Pardon us for asking, but was that really Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearing this week? We're double checking because Senate Democrats seemed preoccupied with refighting the 2005 nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts.
"There is such a thing as legislating from the bench," declared Al Franken, who is playing the role of Senator from Minnesota. "And it is practiced repeatedly by the Roberts Court, where it has cut in only one direction: in favor of powerful corporate interests, and against the rights of individual Americans." The list of Democrats who devoted a chunk of their camera time to deplore the Chief included Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Cardin and Chuck Schumer, rather like a political campaign.
Which it is. By decrying the Court's record, Democrats hope to intimidate the Justices away from future decisions that could derail liberal priorities, notably ObamaCare. As one of the most dramatic expansions of federal power since the 1930s or 1960s, the law is already facing challenges from 20 states on the grounds that its individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.
Contrary to the imaginings of Messrs. Franken & Co., the Roberts Court is really a centrist Court that swings left and right depending on the subject. It also routinely decides cases on narrow grounds that pull a larger majority. In the 2006 term, some 70% of the Court's cases were decided unanimously, and this term saw 56% of the cases decided either unanimously or by an 8-1 margin. While that number has ebbed and flowed depending on the term, there's no question Justice Roberts has proven to be a pragmatic jurist who is wary of overturning precedents without ample legal and historical justification.
On property rights this term, the Court ruled 8-0 against property owners in a case called Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida. On antitrust law, it ruled unanimously against the National Football League in a case that would have significantly loosened antitrust restrictions. In one of the term's final decisions, Justice Roberts himself voted with the Court's liberal bloc in a case that ruled out life sentences for juvenile criminals in non-murder cases.
The prominent 5-4 exceptions to the rule this term are the ones that now haunt liberal dreams, Citizens United v. FEC and McDonald v. Chicago. In both instances, the court took on pet political causes of the left—campaign finance reform and gun control, respectively—and dispatched them, but neither decision comes within whacking distance of judicial "activism."
In the two guns cases, McDonald and its prequel, 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court was grappling for the first time since the 19th century with whether the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Citizens United likewise restored the First Amendment's guarantee of a right to free speech by overturning some of Congress's most egregious limits on campaign spending. A few months later, the same gang of supposedly marauding ideologues declined to hear a challenge to soft-money limits brought by the Republican National Committee.
Also singled out for Democratic fear and loathing was the Court's record on business cases, including Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta. In that decision, the Court declined to open up a vast new avenue for class-action suits against companies under the novel theory of "scheme liability." But in business cases too, the Court often ruled unanimously on narrow grounds, as it did in the recent trio of decisions limiting, but not discarding, the oft-abused statute on "honest services" fraud.
In their pique, Congressional Democrats are following President Obama, who took out his own billy club during this year's State of the Union address, criticizing the Court's decision in Citizens United as the Justices sat in front of him as a captive audience. In nominating Ms. Kagan, Mr. Obama pointedly praised her for defending "the rights of shareholders and ordinary Americans against unscrupulous corporations."
With midterm elections ahead, Democrats want to fire up their liberal base against the Roberts Court while threatening the Justices with more bludgeons if they dare question the Constitutional affront of ObamaCare. It's not the first time lawmakers have tried to work the judicial refs and poison public opinion against them, but with any luck it might backfire. Justices know that criticism goes with their job, but we doubt they take well to being bullied.
RECONFIRMING JOHN ROBERTS
Editorial: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
02 JULY 10
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:
And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:
And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim: