Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

The words do not have to be perfect.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

T R E 4 5 O N

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Let there be snark.

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Come on, man.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

Republicans in disarray!

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Let’s finish the job.

You are here: Home / I’m gonna make my big attack

I’m gonna make my big attack

by | 90 Comments

This post is in: ,

Greg Sargent:

To the fainting couch! Obama attacked the Supreme Court and threatened it with a backlash, should it strike down his tyrannical scheme to impose a government takeover of health care on the nation!

That’s what many conservative writers and even some centrist ones are arguing. They are saying that Obama’s words about the Court yesterday were “unsettling” and a “witch-hunt,” and they’re likening them to F.D.R.’s efforts to pack the Court in retaliation for decisions striking down New Deal initiatives.

Please. If what Obama said yesterday is an “attack,” it’s pretty timid stuff indeed.

If Villagers say you’re being uncivil, you’re winning.

Anyway, what with all the conservative SCOTUS justices who were drafted out of high-school (not to mention all the crazy right-wing federal judges appointed by), we’re going to be stuck with a lot of craziness from the judiciary for years to come. If these unelected hacks want to act as a purely political body and tarnish the reputation of the court forever, they have to expect a reaction. You play with matches, you get burned.

Reader Interactions

90Comments

  2. 2.

    phil

    What is our recourse? How do we even begin to undo the damage done by the Roberts court? It seems like the implosion of American confidence in institutions has finally reached critical mass – now what do we do with all this national angst and cynicism?

    I think I need a prozac..

  4. 4.

    Violet

    If Villagers say you’re being uncivil, you’re winning.

    Yes. This. Let’s keep it up.

  5. 5.

    patrick II

    Burned how? They are lifetime appointments living in an informational, intellectual and economic cocoon that makes them essentially fireproof. Unless Faux News, The Federalist Society, or the Koch brothers show interest, they will just tell you to get the fck over it.

  6. 6.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @phil:

    What is our recourse? How do we even begin to undo the damage done by the Roberts court?

    By making sure President Romney doesn’t appoint at least three justices (Ginsberg, Scalia, Kennedy, I don’t think Thomas would take a chance on Hillary naming his replacement, and Breyer is not in the first blush of youth) from 2013-2016, with one eye on keeping Jim Demint happy and the bipartisan support of Manchin, Landrieu and if we’re lucky Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester.

  7. 7.

    chopper

    and they’re likening them to F.D.R.’s efforts to pack the Court in retaliation for decisions striking down New Deal initiatives.

    if only. FDR running against the court is what helped get the new deal off the ground.

  8. 8.

    General Stuck (on self glorifiication)

    A trio of 5th circuit appeals judges had a hissy fit and ordered the DOJ to state whether the president thought the courts could strike down laws as unconstitutional. All brats appointed by republicans, and which I wonder if they will require Judge Kennedy to state whether the ‘heavy burden’ to prove the ACA as constitutional is ass backwards from long standing jurisprudence. Obama clarified his remark to say what any one with a centilla of awareness of the situation would know,

    Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be “unprecedented” in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress’ power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

    “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this,” Mr. Obama said

    Which is precisely correct, and Kennedy precisely wrong and stoopid for his dumbass quip. I swear, I think Obama is getting it, that this is a war, and he is all in, though with whatever decorum the wingnuts deserve as well as the lowest denominator for rules of engagement that they set.

  9. 9.

    beltane

    @chopper: If the conservatives want to compare Obama with FDR who are we to complain.

    So much for the old “Black Jimmy Carter” label.

  13. 13.

    Jeff Spender

    Good Zoroaster. I want to see Obama take it to another level and just call them fuckin’ morons. That would stick right in Scalia’s craw. I know the Village would get the vapors and scream about decency or some other such nonsense that never really existed.

    At this point, we might as well treat our politics as it is: a crappy pay-per-view wrestling match that’s all talk and no action. Obama should say, “I’mma open a can o’ Whoop Ass on you ‘Supreme Court’ wimps if you don’t act in accordance with established case law and precedent and affirm the constitutionality of my law.”

    And then Scalia could bloviate about whatever.

    I kind of lost my point. Hard not to when you’re dealing with such vapid commentary from the media.

  14. 14.

    Ocotillo

    I don’t get where folks think these Federalist Society hacks give a flying you-know-what about what their reputation is. As long as they have the final say, Scalia will smirk and sneer “get over it”.

    This is why we have to hold our nose and support DINOs like Bob Kerry who would be a royal pain in the ass but would not filibuster Obama nominees.

    Bush v. Gore bitches……

  15. 15.

