Article

2012-04-03 Home Front: Politix

WaPo calls Obumble's Attack on the Supremes "Unsettling"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2012-04-03 19:23|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 The speculation around the web has been that Champ got some leak from the USSC and is trying to pressure them back before a decision is formally announced.

I think it's more basic: he sees that he's going to lose, and he doesn't like losing. Champ is going to do what all progressive thugs do; when confronted with a losing political situation they're going to look for a way to delegitimize the politics, the players, and the situation.

Posted by Steve White 2012-04-03 20:11|| 2012-04-03 20:11|| Front Page Top

#2 The questions posed on the SG showed the lack of faith in an overarching Commerce Clause constitutional right to do anything Congress wants. That said - a leak from Kagan's or Sotomayor's staff is not an unlikely event. I particularly like the prevalent spin from lbtard "experts" that a partisan 5-4 split shows the Republican-leaning justices are radical partisans, while the loser side of Donk-justices voting lockstep is judicial excellence

Posted by Frank G 2012-04-03 20:14|| 2012-04-03 20:14|| Front Page Top

#3 There are few real secrets in Washington. Obama could have made the statement weeks ago. He did not. I would put my money on a staffer leak. The timing of his statement is quite revealing. He is a desperate man. Perhaps he will issue an Executive Order and have the SC decision "sealed" ~~similar to personal and professional records~~ until some unspecified future date.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-04-03 20:34|| 2012-04-03 20:34|| Front Page Top

#4 Obama had a choice between framing the question dishonestly and in an intimidating manner or framing it honestly, e.g., "the SCourt has acquiesced in greater and greater federal power at the expense of the vanishing 10th amendment and it would be unprecedented in the past few decades for the 10th amendment to win one."

Of course presenting it that honestly would give the game away somewhat.

Posted by lord garth 2012-04-03 21:19|| 2012-04-03 21:19|| Front Page Top

#5 Losing is different from the perception of being a loser.

Losing this case will help Bammo. What can hurt him is the perception of being a losing. So he will frame this as an attack by a radical, right-win court, then run against that court. Now he's not a loser--he's a fighter for justice! Meanwhile, the SCT will helpfully remove the Obamacare straightjacket from the economy so the markets can recover in time for November. It's win-win.

Oh yeah, and since this was Romney's baby in the first place, that helps Bammo too.

Posted by Iblis 2012-04-03 21:23|| 2012-04-03 21:23|| Front Page Top

#6 "an unelected group of people"

So, he supports those who used the same point about Roe vs Wade. Of course not. It's not and never has been about principle. It's been about POWER.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-04-03 21:41|| 2012-04-03 21:41|| Front Page Top

#7 "Obama had a choice between framing the question dishonestly and in an intimidating manner or framing it honestly"

Oh, don't be silly, lord garth - in his mind (and I use the term loosely), Bambi never has the choice of being honest.

Posted by Barbara 2012-04-03 22:39|| 2012-04-03 22:39|| Front Page Top

#8 Unelected group of people?

First of all, Supremes must be confirmed, is that not an election by elected officials?

Second, Richard Cordray.

Third, czars.

Posted by swksvolFF 2012-04-03 23:15|| 2012-04-03 23:15|| Front Page Top

#9 Agree w/ Besoeker's logic. The consesus among the adults at work today was that if Bambi wanted to insult the SCOTUS he could have done it anytime after last Wednesday, but he waited until Monday. That's a trail of bread crumbs so obvious even Wile E. Coyote couldn't phuque it up.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-04-03 23:27|| 2012-04-03 23:27|| Front Page Top

#10 Actually, if Zero loses the case, it's a big win for Romney, in that his past problems with the issue get taken out of his hands, more or less.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-04-03 23:40|| 2012-04-03 23:40|| Front Page Top

#11 Spent time crafting an unconstitutional boondoggle instead of the economy. Only a fool couldn't use that to advantage.

Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-04-03 23:59|| 2012-04-03 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 Rjschwarz
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:40 Thing From Snowy Mountain
23:29 USN, Ret.
23:27 USN, Ret.
23:15 swksvolFF
23:14 USN, Ret.
22:39 Barbara
22:19 canalzone
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:41 Procopius2k
21:32 Odysseus
21:25 JosephMendiola
21:23 Iblis
21:19 lord garth
21:14 Frank G
21:03 Charles
21:01 Charles
20:34 Besoeker
20:14 Frank G
20:11 Steve White
20:01 Scooter McGruder
20:01 JosephMendiola
19:56 JosephMendiola