Marginalizing SCOTUS: Obama's Revolutionary Consistency

"Ultimately, I am 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,"

- President Barack Obama, April 2nd 2012

This attack on the Supreme Court is a calculated component of Barack Obama's long-term strategy; he needs demons to blame for 'obstructing' his promised Utopia.  For months, I've been saying that one of Obama's long-term goals is to replace the constitutional authority of Congress with unconstitutional Commissions and Czars.  He's playing the same game with the Supreme Court.  Yesterday's cheap display of Hugo Chavez demagoguery and straw-men furthers his goal to sow hatred of constitutional government among stupid people his base.  Barack Obama is moving to insulate the Government's agenda from Constitutional Accountability while daring the rest of us to stop him.

The Supreme Court has been in the cross hairs of the left for over a decade.  This is the same group of people who have been demonizing the Supreme Court since it shut down Al Gore's unconstitutional and illegal attempt to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and steal the 2000 election.  Barack Obama is going to accuse the Supreme Court of 'playing politics with people's lives' and he'll propose putting decisions about the role of government in the hands of 'experts' instead of 'politicians.'  He'll accuse the Supreme Court of 'protecting Special Interests' when, in reality, those special interests supported Obamacare and even supported it at the Supreme Court.  As Thomas Lifson said today:

if it [the Supreme Court] displeases him, he will appeal to the segments of the American public utterly ignorant of the Constitution and not really paying close attention to the news. And he will in effect tell them that the Court isn't really legitimate. This is a Chicago-style "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun" threat.

As Obama continues this cheap straw-man Hugo Chavez demagoguery, one thing he said yesterday is particularly galling:

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

What a load of bull-crap; the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the Government and it's perfectly legitimate for the Supreme Court to throw out acts of Congress that exceed Congress' Article I, Section 8 authority.  As Rush said today:

Everybody knows that judicial activism is not what Obama is explaining it to be. Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law. What Obama is trying to say here is that the court will be engaging in judicial activism if it judges the law according to the Constitution. That's not what judicial activism is. I know exactly what they're doing. They're trying to take this term, and they're trying to redefine it publicly to fit their needs and redefine the language (as they constantly are). But, folks, I'm gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it's even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar.

This is a man, Barack Obama, who was once paid to teach law, constitutional law, and he doesn't even know the meaning of the term "judicial activism." No one ever accuses any judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution! Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law. This is basic knowledge. Now, maybe this is why we've never seen Obama's grade transcripts, if he really doesn't know the difference. But I suspect that he does know the difference, and I suspect that he's trying to redefine terms here to fit. Because this has become a template argument for the left.

What Rush misses, however, is that Alinsky's fourth rule was: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules."  With this demagogic Hugo Chavez Straw Man, Barack Obama is trying to force us to live up to a book of rules he has created to which we have not agreed.

Ultimately, I don't think this cheap straw-man Hugo Chavez demagoguery is going to intimidate the Supreme Court, but it can turn the Supreme Court into another mythical source of power blocking Obama's promised Utopia.  Barack Obama wants riots in the streets when this legislative abomination is overturned.  Barack Obama is deliberately sowing chaos and a constitutional crisis while daring the rest of us to stop him.

And stop him we will....