Insane arguments are limited to conservatives, who use them in defense of absurd statements uttered by their leaders in support of batshit crazy tax policies and pursuant to destruction of the American Way of Life. Liberals, on the other hand, are universally logical and accurate in all arguments in support of leadership which makes statements that are always reasoned and completely accurate. Now that we have that established...
I was reading a liberal blog Tuesday, and the subject was President Obama’s statement that it would be a heinous wrong for the Supreme Court to overturn “a law which had been passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That “strong majority” consisted of 50.3% of the House, and was just one vote away from a filibuster in the Senate, but we’ll ignore that part because liberal leadership never makes absurd statements. Only conservative leadership does that.
I will mention in passing that the President is, at best, breaking protocol rather badly by running around saying that he’s sure the Supreme Court will uphold his law “because they take their job seriously” and such things, because officials of the Justice Department are really not supposed to comment on pending cases before any court. He is the highest official of Justice, commenting on a case pending in the highest court and, as a lawyer himself, and a “constitutional scholar,” he should know better.
Anyway, moving on, one commenter pointed out that the constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority to overturn laws passed by Congress, that doing so was a role that “they assumed on their own in the 1800’s,” with the implication that they did so without proper authority. The writer went on to say that Obama was entirely right and that overturning any law passed by Congress would be overstepping the bounds set for the Supreme Court by the constitution.
I am so glad that liberals never make crazy, insane arguments in defense of absurd statements uttered by their leaders.
Indeed, if you read the constitution, Article 3 does not contain the words “overturn laws passed by Congress.” I’m pretty sure the constitutional committee didn’t think those specific words were necessary, though, because they were not writing the damned thing to be read by third graders.
In addition to beginning the enumeration of it’s powers by saying that “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,” Article 3 goes on to say that judicial power extends “to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.”
So, if Congress passes a law which infringes upon the rights of individuals then clearly there is a controversy between Congress and individuals whose rights are being infringed, and clearly the United States is a party to that controversy. The Supreme Court is charged specifically by the constitution with resolving that controversy, and what possible remedy does it have to that end, other than by invalidating that law?
Further, and more simply, the constitution says that the Supreme Court has “judicial power” over the “Laws of the United States.” What, exactly, does the writer think that means? Come to think of it, what does President Obama think that means?
The differences in behavior between liberals and conservatives are becoming increasingly difficult to discern.