforces Obama's point about the increasing political activism of so-called conservative jurists (remember when conservatives complained about judges legislating from the bench? I guess that's OK now that the legislation in question is something created by conservatives but supported by Obama), not the other way around.

[CatNamedManny]

I still hear people say that the don't like Romney, and they would rather have four more years of President Obama with enough conservatives elected to congress to create a log jam. The problem with that, as evidenced by his recent swipe at the Supreme Court, is that the president doesn't care about the other branches of Gov't. He is doing all he can to go around the other branches, render them irrelavent, and consolidate power at the executive level. If congress opposes him, he will do whatever he can to get his way done anyway. Guys like Bush, Santorum, Romney, etc. at least respect the other branches of Gov't. A more conservative congress is great, if the president respects them.

Is that why Bush issued signing statements essentially saying he would not follow legislation passed by Congress? Or why he tried terrorists in parallel systems of justice, outside of the constitutionally created courts system? Because of his great respect for those branches of government? Good to know.

I didn't get much of a sense of the great respect conservatives had for the judicial branch when the war cry was "liberal judicial activism!" How much respect do they evince for the judicial system that consistently upholds the principles of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, for example? I think we could all do with some broader perspective and understand that politicians from both sides have long used the Supreme Court as a foil, regardless of whether that's a good idea or not. After 30 years of conservatives mad about Supreme Court expansions of abortion rights, civil rights and other protections, liberals are mad about Supreme Court expansions of rights for corporations and the wealthy now that the Court has swung far to the right. Politics is politics. Pretending one side has the moral high ground on this issue is simply evidence that you agree with the arguments that side is making at this juncture of history. If Antonin Scalia has a heart attack tomorrow and Obama replaces him with a moderate-left justice, the court would swing back to the left, and I doubt we'd see many conservatives defending the sanctity of the federal judiciary for a while.

[CatNamedManny]

I should say that while I agree with the substance of Obama's argument – that the current Supreme Court, should it strike down the ACA, would be engaging in nearly unprecedented judicial activism that would overturn 75 years of judicial precedent regarding the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses – I don't particularly agree with the way he's approaching this – as a political tool to rile up the base and, in so doing, harm the legitimacy of the court. That's what Bush did, and Obama's a better president than that by a long shot.

I think this William Galston column accurately sums it up for me. The court's legitimacy as an apolitical, unbiased institution is at stake, and it will be harmed if the five conservative justices vote to overturn despite decades of jurisprudence that places the ACA well within the congressional mandate to regulate interstate commerce by any means necessary and proper. But Obama, clearly recognizing the political opportunity afforded him by a significant judicial overreach, should not seize it for the good of the country. If he did so, I would consider that unwise, though not "FREAKIN STUPID."

[Preacherman777]

Well, you know, both Jesus and Paul did some name calling when the name in question was an accurate representation of the facts. Now, you are obviously a big Obama fan with a very biased view of all these issues, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to see clearly, but Obama basically tried to twist the arm of the court and in fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the government to do something like this mandate (I don't care who came up with it) and that is the heart of the point. There are limits on congress and it's the courts job to preserve those limits. The vast majority of judicial activism has occurred on the left (abortion or loss of religious freedoms anyone?) and that is why conservatives have complained about it. It would not be judicial activism at all to strike down this law, when the law is a blatant violation of the Constitution. In fact, to uphold the law would be judicial activism, but you don't see those on the right trying to tell the court what it should do. Obama has pretty much already made the congress irrelevant in the way he governs and now he's going after the court. He is clearly full of himself, corrupt and desperate for total power and yes, acting in ways that are clearly stupid.

[CatNamedManny]

Well, you know, both Jesus and Paul did some name calling when the name in question was an accurate representation of the facts. Now, you are obviously a big Obama fan with a very biased view of all these issues, so I wouldn't expect you to be able to see clearly, but Obama basically tried to twist the arm of the court and in fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the government to do something like this mandate (I don't care who came up with it) and that is the heart of the point. There are limits on congress and it's the courts job to preserve those limits. The vast majority of judicial activism has occurred on the left (abortion or loss of religious freedoms anyone?) and that is why conservatives have complained about it. It would not be judicial activism at all to strike down this law, when the law is a blatant violation of the Constitution. In fact, to uphold the law would be judicial activism, but you don't see those on the right trying to tell the court what it should do. Obama has pretty much already made the congress irrelevant in the way he governs and now he's going after the court. He is clearly full of himself, corrupt and desperate for total power and yes, acting in ways that are clearly stupid.

The bolded part made me laugh. Yes, I'm blinded by my bias. No one else is, of course. Just the people with whom you disagree. Mighty convenient, I must say. Perhaps we could just be reasonable, intelligent people who disagree cordially on an issue? I hope that's not too much to ask. On the other hand, you'll forgive me if I have a hard time taking seriously the arguments of people who resort to all-caps, misspelled, juvenile insults to make their points – as well as those who defend those actions of incivility.

The Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8 ). It also allows Congress to take whatever actions are "necessary and proper" to perform those duties (also Article I, Section 8 ). Which is probably why two conservative federal judges upheld the mandate as this case went through the courts. Is it unconstitutional to force Americans to buy insurance they may not need (although 95 percent of Americans do actually use the health care system in any given five-year period)? Not according to the Supreme Court, which upheld the laws requiring Americans to pay premiums for Medicare and Social Security over the past seven-plus decades.