    J.W. Hamner

    I think given the complete lack of (mainstream) backlash against Bush v. Gore, it’s a little silly to think that even a 5-4 partisan decision overturning a sitting President’s signature legislative accomplishment is going to tarnish the Roberts’ court’s rep with anybody but liberals and law academics. However I don’t think there is any reason not to hammer them for it… at the very least maybe our people in Congress will take the nominating process as the deadly serious business that it is and go no holds barred… and no liberal will ever utter the words “The two candidates are the same!!” without hearing “What about the Supreme Court you idiot?”

  16. 16.

    aimai

    Jesus, its not even about Judicial Review, its about Stare Decisis which is the court’s own method of not acting like total lunatic assholes who change their mind every month with their underwear. Obama was 100 percent correct–the point about constitutional law is that its always got this schroedinger’s cat quality to it. Not one of those Justices, and certainly none of the right wing, can pretend that this isn’t boilerplate obvious.

    aimai

  17. 17.

    dedc79

    We have to remember that the super right wing religious fundamentalists now have their own law schools churning out lawyers who make Scalia sound like Richard Dawkins. During the Bush administration they funneled them right out of school into the federal government and there’s no reason to think that won’t happen again with a President Romney or Santorum

  18. 18.

    Gin & Tonic

    Like I think I said yesterday, if you can’t stand a fast one high and inside, you have no business playing in the majors. And this wasn’t even a real brush-back, fer chrissake.

  21. 21.

    dmsilev

    Have the Villagers gone into their pearl-clutching mode over Obama’s speech today yet? If the President’s plan is to cause the Villagers to clutch at one set of pearls after another until the global oyster population goes to zero, I’m all for it.

  22. 22.

    Elizabelle

    @dmsilev:

    I didn’t like the clip the PBS Newshour showed; they did hit on the radical vision/Social Darwinism, but it was pretty short. Had expected more. Couldn’t watch all, so will check the website later for what the talking heads said.

  24. 24.

    Elizabelle

    @dmsilev:

    I didn’t like the clip the PBS Newshour showed; they did hit on the radical vision/Social Darwinism, but it was pretty short. Had expected more. Couldn’t watch all, so will check the website later for what the talking heads said.

  26. 26.

    David Koch

    @dmsilev:

    Have the Villagers gone into their pearl-clutching mode over Obama’s speech today yet?

    They’re waiting for the RNC to transmit the daily talking points.

  27. 27.

    sophronia

    This is all a big setup. Get the media to explode with people talking about how Obama is “threatening” the Court, and now the judges look like wimps if they don’t overturn the ACA.

    Just another case of the right wing trying to manipulate the media into getting the result they want.

  28. 28.

    arguingwithsignposts

    @dmsilev:

    Have the Villagers gone into their pearl-clutching mode over Obama’s speech today yet?

    Are the villagers ever not in their pearl-clutching mode?

    Also, too: dammit, Cole, why can’t we have recent comments back?!

  30. 30.

    tirgrain

    What stops the Supreme Court from being really nutty? Say, striking down the ACA and also striking down lots of other stuff in the process? Like Medicare and Medicaid, and so on?

    And if the mandate is struck down, doesn’t that mean Ryan’s Medicare voucher scheme is dead in the water too?

    Is there an end state to really nutty, crazy behavior from the court? At some point, don’t they get themselves impeached? Or worse, completely ignored, when they cause a constitutional crisis, or a state of war between the branches of government?

    Even they must know that some decisions and orders they make wouldn’t be followed… like ordered US Marshal’s to summarily arrest people or whatever right?

  31. 31.

    David Koch

    I remember when Tom Delay attacked the Supreme Court for declining to hear appeals on the Terry Schiavo case — the Village didn’t say one word.

    Classic IOKIYAR

  32. 32.

    piratedan

    @arguingwithsignposts: well they also have their “false equivalency” mode, there is also “tut-tutting-heh, indeed” mode, as well as, the “it would be irresponsible to speculate” mode and their idle status of concern troll mode. There may be others but I’m still pretty new at this.

    I assume that there’s whole other jargon used for this, kinda like how the grifters talk in those Ocean movies….

  33. 33.

    arguingwithsignposts

    @MikeJ:

    Because one more query per page load brought the server to its sha na na na na na na knees, knees.

    In this day and age, it’s not an excuse. What was always my prob. with page loads was all the ads and the javascript from the actblue stuff. YMMV. I’d be curious to know how much comments have dropped off since the loss of the Recent Comments widget. If it’s not a lot, I will GLADLY withdraw my objection.

  34. 34.

    dmsilev

    @David Koch:

    They’re waiting for the RNC to transmit the daily talking points.

