A smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court?

[Qman]

Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito,who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by atempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls .

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[blindside50]

Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito,who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by atempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls .

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Do you have a link?

thanks

[Qman]

Do you have a link?

thanks

No, just passed it on from an email that I got.

Just found one.

http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/smackdown-of-barack-obama-by?xg_source=activity

Edited October 9, 2010 by Qman

[stlou]

Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito,who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by atempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls .

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

PLease provide the link to this article..

Thanks

[Qman]

PLease provide the link to this article..

Thanks

LOOK UP!

Scroll up!

Edited October 9, 2010 by Qman

[seascape61]

NOBAMA belongs in prison for treason! We should be very worried about the up coming elections as far as voter fraud and counting goes. God Bless this country!

[dslayer4j]

He is an Obamanation!! God Bless the USA!!!

[Jan]

Just sit tight peeps..... they'll all get theirs in due time.

[Huzapest]

Ridiculous emails have been circulating about President Obama for years now. Virtually none have survived third party " fact checks." It is certainly not news that Obama and Chief Justice Roberts have significant philosophical differences. However, the Court, with members serving lifetime appointments so that they are not influenced by political considerations, generally does a good job in not pursuing the type of purely political agenda suggested here; and it is a good thing that the Court does not get so political, even if you believe that the current Court aligns more with your own political philosophy. It's opinions establish law for decades or longer, but the composition of the Court changes over time. Even the mindset of Justices changes over time. Earl Warren was a Wall Street conservative, appointed by Eisenhower, yet presided over the most liberal court in history. So you never know whist you are going to get. Face the facts: Obama is the duly elected President. In a democracy, we must accept the results of an election, provided it is a fair election, without delegitimizing a victor simply because we may disagree with him or her politically. In today 's world of 24 hour news, blogs, wikipedia, and unfettered access to the Internet ( a form of mass media accessible to just about anybody)' it is far too easy to publish unfounded information or to disguise half-truths so that they seem irrefutably true. Just look at the "Rumors" section on this and other cites. Obama is President. Get over it. Then work to defeat him in 2012, if you don't like him. That's what elections are for.

[ajskj]

Ridiculous emails have been circulating about President Obama for years now. Virtually none have survived third party " fact checks." It is certainly not news that Obama and Chief Justice Roberts have significant philosophical differences. However, the Court, with members serving lifetime appointments so that they are not influenced by political considerations, generally does a good job in not pursuing the type of purely political agenda suggested here; and it is a good thing that the Court does not get so political, even if you believe that the current Court aligns more with your own political philosophy. It's opinions establish law for decades or longer, but the composition of the Court changes over time. Even the mindset of Justices changes over time. Earl Warren was a Wall Street conservative, appointed by Eisenhower, yet presided over the most liberal court in history. So you never know whist you are going to get. Face the facts: Obama is the duly elected President. In a democracy, we must accept the results of an election, provided it is a fair election, without delegitimizing a victor simply because we may disagree with him or her politically. In today 's world of 24 hour news, blogs, wikipedia, and unfettered access to the Internet ( a form of mass media accessible to just about anybody)' it is far too easy to publish unfounded information or to disguise half-truths so that they seem irrefutably true. Just look at the "Rumors" section on this and other cites. Obama is President. Get over it. Then work to defeat him in 2012, if you don't like him. That's what elections are for.

VERY WELL SAID!!!! APPLAUSE!!

[SparkyNTexas]

Ridiculous emails have been circulating about President Obama for years now. Virtually none have survived third party " fact checks." It is certainly not news that Obama and Chief Justice Roberts have significant philosophical differences. However, the Court, with members serving lifetime appointments so that they are not influenced by political considerations, generally does a good job in not pursuing the type of purely political agenda suggested here; and it is a good thing that the Court does not get so political, even if you believe that the current Court aligns more with your own political philosophy. It's opinions establish law for decades or longer, but the composition of the Court changes over time. Even the mindset of Justices changes over time. Earl Warren was a Wall Street conservative, appointed by Eisenhower, yet presided over the most liberal court in history. So you never know whist you are going to get. Face the facts: Obama is the duly elected President. In a democracy, we must accept the results of an election, provided it is a fair election, without delegitimizing a victor simply because we may disagree with him or her politically. In today 's world of 24 hour news, blogs, wikipedia, and unfettered access to the Internet ( a form of mass media accessible to just about anybody)' it is far too easy to publish unfounded information or to disguise half-truths so that they seem irrefutably true. Just look at the "Rumors" section on this and other cites. Obama is President. Get over it. Then work to defeat him in 2012, if you don't like him. That's what elections are for.