Is the Supreme Court really going to argue it's unconstitutional for government to require Americans to purchase private health insurance yet constitutional to require purchase of government-provided health care? It will certainly be a deep irony if this politicized Republican court strikes down the individual mandate, thus paving the way for a more European-style public health system, which will be unassailable constitutionally under the government's taxing power. While I would support such a move ultimately, the unfortunate reality is that many people would have to suffer and die in the years between now and then.

[Preacherman777]

What I meant by the part you bolded is that you are a clear supporter of Obama and you have a vested interest in seeing this go a certain way, so I don't expect you to look at the constitution objectively. Your side is attempting to prove something is there that isn't and that leaves you with the burden of proof. Your argument works in say the case of car insurance, where anyone who wishes to drive must buy car insurance. Driving is a privilege and a choice and if you want to make that choice, you enter into an area of clear regulation, but in this case, you are being required by the government to buy something based solely on the fact that you exist. You do not have the choice to not enter into commerce and therefore, this becomes a violation of the 10th Amendment. Your point about Medicare and Social Security actually breaks down because when pushed the government does grant waivers on those programs, just consider the Amish for proof of that concept. Clergy also have the right to opt out. But hey, Obama has been handing out all kinds of waivers on the health care law is well, so it's hard to imagine how a just case will ever be made to fine someone for choosing not buy health insurance. But I'm sure Eric Holder is just the guy to try something like that.

Finally, I find it amusing that you who were so put out about someone being labeled stupid for doing major things that will affect many people and the very foundations of this country, chose to display how elitist you are by nitpicking people's spelling and grammar. Thus totally missing the point on why I defended Brent's choice of words.

[brent]

Isn't this just a case of a president being briefed badly by his team? I can imagine that this happens regularly since you can't be an expert on everything.

No. This is a dude who taught a distorted view of it. He is politically posturing to create a war on ethnic and economic lines. This is no accident. This is orchestrated.

[brent]

I'm going to go ahead and say calling anyone "FREAKIN STUPID" is not something we should be doing as followers of Christ, much less calling duly elected leaders such terms, which would seem to be in opposition to Romans 13. And, yes, that goes for previous left-wing criticism of George W. Bush. Passion is fine, and you're entitled to your opinions, but name-calling is immature and unwarranted.

Well, Jesus called people "Thou FOOL!" I didn't do it like Jesus. You are right. I stopped short of doing it as well as he would do it.

Obama is not only FREAKIN STUPID, he is WORTHLESS, WICKED:

Proverbs 6:12-19 ESV
A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing. There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: ...

I guess we must all sit in a circle and smoke our Christian peace pipe and teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. Sorry. Call it like you see it, stay away from it, rebuke it! Jesus did. We should be unified and peaceful as we can be, as long as it is with people of like mind. We are not to kiss the rears of evil people.

Obama is like the devil. He knows the words and the spirit of the constitution, and he is wresting it and the law when it suits him. He lies. He lied about this event. He is using the courts to overturn what he does not like (which is what he said has never been done, or is not done). He is supposed to cut the crap and unite. He is not doing that. The devil does not like peace. The devil does not like unity.

I do not see how a Christian can be Christ-like and support Obama 100%.

[executioner]

What I meant by the part you bolded is that you are a clear supporter of Obama and you have a vested interest in seeing this go a certain way, so I don't expect you to look at the constitution objectively. Your side is attempting to prove something is there that isn't and that leaves you with the burden of proof. Your argument works in say the case of car insurance, where anyone who wishes to drive must buy car insurance. Driving is a privilege and a choice and if you want to make that choice, you enter into an area of clear regulation, but in this case, you are being required by the government to buy something based solely on the fact that you exist. You do not have the choice to not enter into commerce and therefore, this becomes a violation of the 10th Amendment. Your point about Medicare and Social Security actually breaks down because when pushed the government does grant waivers on those programs, just consider the Amish for proof of that concept. Clergy also have the right to opt out. But hey, Obama has been handing out all kinds of waivers on the health care law is well, so it's hard to imagine how a just case will ever be made to fine someone for choosing not buy health insurance. But I'm sure Eric Holder is just the guy to try something like that.

Finally, I find it amusing that you who were so put out about someone being labeled stupid for doing major things that will affect many people and the very foundations of this country, chose to display how elitist you are by nitpicking people's spelling and grammar. Thus totally missing the point on why I defended Brent's choice of words.

True, so very true.

[executioner]

I'm going to go ahead and say calling anyone "FREAKIN STUPID" is not something we should be doing as followers of Christ, much less calling duly elected leaders such terms, which would seem to be in opposition to Romans 13. And, yes, that goes for previous left-wing criticism of George W. Bush. Passion is fine, and you're entitled to your opinions, but name-calling is immature and unwarranted.

Well, Jesus called people "Thou FOOL!" I didn't do it like Jesus. You are right. I stopped short of doing it as well as he would do it.

Obama is not only FREAKIN STUPID, he is WORTHLESS, WICKED:

Proverbs 6:12-19 ESV
A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing. There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: ...

I guess we must all sit in a circle and smoke our Christian peace pipe and teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. Sorry. Call it like you see it, stay away from it, rebuke it! Jesus did. We should be unified and peaceful as we can be, as long as it is with people of like mind. We are not to kiss the rears of evil people.

Obama is like the devil. He knows the words and the spirit of the constitution, and he is wresting it and the law when it suits him. He lies. He lied about this event. He is using the courts to overturn what he does not like (which is what he said has never been done, or is not done). He is supposed to cut the crap and unite. He is not doing that. The devil does not like peace. The devil does not like unity.

I do not see how a Christian can be Christ-like and support Obama 100%.

AMEN!!