Advertisements

REWIND 2010: President Obama Insults Supreme Court Justices to Their Face at State of the Union Address 

 

WASHINGTON, JAN. 28, 2010—  It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.

President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 rulingrecognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.

President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.

Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.

popup1

Several justices, in the first two rows, were sitting right in front of the president when he attacked the campaign finance ruling. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., one of the justices in the majority in the decision under attack, shook his head as he heard the president’s summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and he appeared to mouth the words “not true.”

It was not quite the shouted “You lie!” from Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, at September’s presidential address to a joint session of Congress. But in its way, the breach of decorum on both sides was much starker.

Peter G. Verniero, a former justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court, said neither end of the exchange helped the prestige of the United States Supreme Court.

“The court’s legitimacy is derived from the persuasiveness of its opinions and the expectation that those opinions are rendered free of partisan, political influences,” Mr. Verniero said. “The more that individual justices are drawn into public debates, the more the court as an institution will be seen in political terms, which was not the intent of the founders.”

Modern presidents and Supreme Court justices do not interact very much, and this particular president might be expected to have strained relationships with at least Justice Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., both of whose nominations he voted against as a senator. The president and chief justice would both also probably like to forget the flubbed administration of the presidential oath at Mr. Obama’s inauguration last year. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

[VIDEO] Tucker Carlson Eric Swalwell Full Interview Debate on Trump Supreme Court Pick Neil Gorsuch

Carlson: He (Gorsuch) wrote in a book about ethics, “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Do you believe that?

Swalwell: All human beings are intrinsically valuable. However, Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a right to make a decision about her own healthcare.

Carlson: I’m not asking you about Roe v Wade. I’m asking you to assess what he said here…as a general statement. ”All human beings are intrinsically valuable,” you agree with that. The second part is, “The taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” do you agree with that or not?

Swalwell: The most personal decision a person can make is a woman with her a doctor about her own body and a person who is terminally ill about whether they want to die in peace and he [Gorsuch] has chosen that the government should intervene.

Carlson: Will you answer my question? “The intentional taking of of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Now if you can’t agree on that…

Swalwell: The Constitution says…”

Carlson: I’m not talking about the Constitution. What do you think…I’m not talking about women’s rights. “The intentional taking of human life by private persons.” That’s what he said, and I want to know whether you agree with that statement or not.

hqdefault

Swalwell: What he has shown in his legal career…

Carlson: (Laughs) Are you really afraid to say that the intentional taking of life is wrong?

Swalwell: No, of course not. I was a prosecutor and I prosecuted people for intentionally taking life.

[Read the full story here, at National Review]

Carlson: But you won’t agree with this because you are afraid of the abortion lobby, like “Woo, you are anti-abortion if you are against the taking of human life.”  I mean, come on!

Swalwell: A woman has the right to make her own decision about her own healthcare.

Carlson: Do you think it is the taking of human life? Abortion?

Swalwell: I think that right now…before viability, a woman should be able to make her own decision. After viability, in the case of her own psychological health, in the case of rape or incest, she should also be able to make that decision.

Carlson: Okay, but is it the taking of human life?

Swalwell: That is a woman’s personal decision. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] New Book Details Kermit Gosnell’s Grisly Crimes

[Check out the book “Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer” at Amazon.com]

gosnell

When the Grand Jury indicted abortion doctor Dr. Kermit Gosnell in 2011, it wrote: “This case is about a doctor who killed babies… What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of 41juqgprf8l-_sl250_pregnancy—and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors… Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.”

[Order the book “Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer” from Amazon.com]

Filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer (FrackNationNot Evil Just Wrong) have spent the last few years investigating the case and raising money for a feature documentary about the man they call “America’s biggest serial killer.” Now, in Gosnell, McElhinney and McAleer report their shocking findings, taking readers inside the grisly case the mainstream media hesitated to cover. What really happened in Gosnell’s Pennsylvania clinic? And perhaps more importantly, how did Gosnell get away with infanticide for decades?

 


Survey: 100% Of People Marching On Washington Were Not Aborted 

11-million-women-march-w710-h473-2x

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a survey conducted in the nation’s capital Saturday, a full 100% of the people marching on the nation’s capital for abortion rights as part of the “Women’s March on Washington” were found to have not been aborted by their mothers when they were yet to be born.

were-you

The controversial study indicates that there may be…(read more)

Source: The Babylon Bee


PANTSUIT REPORT: Hillary Calls Planned Parenthood Scandal ‘Disturbing’, Cautiously Avoids Criticizing Planned Parenthood

huma-and-hillary-in-tanzania2

Planned Parenthood ‘a victim of circumstance’.

 writes: Hillary Clinton was asked by a New Hampshire newspaper about the scandal surrounding her PANTSUIT-REPORTlongtime political benefactor, Planned Parenthood. Clinton allowed that she had “seen pictures” from the videos that depict officials from America’s leading abortion provider talking in ghoulish terms about harvesting the organs of aborted babies. Clinton said what she saw was “disturbing” and touted her own efforts in her prior White House stint to reduce the number of elective abortions conducted each year. But Clinton, who is under pressure to return donations from Planned Parenthood, stopped short of criticizing the group. Read the rest of this entry »