![]("http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1ImzMctpqjs/U7MFUrrSXbI/AAAAAAAAAqQ/Hbr7afAlnM0/s1600/Supreme+Court+Push+Back.jpg") |
| SCOTUS says "No!" to POTUS |
Whoever attentively considers the
different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which
they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its
functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the
Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure
them. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788 The
genius of the United States Constitution lies in the checks and balances of
power, not the award of power to the people or any dedicated interest (or
elitist) group.
SCOTUS slammed Obama's 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations
board, citing the three day "recess" of the US Senate as an
insufficient period of time to warrant those rapid appointments without prior
advise and consent of Congress. Obama does not like waiting, and has bandied
about his phone and pen as an authoritative response to Congressional inaction.
Yet even the "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor and the novice Justice
Elena Kagan, both liberal Obama appointees themselves, rebuked the President. In
response to this poetic and political justice, The Washington Post reports that
hundreds of NLRB decisions now require review.
different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which
they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its
functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the
Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure
them. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788 The
genius of the United States Constitution lies in the checks and balances of
power, not the award of power to the people or any dedicated interest (or
elitist) group.
Under the Obama Administration, the checks on President Obama's abusive
expansion of executive arrogance has met little resistance from Congress,
aside from vocal critics in the House of Representatives and the decaying
filibuster in the US Senate.
Yet the third branch of government, the judiciary, is taking up the slack, checking
the abuse of power in the Obama Administration. In recent decisions handed down
from their 2013-2014 term, The United States Supreme Court said no to the
aggravated executive arrogance of President Obama:
1.
In a unanimous decision (National Labor Review Board v. Noel Canning et al.),SCOTUS slammed Obama's 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations
board, citing the three day "recess" of the US Senate as an
insufficient period of time to warrant those rapid appointments without prior
advise and consent of Congress. Obama does not like waiting, and has bandied
about his phone and pen as an authoritative response to Congressional inaction.
Yet even the "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor and the novice Justice
Elena Kagan, both liberal Obama appointees themselves, rebuked the President. In
response to this poetic and political justice, The Washington Post reports that
hundreds of NLRB decisions now require review.
![]("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Sonia_Sotomayor_7_in_robe%2C_2009.jpg/640px-Sonia_Sotomayor_7_in_robe%2C_2009.jpg") |
| "Wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor Joined Unanimous Rebuke of Obama Overreach |
2. Extending Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure to cellphones,
another unanimous SCOTUS verdict sided with the citizen against the state in Riley v. California. Cellphones are not
just hardware facilitating communication, but reservoirs of sensitive data, to which
police power should not have arbitrary access. The implications of this ruling
have promoted civil liberty activists demanding greater scrutiny of the Obama
Administration’s NSA metadata collection, which has grossly overstepped its
bounds, invading the privacy of. Perhaps US Senator Rand Paul (r-ENTIYCK) will
start carrying his cellphone once again. To sum up, Chief Justice Roberts and
colleagues scolded the state (and Obama): “Get off my cellphone!”
another unanimous SCOTUS verdict sided with the citizen against the state in Riley v. California. Cellphones are not
just hardware facilitating communication, but reservoirs of sensitive data, to which
police power should not have arbitrary access. The implications of this ruling
have promoted civil liberty activists demanding greater scrutiny of the Obama
Administration’s NSA metadata collection, which has grossly overstepped its
bounds, invading the privacy of. Perhaps US Senator Rand Paul (r-ENTIYCK) will
start carrying his cellphone once again. To sum up, Chief Justice Roberts and
colleagues scolded the state (and Obama): “Get off my cellphone!”
3. In Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS delivered another blow to ObamaCare’s careless and
unconstitutional invasion of individual liberty. The conservative majority
upheld the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby corporate owners. Arguing
that the contraceptive mandate in Obama runs contrary to their religious
convictions, Hobby Lobby owners have succeed
Hobby Lobby, SCOTUS delivered another blow to ObamaCare’s careless and
unconstitutional invasion of individual liberty. The conservative majority
upheld the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby corporate owners. Arguing
that the contraceptive mandate in Obama runs contrary to their religious
convictions, Hobby Lobby owners have succeed
Even
left-leaning Politico had to acknowledge:
left-leaning Politico had to acknowledge:
The ruling. . .amounts to a huge black eye
for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given
Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health
care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama
are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.
While outraged liberals argue that this decision will lead to a sweeping denial
of birth control in employee insurance plans, the rulings in fact will prevent
the Affordable Care Act from forcing private corporations to offer
contraceptives in violation of their religious precepts.
for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given
Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health
care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama
are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.
While outraged liberals argue that this decision will lead to a sweeping denial
of birth control in employee insurance plans, the rulings in fact will prevent
the Affordable Care Act from forcing private corporations to offer
contraceptives in violation of their religious precepts.
The slippery
slope of ObamaCare’s overreach has hit major bumps along the way. With the
Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court declared: “No, President Obama, legal fiat
does not trump religious liberty in the United States of America.”
slope of ObamaCare’s overreach has hit major bumps along the way. With the
Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court declared: “No, President Obama, legal fiat
does not trump religious liberty in the United States of America.”
Other
rulings which deserve attention include Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., in which
both liberal and conservative justices concurred that the regulatory powers of the
EPA did not include rewriting unclear statutes or imposing undue burdens which
cannot be realistically realized in practice. Obama’s War on Coal through
administrative fiat may hit another snag with this ruling.
rulings which deserve attention include Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., in which
both liberal and conservative justices concurred that the regulatory powers of the
EPA did not include rewriting unclear statutes or imposing undue burdens which
cannot be realistically realized in practice. Obama’s War on Coal through
administrative fiat may hit another snag with this ruling.
While Founding Father Alexander
Hamilton had argued initially that "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be
said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment" (Federalist
71), he did not witness the desegregation of public schools following Brown
v. Board of Education, either. Even if conservative columnist Ben
Shapiro pushed aside any reveling over SCOTUS’ series of rebukes to
Presidential imperiousness, but the consensus on the Court, and in concert with
public opinion, demonstrates that Obama’s unchecked, imbalanced power grabs are
facing increased scrutiny, heated criticism, and a growing reaction toward
limiting state power at the expense of individual liberty and constitutional
rule.
Hamilton had argued initially that "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be
said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment" (Federalist
71), he did not witness the desegregation of public schools following Brown
v. Board of Education, either. Even if conservative columnist Ben
Shapiro pushed aside any reveling over SCOTUS’ series of rebukes to
Presidential imperiousness, but the consensus on the Court, and in concert with
public opinion, demonstrates that Obama’s unchecked, imbalanced power grabs are
facing increased scrutiny, heated criticism, and a growing reaction toward
limiting state power at the expense of individual liberty and constitutional
rule.