I’ve complained before that my one regular source of information and perspective on Latin America (now that no one pays for me to have a subscription to The Economist) is Mary Anastasia O’Grady in The Wall Street Journal.
I mean, I’m glad that at least she is writing something about the rest of the hemisphere. I could just do without some of her slant on things.
She really went overboard today, comparing the situation in Argentina with that here at home:
Last week Mrs. Kirchner had brain surgery, described by her doctors as low risk, to remove a blood clot. She is recovering. But the republic is near death. Its survival depends on whether the Supreme Court president, Ricardo Lorenzetti, is able to withstand government pressure to knuckle under.
The U.S. Supreme Court knows something of that. In his 2010 state of the union,Barack Obama scolded the justices who voted for the majority in Citizens United, and progressives badgered them relentlessly. Two years later Chief Justice John Roberts ruled in favor of ObamaCare…
Yeahhhh… Riiighht… (imagine that in the voice of Doctor Evil). John Roberts, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, declared Obamacare constitutional just because he was scared after the president was less than pleased with a previous ruling.
Give me a break…
Related Posts
Paranoia?
When Obama “scolded” the justices in 2010, it was a degrading precedent for presidential behavior addressing the SCOTUS justices in public in front of a national audience and congress the way he did. I found it disgusting and totally lacking in any respectful manner whatsoever. Now, is that paranoia on my part, I think not. Obama used the “bully pulpit” in a manner that befits the description, “bully”. Why Roberts and the other justices didn’t get up and walk out is a high complement to their ability to resist an open display of contempt and disrespect in return to what they were exposed to by Obama. I found Joe Wilson’s shout out, “You lie!” to be reprehensible but no more than what Obama does to his “enemies” and critics. In some ways, Wilson’s disrespect is less offensive than what Obama did in 2010. Even his reliable water carrier, WaPo, had an article criticizing his comments.
Paranoia? The word may be wrongly applied but it isn’t far off when it comes to the fear of telling Obama something he doesn’t like to hear as more and more comes out about his behavior behind the scenes and away from the public eye. Even the NYT has written opinion pieces about the Obama administration being the most secretive and less responsive than any they have witnessed in a very long time. Transparent? About as transparent as a concrete bunker with20 foot thick walls lined with lead.
Several articles have been written by the progressives about the fear of his “underlings” not being able to tell him the truth about the problems with ACA and when one did have the gonads to tell him, the reply was that it was NOT going to change or be delayed – period. He knew the problems were real and pervasive but instead of doing what any real leader would do and back off until ACA was ready to be fully implemented, he opted to thrust a package of crap on the public and expected them to swallow it, hook, line, and sinker and not question his decision. Maybe he and his buddies can play a few games of spades while planning his next family vacation to the playgrounds of the “Rich and Famous”.
Really says a lot about our “leader”, doesn’t it?
Maybe that was leadership, Bart. Maybe you just missed it… Maybe you left your shades on?
Leadership?
So Mark, your idea of leadership is to have your target sitting in front of you and not in a position to offer a defense? The shades have been removed for a long time when it comes to any president or political ideologue.
I’ll always remember that time when President Obama snuck into the Republican convention, sat invisibly in a chair, and whispered nasty things to Clint Eastwood. Whooof, scary!
Well Michael, you think Pelosi will come to save everyone. No wonder you remember Obama sneaking into the Republican convention.
Bart, it’s a joke, remember Clint onstage talking to the empty chair? Regarding the government shutdown, I was indeed very hopeful that Nancy Pelosi could get the House to actually vote by registering a discharge petition, because all we have to do is Let The House Vote and these problems are solved. Alas, no go.
Michael, I know it was a joke. The Eastwood demonstration was about as entertaining as watching paint dry. As for the discharge petition, if you believe Pelosi introducing it would insure passage, then maybe you did see Obama sitting in the chair. If anything, it would have probably had the reverse effect.
[like]
Thank you, Kathryn. It’s a pointed joke, because the Obama (and the Pelosi for that matter) that so many Republicans are so irrationally afraid of and demonize isn’t real but something they’ve conjured up out of thin air.
There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Pelosi and Boehner. Two political hacks who don’t appear to have anything more than average intelligence paired with minimal ethics.
Not a dime’s worth of difference….well, I guess we understand your metric…..
Right..they are both in it for the money. Pelosi was a flagrant abuser of her position just like Boehner. Or have you not heard of that expression?
If you see no difference, we can determine your “just noticeable difference” which means you must have a very crude metric….
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Pelosi is also one of those pro choice Catholic hypocrites.
The etiquette of Obama’s SOTU aside, anyone who thinks it had anything to do with the decision in National Federation of International Business vs. Sebelius is kidding themselves. Justices on the Supreme Court don’t make decisions in cases out of any fear of retribution. Roberts will be CJ long after Obama is in the history books. Roberts, for better, or for worse, did what he thought was the right decision under the law. They all do.
But hey, maybe that’s just me sticking up for my fellow lawyers.
Conspiracy!
Ha! I haven’t taken any overt acts in furtherance, so I plead not guilty.
Actually, a lot of close followers of the SCOTUS feel like Roberts tried extremely hard to find any way he could to not “derail” President Obama’s signature issue. (I didn’t know justices were supposed to do that, but maybe so)
Even folks that supported the court thought his use of “the power to tax” was a very unique and “interesting” way to find it legal.
I don’t like the result, and I still think it’s a stretch to say that the money you pay if you don’t get health insurance is a “tax”. However, I think Justice Roberts was correctly trying to save the statute by finding a Constitutional interpretation. It is well-established law that “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657.
Where I (and four other Justices) disagree is that regarding the penalty as a tax is not a reasonable construction. However, at a certain point, that’s a judgment call.
I would also note that one of the opening lines in the majority opinion is basically flashing neon lights saying: This is a stupid law, but it’s constitutional. It’s this: “We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”
Scalia (and I would guess all the Justices) would agree with that statement. In fact, Scalia hada great interview with New York Magazine where makes that specific point:
“And what I would say now is, yes, if a state enacted a law permitting flogging, it is immensely stupid, but it is not unconstitutional. A lot of stuff that’s stupid is not unconstitutional. I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says—Whack! [Pounds his fist.]—STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! [Pounds again.] STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL … [Laughs.] And then somebody sent me one.”
On a related note, there’s a really interesting discussion of Catholic beliefs with Scalia in there. Apparently, the interviewer is an atheist (or something similar) who doesn’t believe in heaven or hell. Interesting back and forth with Scalia on that. I’d be interested in Brad’s take on it as a Catholic.
I thought about doing a whole post on the interview over on my blog, but I got sidetracked. In any event, whatever you think of Scalia, I recommend it to the commentariat.