    Well, we’ve already heard from Boehner and Ryan, and their responses basically boil down to “Waaaah! Mean President said mean things! Not bipartisan!”. I’m pretty sure that’s what David Brooks will also be saying, though in his case the tears will be implied instead of explicit.

  35. 35.

    kay

    @David Koch:

    John McCain is on a tour right now attacking them daily over Citizens.
    He goes personally after Scalia, voice dripping with sarcasm.
    He and Feingold attended the hearing.

  39. 39.

    David Koch

    @MikeJ: That’s a very good point. McCain has repeatedly ripped the Court for striking down McCain-Feingold. Yet, that’s okay with the Village because he’s not a Democrat.

  41. 41.

    dmsilev

    @Raven:

    They are going nuts because *they’ve decided that this* president is supposed to be above this.

    Fixed that for you.

  42. 42.

    Martin

    Just an aside: Sheriff Joe is a fucking lunatic. Just wanted to remind everyone of that.

  43. 43.

    MikeJ

    @Raven: Above it the way, say Reagan was?

    If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can’t freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?

    (btw, am I the only one with no editing toolbar?)

  47. 47.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    Funny (no, actually not funny) that the fictional institution of higher learning in Atlas Shrugged (alma mater of John Galt and his buds) was called Patrick Henry University.

  50. 50.

    NR

    @chopper:

    if only. FDR running against the court is what helped get the new deal off the ground.

    The difference is that FDR’s initiatives were popular. The ACA isn’t.

  51. 51.

    quannlace

    Raven Says:

    I thought that sissy motherfucker Mornin Joe was going to faint over this.

    I caught a few minutes of that, this morning. Fuckin’ hilarious! Man, if Mika sounds like the voice of reason you know Joe’s gone off the rails.

    Uh..and exactly what can Obama do to ‘retaliate’ against the SCOTUS? Make another mildly reproving speech? The horrors!!

  52. 52.

    beltane

    @efgoldman: The wingnut judges are going to whittle down the Constitution to nothing more than the phrase “God and Guns Forever!” and maybe something about white people.

  56. 56.

    toastr

    ohh baby jebus is weeping. I’m getting the vapors

    by the way, paul ryan and his media enablers can eat a bag of dicks

  57. 57.

    Tonal Crow

    This is kinda OT, but I thought everyone would like to know that Arizona is about to ban Balloon Juice:

    Distasteful comments and online insults are a mainstay of many social networks and online comment boards, but a new bill passed in Arizona could send people who “annoy or offend” to jail for up to six months….
    __
    The bill states it would be a class one misdemeanor for anyone to “terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend” through electronic and digital devices. It does not provide definitions of the terms and what would be considered annoying or offensive.

    (emphasis added).

    Get in your licks against Republicans now, because soon it’ll be 6 months and daily body-cavity searches for you!

  58. 58.

    lamh35

    So I finally saw the speech by POTUS today, wow game on.

    Thanks to that speech, I find myself in an unwelcome position…I agree with Mark Halperin.

    Mark Halperin @Markhalperin

    Any Republican who thinks the incumbent will be an easy mark should study every point and nuance of Obama’s speech. He remains formidable

  60. 60.

    aimai

    Its great politics. The President always has to run against Congress and in this case he can run against Congress and the Courts. You simply can’t underestimate how little American voters know of what is going on–I just was talking to a young, pro-choice, phlebotomist who is going to nursing school. Apparently I was the first to break it to her that Scott Brown and the Republican party want to deny her birth control and stick a vaginal ultrasound wand up her if she needs an abortion. That’s someone working in the health care field, young, female, and totally affected both by the ACA and by the generic Anti woman legislation. And as of yesterday she had heard nothing of what was going on. She’s fired up now.

    The more people realize what the ACA offers the more furious they are going to be if it is struck down by the Courts. It would be very bad for us as a people if it is struck down, but it will be very good for Obama and the Dems. In about five seconds the right wing pundits will be gibbering about how Obama made them cut off their noses to spite their faces just the way they did when the Virginia Vaginal Creeper bill blew up in their faces and when Rush Limbaugh made a fool of himself on the air. Both times they started out all triumphal and ended up accusing Obama of having played them.

    aimai

  61. 61.

    burnspbesq

    You caused me to click through to Ruth Marcus and Jennifer Rubin.

    You, sir, are fucking dead.

  62. 62.

    LosGatosCA

    @Jeff Spender:

    Vapid commentary from the media is in part caused by moronic behavior by the 90% of the politicians. Another big part is caused by the stunningly low average IQ of their viewers/readers. Only about a third of the vapidity is caused by their own willful ignorance.

  63. 63.

