The Many Contempts of the Obama Administration

>> Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Contempt for the truth...

Economist Thomas Sowell:

"Now that two different federal courts have declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, the administration's answer is to call the courts guilty of 'judicial activism.' Barack Obama has a rhetorical solution for every problem. Remember the repeated claims of 'shovel-ready' projects that needed only federal stimulus money to get started? Last year the President quietly admitted that there were not many 'shovel-ready' projects, after all. But the phrase served its political purpose at the time -- and that was obviously all that mattered. Now, in the wake of rulings by two different courts that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, rhetoric is being mobilized again, without any fussy worries about facts."


Contempt for the American People...

Columnist John Hayward:
"Senate Republican efforts to repeal ObamaCare went down on a strict party-line vote [last week], with every single Democrat voting against (except for independent caucus member Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Mark Warner of Virginia, who didn't vote.) ... What Republicans are carrying into the 2012 election season is a lockstep vote from a Party desperately trying to defend a badly broken law that is hated by the people, unlawful in the judgment of a federal court, devastating to the economy, and beaten to the ground by the 26 states filing suit against it. It was already looking like a bad election for the Democrats, but now they have to run from the twisted monstrosity dragging itself behind them and vomiting waivers. [Last week's] vote was much more than a symbolic act."


Contempt for the Courts...

Investors Business Daily:
"An administration that has no respect for Congress, the courts or the Constitution has been found in contempt for reissuing a drilling moratorium that a U.S. district judge found overly broad.

The Obama administration's trouble with the courts has continued with a judge's ruling last week that the Interior Department's reinstating of a drilling moratorium followed by a de facto moratorium via an overly restrictive permitting process constituted contempt.

The administration had issued a drilling moratorium in May in waters deeper than 500 feet after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off Louisiana that resulted in the spill of more than 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

In June, Martin Feldman of the Eastern District Court of Louisiana struck down Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's original moratorium, saying it was overkill based on flawed reasoning. ...

So the administration went back, rearranged a few words and a few deck chairs, and reissued its moratorium. That one was officially lifted in October, although the permitting process, which mysteriously includes shallow-water wells, has had the effect of continuing the moratorium.

Feldman was not amused. 'Each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,' the judge said in his ruling. 'Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second moratorium ... provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt.'

...

It is not so much that the Obama administration differs with the law, but that it considers itself above it -- even above the Constitution."

13 comments:

Anonymous,  February 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM  

I found a link to your site by googling "vomiting waivers," a fine phrase describing the beast called Obamacare... I noticed you are called "American Descent." Are you sure that shouldn't be "dissent?" To dissent is to disagree whereas "descent" means something else entirely.

ELAshley February 9, 2011 at 12:05 PM  

"...whereas "descent" means something else entirely."

Exactly.

America's decent from Greatness is gaining steam, with Obama at the helm. America's bright beginning is "at last" [not to be construed as a desirable eventuality] sinking into ignominy... ALSO with Obama at the helm.

Jim February 9, 2011 at 11:14 PM  

You are aware that just as many federal judges have upheld PPACA as have ruled against it, don't you?

And isn't the standard "definition" of "activist judge" one that overturns legislation?

ELAshley February 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM  

Yes, I do know that. However, Judge Vinson's ruling declared the whole of Obamacare unconstitutional. Irrespective of what two other judges ruled PRIOR to Vinson, the law was declared unconstitutional on January 31st. Thus far no other court has ruled on an appeal, and until such time the Administration must operate on VINSON's ruling. You or I can't pick or choose which rulings we're going to abide by, and neither can the Obama administration.

Besides, the two you cite only judged the individual mandate. Vinson ruled against the entire law; primarily because it didn't contain a severability clause. Obama knows this is going to the Supreme Court, but he's going to drag his heels in hopes that the law will become entrenched before SCOTUS' decision (which will in all likelihood result in a 5-4 decision against Obamacare).

Furthermore, continuing to implement what has been declared unconstitutional is classic contempt. Until such a time as a higher court rules in his favor, he is in contempt of court every moment he continues to thumb his nose at Vinson's decision.

