Theories abound as to the motives and significance of Barack Obama’s April 2, 2012 tirade against the United States Supreme Court. Perhaps the most plausible, given the timing of the events, is that one of the “justices” sympathetic to the Obama regime leaked word that the Court had struck down Obamacare in large part, or in full. In response, Obama could be attempting to publicly stay ahead of the court, since its decision will not be officially announced until June.
Of course, the primary suspect in this scenario is Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court. It may seem pejorative to suggest that she could so flagrantly compromise the integrity of her office, except that by remaining involved with the Obamacare court case, she has already done just that. Having stumped for Obama’s massive governmental power grab as his Solicitor General, she can by no means be objective in her current position. Yet she flatly declined to recuse herself from the case. So regardless of whether or not she actually divulged last week’s decision on Obamacare, the Court as it currently exists is in a wholly compromised condition.
Nor was the outrageous commentary on Monday the first effort by Obama to wage war on the Supreme Court and all of those irritating constitutional limitations to his power that it currently represents. In the wake of his latest rant, many are recalling how he used the 2010 “State of the Union” message to disparage the Supreme Court for ruling against Campaign Finance “Reform.” Yet his latest outburst reveals something much broader in scope and far more sinister than an episode of mere jockeying for power between two branches of the United States Government.
Long before his inauguration, Barack Obama made clear his intentions to expand the reach and power of government beyond any former boundaries. In truth, this was the real essence of the “hope and change” rhetoric of his campaign. He and his kind are convinced they can usher in utopia, but only if they are first able to amass the power to forcibly make it happen. To their dismay, the framers of the Constitution did not imbue their kind with that degree of unfettered authority.
So, in response to these circumstances, a sinister strategy was implemented to garner just such a capability. In rapid succession, every governmental office under Obama’s dominion began to exceed its boundaries and ignore any limits to its authority. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency was redefining its mission by implementing changes to environmental law through regulation, with no legislative authorization or oversight. Meanwhile, the “Justice” Department essentially legalized voter intimidation, as long as such acts were perpetrated by minorities against white America.
Although in the past these excesses would clearly have been construed as illegal abuses of power, it soon became painfully obvious that the “mainstream” media had no intentions of holding the liberal perpetrators accountable. Instead, they consistently ignored such contemptible actions while focusing like a laser on any critics of the administration, with a goal of wholly discrediting them.
However, to the general dismay of leftists, the public has responded by becoming informed and involved. Mainstream America is now alert to such mainstays of the liberal agenda as “judicial activism,” and the dangers to liberty and constitutional law it represents. Consequently, the ability of unelected judges to make or abolish law, merely by subjugating it to their personal opinions, while remaining unnoticed and avoiding criticism is a thing of the past.
In particular, the confirmation hearings of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito re-emphasized, and to a major degree reaffirmed the fundamental role of a Supreme Court Justice in upholding the principles of constitutional law, and not exploiting the office as a means of dictating personal policy to the masses. Assuming office within a few months of each other during President George W. Bush’s last term as president, Roberts and Alito were able to brave the onslaught of liberal attacks and smear campaigns intended to thwart their confirmation by continually refocusing divergent questions from Senate liberals on their constitutional merits, or lack thereof.
In contrast, the confirmation strategies of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama’s two leftist appointees to the Court, were predictably centered on gender and ethnicity, with little consideration given to their total lack of objectivity in past adjudicating. While the intent of conservatives is to ensure that the courts preserve the integrity of the Constitution as it is reflected in the nation’s laws and judgments, the goal of liberals is to advance liberalism, through whatever means they can.
Against this backdrop, it is imperative that Barack Obama and his political cohorts dissipate any spotlighting of the Constitution as the definitive standard by which the merits or pitfalls of a law is determined. In its stead, the unquestioned worthiness of liberalism must be substituted. Hence, Obama has on numerous occasions sought to essentially redefine “judicial activism” in the minds of his minions as any opposition to his agenda.
Monday’s comments, whether based on leaked information or merely the general paranoia that characterizes all aspiring authoritarians, represented a brazen effort to diminish and discredit the court on the basis that its only legitimate option is to rubber stamp Obamacare. In essence, he attempted to marginalize the Court in the eyes of the American people by dismissing any opinions it delivers which do not coincide with his own.
We have seen this Alinskyite pattern in the past. When unable to endlessly engage in wanton spending sprees under the auspices of government funded “stimulus” for the economy, Obama misrepresented the proper congressional oversight of federal spending as evidence of a “dysfunctional” Congress. In response, he promised to remedy the situation by sidestepping the Congress.
With each passing day, Americans are given further examples of their options for the nation’s future, which will be determined by who they decide to install in the Oval Office next January. Despite Attorney General Eric Holder’s subsequent attempts at “damage control,” Barack Obama’s statements stand, and their ramifications are inescapable.
Threats against the Supreme Court from an arrogant and narcissistic radical, based on that court’s potential decision to preserve and defend the Constitution, foreshadow similar threats against every citizen who, whether at the ballot box or by the exercise of free speech, dares to do likewise.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com