    CaliCat

    Speaking of Villagers, can we all agree that Howard Fineman should be inducted into their Hall of Fame? His hackiness is reaching new heights of glory all the time.

  64. 64.

    LosGatosCA

    @lamh35:

    Mark Halperin just wants to hedge his bets, believe it he’s rooting for Romney all the way. He’s just trying to Lou Holtz the opposition. Lou talks up every opponent like they are the Second Coming before every game.

  65. 65.

    dmsilev

    By the way, now that polls have closed in MD and DC, we can announce that Barack Obama has received enough delegates to be renominated.

    Just in case anyone was wondering.

  68. 68.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @LosGatosCA: I’m sure you’re right, but so is Halperin, in this case. I predict a major blunder by Romney in at least one debate. He has no patience with underlings, and he sees everyone as an underling; he’ll step on his dick by being too contemptuously hostile of Obama, a reporter, or most likely if there’s a town hall debate.

    ETA: that is, most likely a civilian, if there’s a town hall debate.

  70. 70.

    burnspbesq

    @Ben Franklin:

    Waldron’s an idiot. The genius of the Constitutional scheme of separation of powers is that it provides a counter-majoritarian check on the “animal spirits” of the political branches.

    Lithwick is more of an idiot for giving his views any respect,

    And you’re even more of an idiot for thinking that anyone would be impressed by your comment. Well done.

  71. 71.

    Schlemizel

    Remember how they wept when the Kenyan Usurper had the temerity to question the wisdom of Citizens United vs. Common Decency? The vinegar and water that fill what Roberts calls his head was whipped into a froth from the violent shaking of his head.

    It was so impolite and of course recent history has shown he was wrong & the decision has HELPED make democracy stronger not given big money more control over us peons.

  76. 76.

    Suffern ACE

    @Tonal Crow: Hmmm. I wonder if the point is to make felons of as many under 30s as possible, ensuring the gerontocracy for another 30 years.

  77. 77.

    Triassic Sands

    “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect accept it…”

    Fixed.

  78. 78.

    gocart mozart

    Did Obama say something about unelected radical activist judges usurping the will of the American people and imposing their authority by judicial fiat because if so, that would be wrong. Wait. What? That was was EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE JAGGOFF IN THE LAST 25 YEARS! Oh well then, carry on.

  81. 81.

    wrb

    @lamh35:

    oh, yeah, I’ve peeped Dick Halperin’s game. He’s such a shill for Romney that I’m always surprised he can talk with his mouth full of …

    The Real Mitt Romney?

  82. 82.

    Johannes

    @MobiusKlein: I hate to blogwhore, but the brazenly political nature of the Fifth Circuit’s punishment essay has me incandescent. As an appellate lawyer for 20 years, I have never seen anything like it, and, as far as I can tell, it is done solely to inflict political harm on the President to benefit his adversaries. More here.

  83. 83.

    El Cid

    Aare you fucking shitting me? In context, yeah, it was interesting that Obama noted that the Sup Ct can indeed make itself illegitimated politically.

    But outside dark nightmare interpretations of what might be in the radical Kenyonesian Muslim President’s mind, no, he didn’t in any way suggest any intimidation or threat.

    Unless now suddenly a Democratic President who questions the wisdom of the transubstantiated-into-Gods Supreme Court Just-icers — as opposed to Republican Presidents — is automatically to be chattered about as pretty much gunning them down in a dark alleyway.

  85. 85.

    Yevgraf

    I just hope that when the avoidable collapse comes, I can be present to watch a starving 10 year old stab Scalia in the eye with a handle broken off of Ruth Marcus’ shattered Calphalon cookware in order to wrest a dead raw sparrow from his grasp in order to have a meal.

  86. 86.

    Some Loser

    @Ben Franklin:

    Are people really trying to debate the legitimacy of Judicial Review? Ignoring the constitutionality of it; removing Judicial Review would severely unbalance the power between the branches. This is high school level stuff here.

    I know people are cynical of the whole Justice system here, but please do not allow that cynicism to destroy the Constitution and this country. Maybe we can discuss how to fix the court system without removing its importance!

  87. 87.

    Groucho48

    Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings. “I’m fed up with elitist judges” who seek to impose their “radically un-American” views, Gingrich said Saturday in in a conference call with reporters.

    The Village reaction? Gingrich is one smart puppy. He has audacity, vision, and the smarts to bring his vision to fruition. Yes, he can be provocative, but, we need more of that. What a guy!

  90. 90.

    El Cid

    @Some Loser: Judicial Review isn’t in the Constitution. Jefferson thought it despotic — how is an unelected body of unquestionable judges determining what may and may not be law “democratic”?

Comments are closed.