OBAMORATIONS
First there is a decorum deficit declared because of Joe Wilson’s eruption at Pointless Obamoration No. 7,256. Yeah, okay. The kid who yelled at the naked emperor spoke without being spoken to, too. Now we are told that Obama himself breached protocol in his State of the Union (in lieu of a real president, he gives this monologue in front of Joe and Nancy, just to illustrate how much worse things could get, in theory) by scolding the Supreme Court over its astonishingly non-interpretive interpretation of the First Amendment’s actual words and intent. Contrary to the belief of some, the First Amendment is most definitely not the favorite friend of the liberal left. Free expression is just not compatible with state totalism and social engineering.
Obama delivered his reproach to the Supreme Court for its decision. But what is surprising, though really should not be, is not the mild upbraiding of the Inescapable Orator, but the further reproachments of Justice Samuel Alito for-- get this— reacting to the inappropriate remarks. Not reacting inappropriately, but reacting at all. So apparently, the dignity of the Court requires not only abstention from political commentary, but feigned deafness to direct assaults on that dignity. So for the President to tell the Court it is not doing its job properly is impolitic, but for the Court to respond with an, “I beg your pardon”, is somehow worse according to the Primer of Progressive Protocol. Tellingly enough, the exact words of Justice Alito in response to BO were, "Not true" (compare to Congressman Wilson's louder assessment of the same speaker's honesty.)
Despite the gorge-raising bias of the media in its Obaprotection mode (OK, he did something wrong, but the response was even wronger) there is a bigger problem here. Not only did Obama lecture the Supremes, but he presumed to do so in their presumed area of expertise, the Constitution, and furthermore, regarding a domain of expertise granted them by his own fellow ideologues on the lawless Left. After all, it was they who embraced and petted the Warren-Brennan philosophy of jurisprudence which held that acts of legislatures should be treated as mere suggestions to the courts regarding what was the law of the land. Using a concept of judicial review never dreamt of by Framers, the courts became the most effective political arm of the socialist left since the Cheka,cramming one ludicrous ukase after another down the throats of a disapproving public for over half a century all in the name of ”penumbras” and other mythical beasts imagined to dwell between the lines of the Constitution.
So, armed with this calamitous invention, Barack Obama, veteran of three years in a law school that it was impossible for a man of his hue to fail out of at the time, during which he learned so little law and soaked up so much Marxist drivel that he authored amateurish student screeds about the “incomplete” nature of the Founders’ document, is presuming to lecture the likes of Samuel Alito and John Roberts about what is and is not constitutional. That is the real story here. Mind-boggling. What will he hold forth on next, this inexperienced, chronic talker? Medicine and economics are already covered, and he never even went to college for his expert’s grasp in those areas. But then, there is no overestimating the hubris of a man under 50, with two years in Senate and no real job history who thinks he is ready to be President of the United States. So which is it? Either BO is so mega-headed that he really thinks he can go toe-to-toe on constitutional law with some of the top constitutional jurists in the country, or BO thinks what is and is not constitutional is a relatively simple-minded political question and a disagreement with the Justices is no different from a difference of opinion with Republicans in Congress. Or maybe it is both. He is conceited and ignorant. And why not? Nobody in the media sets him straight. And, more to the point, neither do members of the chattering class who can’t or won’t even catch a corpse-man on the tongue, let alone an irony such as this.
First there is a decorum deficit declared because of Joe Wilson’s eruption at Pointless Obamoration No. 7,256. Yeah, okay. The kid who yelled at the naked emperor spoke without being spoken to, too. Now we are told that Obama himself breached protocol in his State of the Union (in lieu of a real president, he gives this monologue in front of Joe and Nancy, just to illustrate how much worse things could get, in theory) by scolding the Supreme Court over its astonishingly non-interpretive interpretation of the First Amendment’s actual words and intent. Contrary to the belief of some, the First Amendment is most definitely not the favorite friend of the liberal left. Free expression is just not compatible with state totalism and social engineering.
Obama delivered his reproach to the Supreme Court for its decision. But what is surprising, though really should not be, is not the mild upbraiding of the Inescapable Orator, but the further reproachments of Justice Samuel Alito for-- get this— reacting to the inappropriate remarks. Not reacting inappropriately, but reacting at all. So apparently, the dignity of the Court requires not only abstention from political commentary, but feigned deafness to direct assaults on that dignity. So for the President to tell the Court it is not doing its job properly is impolitic, but for the Court to respond with an, “I beg your pardon”, is somehow worse according to the Primer of Progressive Protocol. Tellingly enough, the exact words of Justice Alito in response to BO were, "Not true" (compare to Congressman Wilson's louder assessment of the same speaker's honesty.)
Despite the gorge-raising bias of the media in its Obaprotection mode (OK, he did something wrong, but the response was even wronger) there is a bigger problem here. Not only did Obama lecture the Supremes, but he presumed to do so in their presumed area of expertise, the Constitution, and furthermore, regarding a domain of expertise granted them by his own fellow ideologues on the lawless Left. After all, it was they who embraced and petted the Warren-Brennan philosophy of jurisprudence which held that acts of legislatures should be treated as mere suggestions to the courts regarding what was the law of the land. Using a concept of judicial review never dreamt of by Framers, the courts became the most effective political arm of the socialist left since the Cheka,cramming one ludicrous ukase after another down the throats of a disapproving public for over half a century all in the name of ”penumbras” and other mythical beasts imagined to dwell between the lines of the Constitution.
So, armed with this calamitous invention, Barack Obama, veteran of three years in a law school that it was impossible for a man of his hue to fail out of at the time, during which he learned so little law and soaked up so much Marxist drivel that he authored amateurish student screeds about the “incomplete” nature of the Founders’ document, is presuming to lecture the likes of Samuel Alito and John Roberts about what is and is not constitutional. That is the real story here. Mind-boggling. What will he hold forth on next, this inexperienced, chronic talker? Medicine and economics are already covered, and he never even went to college for his expert’s grasp in those areas. But then, there is no overestimating the hubris of a man under 50, with two years in Senate and no real job history who thinks he is ready to be President of the United States. So which is it? Either BO is so mega-headed that he really thinks he can go toe-to-toe on constitutional law with some of the top constitutional jurists in the country, or BO thinks what is and is not constitutional is a relatively simple-minded political question and a disagreement with the Justices is no different from a difference of opinion with Republicans in Congress. Or maybe it is both. He is conceited and ignorant. And why not? Nobody in the media sets him straight. And, more to the point, neither do members of the chattering class who can’t or won’t even catch a corpse-man on the tongue, let alone an irony such as this.
posted by the wrightist at 1:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home