Finally, the 'standard' definition of an activist judge is one who uses his or her power to enact or create law, rather than merely interpret the law using the Constitution as the measuring stick, which is what Judge Vinson has done. The administration is merely using this label to attack Vinson's decision-- a decision the administration obviously doesn't like.

But, if Vinson is an activist judge, what does that make the 26 states which signed on to Florida's suit against Obamacare? Activist States? Are all the governors and attorneys general of those 26 states activists as well? What about the 58% of Americans who want the act repealed? Are they activists too? What about the small number of Democrats who want drastic changes made? Are they activists?

The only activist I see, at present, is an administration hell bent on shoving down the throats of the 58% of Americans who do NOT want Obamacare a new power of government whereby it can force the American people to buy a product they don't want, be it medical insurance, broccoli, or an electric car.

Activism, typically, is the forcing of an opinion, policy shift, or what-have-you, by a small segment of society upon a majority which does not desire the change. That is what Obama did prior to his entry into politics. It's what he did when he did enter politics, and it's what he continues to be today... An Activist.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

ELAshley February 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM  

Post Script:

"...isn't the standard "definition" of "activist judge" one that overturns legislation?"

Only in the liberal mindset. Especially when the legislation in question advances their cause. Questions of constitutionality don't matter. If the legislation advances the liberal cause of socializing America and giving government more power than the constitution allows, the judge who rules against it is an activist. Never mind the fact that his ruling was based on the Constitution. Liberals only care about the constitution when they successfully manipulate it into giving themselves what the document wouldn't otherwise give them.

Jim February 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM  

"until such time the Administration must operate on VINSON's ruling"

"Until such a time as a higher court rules in his favor, he is in contempt of court every moment he continues to thumb his nose at Vinson's decision. "

Um, no. You didn't read the opinion nor do you know the law. From Vinson's decision (read the bottom of the page):

"[T]he plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint.

In other words, the judge denied the plaintiff's request to stop the administration from carrying out the law (injunctive relief) pending appeals.

Your argument FAILS.

There is an appellate process which the administration is following according to the law. BTW, 12 other judges have dismissed cases against PPACA.

"Never mind the fact that his ruling was based on the Constitution."

They are ALL based on the Constitution.

Jim February 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM  

Hey, guess what? Case against PPACA thrown out in Federal Court.

Judge Gladys Kessler of the US District Court for the District of Columbia: "the Motion to Dismiss is granted."

Anonymous,  February 23, 2011 at 9:30 AM  

Hey! Guess what? It's going to the Supreme Court where it will be voted down and America will be saved!

Putz

Jim February 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM  

Good of you to sign your name, Putz. We'll see.

ELAshley February 24, 2011 at 5:44 PM  

Better look again Jim... this was a separate case from the one Judge Vinson declared unconstitutional.

This was a case brought against Obamacare by the Center for Law and Justice which claimed Obamacare violated the religious rights of those who rely on God to be their healer.

Here's the link.

This case is separate from the case 26 states attorney generals signed on to, and judged to be unconstitutional by Vinson.

Jim February 24, 2011 at 10:31 PM  

They are ALL separate cases, EL.

ELAshley February 25, 2011 at 11:10 AM  

You're missing the point. The fact that Judge Kessler threw out a case against Obamacare does not negate Vinson's ruling. Kessler's decision has no bearing on Vinson's ruling. She didn't even make a judgment on the case before her other than to throw it out on her opinion that the suit had no merit.

Obamacare remains unconstitutional.

Jim February 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM  

Not correct. While they are separate cases, the crux of the cases was the individual mandate. Kessler upheld the individual mandate.

And of course, Kessler's ruling does not negate Vinson's. Nobody claims that it does.

"Obamacare remains unconstitutional." Not until the US Supreme Court says so. Each ruling has as much weight as the other. Vinson's ruling that the law is unconstitutional bears no more weight than Kessler's and others who have ruled in favor of PPACA. Therefore, the issue will need to be settled in higher courts.

And "throw[ing] it out" IS making a judgment.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP