President Obama rattles his saber...

President Obama's attempt at browbeating and humiliating the justices of the Supreme Court seated just beneath him during his 2010 State of the Union Address was one of the more disgusting things I've witnessed by a president during my lifetime. Now he's rattling the saber at these same justices by trying to intimidate them concerning their ruling on his own nationalized health care which is a clear violation of the US Constitution. Said the President to the White House Press Corps:

I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress...

I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

But of course he lies when he says he's confident they'll uphold his attempts at nationalizing health care. Otherwise he wouldn't be threatening them.

Then too, if these are President Obama's high legal principles, why is he such an advocate of the slaughter of unborn children? If unelected justices ought not to overturn laws passed by a strong majority of democratically elected legislators, why has he never spoken a word against Roe v. Wade which threw out the laws of every state of the Union against the slaughter of unborn children?

Of course, President Obama has no principle of integrity. He's only a politician grabbing for power. One "exercise of raw judicial power" is as bad as another unless it's bloodthirsty rulers weighing the utility of that power for their own power and legacy.

For shame President Obama. Do you take the citizens of these United States for fools?

If the justices fear the Highest Court of the Judgment Seat of Almighty God, they should throw out President Obama's exercise of raw executive power passed by those craven members of Congress, all of whom violated their vows to uphold the Constitution when they passed and he signed into law nationalized health care. Then they should reverse Roe v. Wade which not only violated our Constitution, but ended the rule of law in these United States.

God Himself has declared, "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Genesis 9:6).

(Tim, w/thanks to Bert)


You have a low standard of offense if Obama's comments are among the worst presidential offenses in your lifetime. And threatening? You do know a threat would be of no value and have no power? I assume you took government in high school? His comments were for the benefit of the American people.

Hopefully the justices will ignore your God and self-righteous pronouncements and do what is in the best interest of the American people, a people drowning in medical costs

Yeah Bruce, best interest of the American people. That's what this is. Set a precedent for the allowing the all-merciful government to force us to buy things. What could possibly go wrong?

Evidently, at least one Federal appeals judge on the 5th Circuit took Obama's comments as some form of threat, and challenged a DOJ lawyer standing in his court on this very point.

It's fascinating to me that the judge has ordered within three days a written statement from the DOJ on whether the DOJ recognizes the judiciary's right to invalidate laws of congress which it deems unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, we all await (yes, I know you don't) Jesus' judicial review of the judicial reviewers of our land. When that happens and your repudiation of the Faith is reviewed, will you remain an atheist?

Dear Mr. Gerencser, from the writing above I see no indication that the Bayly's see this as "among the worst presidential offenses in [their] lifetime[s]". And what do you mean "benefit of the people" when he has been speaking of "judicial activism" and the like, when overturning his law would most certainly not be judicial activism in this case? How is it to their "benefit" when his remarks are diversionism, and not even an argument toward any sound principle? Just ad populum? Not even argumentum?

And yes, people are drowning in medical costs: you can ask me personally about that. However, it's not due to lack of government running it, and may have a lot to do with government (1) interference (2) granting of monopoly power over the trade (3) letting that monopoly do whatever it wants to drive-up costs (4) conflating insurance with medical cost issues (5) helping distract people when it ought be pointing out "why are things so expensive that people prefer insurance to personal payments in the first place?" et cetera.

For example, a good, and real, healthcare reform bill might include "barring the AMA from forbidding physicians from displaying prices up front"; "barring the AMA from punishing physicians who do"; "requiring that costs of care be presented up front"; "requiring that costs be plainly explicated upon finding a procedure should be performed"; "requiring that procedures performed be billed speedily without recurring mailings of additional costs and fees that were not disclosed to a patient"; "for the appointment of separate and independent standards and licensure bodies besides the AMA, without requirement of affiliation of subjugation to the AMA or to the United States government"; and so on.

If you have ever had many bills after medical treatment, as I have, you might be aware that six months after you think you've paid your last bill, suddenly another comes from some office you never had contact with but which was called casually by your doctor to take a look at some scan and they just hadn't gotten around to disclosing you have been charged. You might find the 2,000 dollar charge (and that's probably very low) for being passed through the multi-million dollar scanning machine, and having several teams of doctors and specialists make inspection of the data, quite reasonable, while the fifty dollar aspirin is a bit much, or the fifteen hundred dollar bottle of anti-nausea medication is a bit much (is it that expensive because it's derived from a rare substance that can't be synthesized in larger quantities? purposefully restricted? what gives?); or the charges for work by the team of specialists it takes to fix your spine after their own procedures (and failing to heed standard medical advise after performing them) caused your spine to begin leaking to be offensive.

But those things fall into probable misbehavior, rather than into the arena of having or not having personal health insurance coverage. The only area of intersection with insurance is the possible claim of misconduct against them and ability to sue for fraudulent or unconscionable charges, i.e. malpractice. But putting the American people's healthcare into the hands of those mis-managing careless, hubristic, lawless bunches we call the federal government, its bureaucracies, and so on, is not in the best interest of the people. Demanding they become lawful, and careful about upholding and dispensing true justice, which requires righteousness, is.

Bruce is trolling for readership on his lie-filled blog. He is a drooling wolf looking for a meal.

An excerpt:

"if Mr. Obama believes what he says, he ought to be very satisfied with the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 by a whopping 275 margin in the House and by 71 votes in the Senate."

>>Bruce is trolling for readership on his lie-filled blog.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for pointing this out. I've removed the link to his blog.


You'd think an environmentalist like yourself would support a democrat. I guess your environmentalism isn't that strong a value.

Obama is a powerful man. I doubt he reads blogs, including this one.

I have been working in the healthcare field for over thirty years, while I dont agree with a lot of what's in Obamacare I do give his legislation some credit for trying to overhaul the system. There are many who cannot affort healthcare and try getting some insurance if you have a preexisting condition. Costs are high and malpractice puts a heavy burden on doctors (should I say our legal system) The present system we have is unsustainable both for our country and individuals.


I have been uninsurable (except for a state-managed high risk pool) since I had a heart attack in 1995. At the time Obamacare was passed, my insurance premiums were running almost $1,000/month for a policy with an annual deductible of $3,000. That's just for me. No one else.

Within two months of the passage of Obamacare, my insurance premiums went up dramatically. I checked to see what the rates were going to be for an annual deductible of $7,500. They were $1,998 a month.

I could have scraped the money together to pay this. Maybe. I decided it was simply stooopid to do that.

Obamacare pushed me right out of an already overpriced insurance market. And, this is, in your words, "an attempt to overhaul the system?"


What are the views here as to how (by contrast) the Canadian healthcare system works? I spent time in a previous life doing health economics, in an environment very different to the American one, and the UK's system is different again.

"For shame President Obama. Do you take the citizens of these United States for fools?"

Yes he does and yes we are.

Add new comment