From our friends at RedState:
“For a guy who graduated from Harvard Law, Barack Obama is not really very well versed on his law or his legal history. Speaking out today about the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare, Obama offered this stunning and completely ahistorical nugget:
Ultimately, I’m confident that 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.
Look, I’m not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with anyone, but the fact remains that since that decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been “unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without serious challenge ever since.”
I talked about this a little bit with Dave Elswick on KARN yesterday. We also discussed it in this week’s episode of Patriot Talk which will be released today, but was filmed late last week. We analyze this idea that liberals are now so disingenuously trying to purport that the Supreme Court, not Congress, is somehow operating outside of their constitutional authority. Hilariously sad & desperate, even for Obama.
I am against judicial activism wholeheartedly, and I don’t exactly like Marbury v. Madison (“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”) But it would categorically not be ‘judicial activism’ for the court to overturn this law. Rather this is the role of the court–to compare & contrast laws to the constitution, determining their merit. And of course Obama & liberals have always welcomed the court’s intervention in the legislative process whenever it fit their far-left agenda.
Elswick asked me yesterday what I thought this response from Obama indicates. In my opinion, it shows true fear & desperation. He knows the law is going to be stricken down and he has already begun bleating his campaign mantra of “it’s the court’s fault!”
If Obama has been consistent in anything, it has been in his constant shifting of blame for the crises he has created.
So, Rick Santorum went a little nuts today because apparently he believes the media is misconstruing his comments regarding Romney vs. Obama. The comment seem to be pretty straightforward to me.
On Thursday, Santorum made news for saying:
“If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”
Santorum was referring to Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign:
“It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”
Santorum’s response has stirred up quite a bit of controversy and drawn criticism from fellow presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
Santorum appeared just a few minutes ago on Neil Cavuto’s show and had this to say (video courtesy of The Hill):
Surprise! Congressman Rick Crawford’s millionaire tax hike hullabaloo isn’t flying with conservatives in his district.
I received this press release from a friend with the Ozark TEA Party, one of the largest TP organizations in the state, and by far the largest TP in Crawford’s 1st District:
The Ozark Tea Party, founded in 2009, bases itself in traditional conservative principles. Simply put, we believe in freedom. We believe that to achieve our nation’s potential we must unleash the American entrepreneur by limiting government power and spending. In 2010, we fought for and elected political leaders who we believed shared these same basic principles. Unfortunately, self-proclaimed conservative Congressman Rick Crawford proved us wrong with his proposal of the Shared Responsibility in Preserving America’s Future Act.
The Ozark Tea Party strongly opposes Congressman Crawford’s plan to increase taxes on America’s job creators. The Wall Street Journal reminds us that “the top 1% of earners in America pay about 40% of the nation’s federal income taxes.” This leaves us with one question for Congressman Crawford, ‘how much should they pay?’
Our country is in the greatest economic turmoil since the great depression. Our economy is struggling and our people need jobs. Instead of punishing job creators, we must lower taxes and regulations on them. We are here to remind Congressman Crawford the same thing that Ronald Reagan told the American people so long ago: ‘government isn’t the answer to our problems, government is the problem!
The Ozark Tea Party strongly urges Congressman Rick Crawford to withdraw his support for this progressive and job killing tax increase. Rather, he should work to shrink the size of our unsustainable federal government bureaucracy.
We applaud Congressman Crawford’s efforts to put a balanced budget amendment in the United States Constitution. However, this new plan goes against our principles of supporting American capitalism, lower taxes and smaller government.
We will continue to fight the liberal idea of larger government, less freedom and more bureaucracy no matter what party name it hides behind.
The following video was released earlier this week on the new website Breitbart.com. It’s release is part of a series of video leaks from the organization, named after the late Andrew Breitbart, that are intended to give President Obama the vetting he failed to receive from the media in 2008.
The video shows Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, calling for a campaign to ‘brainwash people’ against guns & make ‘carrying a gun unacceptable.’
Very interesting video, particularly in light of the Fast & Furious scandal, which many now believe was an effort by Holder’s office to crackdown on guns in the U.S.
Check it out:
From the American Enterprise Institute’s blog:
Talk about a vicious cycle. The above chart (from must-read healthcare blogger Avik Roy) comes as close as anything I’ve seen to explaining in a picture what is wrong with the American healthcare system. It shows how government policy creates a dysfunctional healthcare market by insulating consumers from the true cost of their healthcare decisions, raising demand/overconsumption of high-end services/costs, prompting more government intervention (like Obamacare) … and more insulation. Rinse and repeat.
You can read the rest of their analysis here.