I didn't vote for him the first time and will continue to do so. His economic policies are runing this contry for our kids. We'll NEVER get out of debt.

[MrRich]

Ridiculous emails have been circulating about President Obama for years now. Virtually none have survived third party " fact checks." It is certainly not news that Obama and Chief Justice Roberts have significant philosophical differences. However, the Court, with members serving lifetime appointments so that they are not influenced by political considerations, generally does a good job in not pursuing the type of purely political agenda suggested here; and it is a good thing that the Court does not get so political, even if you believe that the current Court aligns more with your own political philosophy. It's opinions establish law for decades or longer, but the composition of the Court changes over time. Even the mindset of Justices changes over time. Earl Warren was a Wall Street conservative, appointed by Eisenhower, yet presided over the most liberal court in history. So you never know whist you are going to get. Face the facts: Obama is the duly elected President. In a democracy, we must accept the results of an election, provided it is a fair election, without delegitimizing a victor simply because we may disagree with him or her politically. In today 's world of 24 hour news, blogs, wikipedia, and unfettered access to the Internet ( a form of mass media accessible to just about anybody)' it is far too easy to publish unfounded information or to disguise half-truths so that they seem irrefutably true. Just look at the "Rumors" section on this and other cites. Obama is President. Get over it. Then work to defeat him in 2012, if you don't like him. That's what elections are for.

I couldn't agree more.

[dlbfilm]

Voting him out cannot happen soon enough.... Its time the American public clean house and start over... what a shame...

[viper51]

NOBAMA belongs in prison for treason! We should be very worried about the up coming elections as far as voter fraud and counting goes. God Bless this country!

I agree but I would rathe send him back to Kenya and not spend any more of our tax dollars supporting him and his 20+ aids wife..

[Jac]

And so, this is why our brilliant Forefathers intuitively made certain that we have three branches of Government, the Executive, the Judician and the Legislative.

God Bless America and God Bless the Supreme Court and may dear Mr. Obama realize how lucky he was to not be arrested and led out of the Oval Office the first time that he broke and trampled upon Constitutional Law and the rights of every FREE American. The American People were patient and gave him the opportunity to respect the United States Constitution, instead he rejected the US Constitution as being outdated and useless. Even worse he rejected the WILL of the American People who are the real Government of America some of who by voting for him simply hired him to do a job, which he refused to do. Instead he took steps to gut American Laws and Justice and worse Freedom in favor of spreading socialist ideology at home and abraod.

This legal coup that the liberals pulled off will by making him an electable canditate because Americans did not vet him themselves will be remembered historically for 100's and 100's of years. Furthermore in the future there is no doubt in my mind that laws will be passed to prevent another such fiasco.

God Bless America!

Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom, I hope you make good use of it.

John Quincy Adams

[skippy569]

Ridiculous emails have been circulating about President Obama for years now. Virtually none have survived third party " fact checks." It is certainly not news that Obama and Chief Justice Roberts have significant philosophical differences. However, the Court, with members serving lifetime appointments so that they are not influenced by political considerations, generally does a good job in not pursuing the type of purely political agenda suggested here; and it is a good thing that the Court does not get so political, even if you believe that the current Court aligns more with your own political philosophy. It's opinions establish law for decades or longer, but the composition of the Court changes over time. Even the mindset of Justices changes over time. Earl Warren was a Wall Street conservative, appointed by Eisenhower, yet presided over the most liberal court in history. So you never know whist you are going to get. Face the facts: Obama is the duly elected President. In a democracy, we must accept the results of an election, provided it is a fair election, without delegitimizing a victor simply because we may disagree with him or her politically. In today 's world of 24 hour news, blogs, wikipedia, and unfettered access to the Internet ( a form of mass media accessible to just about anybody)' it is far too easy to publish unfounded information or to disguise half-truths so that they seem irrefutably true. Just look at the "Rumors" section on this and other cites. Obama is President. Get over it. Then work to defeat him in 2012, if you don't like him. That's what elections are for.

I have to give you two thumbs up for that post. You are the man!

Edited October 9, 2010 by skippy569