Lisa Benson for July 08, 2014

The simple minded “majority” are the ones who should be in the corner.

Clarence Thomas writes an opinion concurring with that of constitutional scholar Scalia: “Yeah. What he said.”

In its glorious past, the SCOTUS has reversed itself on several occasions. Even they admit to making occasional errors in judgement.

“Roberts has a weak heart, and Scalia is getting old; another reason to elect President Hillary and her appointment power.”Better yet, the Democrats could try running someone I’d be remotely tempted to vote for. As long as there’s a liberal 3rd party candidate, I will never vote for Hillary.

For those of you inclined to complain that the SCOTUS is partisan. I encourage you to listen to Supreme Podcast which gives an in-depth review of their decisions. I don’t always agree with their decisions but I have developed a comfort with their process and the framework under which they render decisions.

I agree with some of the Posters above that several 9-0 decisions dispel the idea that they are just playing politics.

Obama claims to be a Constitutional Scholar and his supporters are quick to remind us of that fact. That doesn’t make him King or Dictator. It means he should have a good understanding of how the Constitution is interpreted by the SCOTUS and be able to craft approaches that are within the markers laid out.

@Nebulous – Because nobody brought it to the Supreme Court’s attention.

Perhaps you don’t understand how this works. When government acts in a way that makes people feel that their rights have been violated – It is upon THEM to take it to court and it must work it’s way through District and Appeals courts before it reaches the Supreme Court (Under most circumstances).

The Supreme Court doesn’t go looking for problems to address – The problems come to them.

Had the Democrats felt that their rights had been trod upon they could have very easily brought it to court.

But usually, Democrats like the decisions made by government because it gives them more control over peoples lives and not less (Very seldom does any branch of the Government limit itself – only the Courts do that).

Ms. Benson is right on Target again!!!!!

Thank you!!!!

The way people wildly attack this administration is un-American. Don’t hate Obama then you do hate America? Where do people come up with such convoluted reasoning?

Correct you never implied one should hate you merely stated that “those same people seem to hate America…”. I don’t hate America, in fact I don’t recall ever meeting someone who does.

Beg your pardon?SCOTUS has POTUS in the corner? How so? For what? Just because? What part of Constitutional law has POTUS failed to uphold? I was looking for a word to describe today’s comic. The nicest one I can think of is ‘stupid’. I don’t know, maybe I’m the stupid one, since I don’t get it. But I don’t think so.

Right, a policy put in place by the Democratic Senate, during the Bush administration. The difference in these situations is that Bush (as much as it pains me to give him any credit) didn’t attempt to make appointments when the Senate Democrats were holding the Pro Forma sessions. Obama, on the other hand, decided that he could and did make appointments when the Republicans were holding pro forma sessions. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that only Congress could determine when either House or Senate is in session, not the President.

The part of the Constitution where he has to seek the advise and consent of the Senate for appointments.

Is there anything their Messiah can do that his followers will acknowledge is wrong? The Court is wrong, Congress is wrong, 60% of Americans are wrong; it seems Barry is just a misunderstood genius.

Perhaps you’re unaware of how the Supreme Court works. They don’t “complain,” they hear cases brought before them. If no one brings a case, then there is no decision. Having said that, Bush made recess appointments only when the Senate was truly in recess. Once the Democratic Senate under Bush started holding pro forma sessions(an invention of the Democratic party) to prevent appointment, he honored those and did not try to make recess appointments. By Contrast, when the Republican Senate was holding pro forma sessions, President Obama went ahead with recess appointments. His logic was that he could say that they weren’t really in sessions since all they were doing was opening a session every couple of days. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, they correctly ruled 9-0 that only the Senate could decide when it was in session, not the President.

It’s interesting as you read through the posts above that the Obama apologists Blame Fox News, Blame the Senate, Blame the Supreme court and don’t even consider that Mr. Obama could be partially responsible for his own problems.

They even go so far as to posit that those who take a conservative viewpoint might all be one individual (I think they are suggesting we are bots).

For those of you who support President Obama no matter what he does – Good for you!! Cling to your beliefs and your hopes that if he can just get one good break he will fix all that you think is wrong with the world.

But take a moment to consider that those of us who don’t agree with you might have another vision for America that doesn’t involve US being slaves to the needs and wants of the liberal left. Your great leader was not elected King or Dictator. He was elected to be President and swore that he would uphold the constitution and the laws of this land (An Oath he seems to take VERY VERY lightly).

It is the Supreme Court that was designed to place checks on the powers of Congress AND the President. I think they have done a fairly good job and my only complaint is that they haven’t limited the White house and Capitol enough.

Here’s a thought Liberal Left – Instead of pissing and moaning about how Obama just isn’t getting a fair chance to advance his ideas. Ask yourself what he could do different to achieve some of his goals.

In the past, Presidents succeeded in advancing their agenda by negotiating in good faith with Congress and reaching an agreement where both sides got something out of the deal. All I have seen President Obama do is try to screw the congress and go around them because he certainly hasn’t tried to work with them.

Each time a bargain was struck he pulled away or broke it himself at the last minute. Now he has zero credibility on the Hill and he is genuinely surprised that he can’t get anything done.

The words that come to mind is LAME DUCK!!!!!

Go ahead – tell me it’s congress’ fault. It won’t matter because he still won’t accomplish anything without learning how to work with those across the aisle. He has been insulting, condescending, arrogant, and unyielding and he will be remembered that way.

It’s actually Benson who needs to sit in the corner until she learns the difference between church and business.

@mwbarr – I’m going to assume that you are referring to the Hobby Lobby decision. If I am correct, the decision wasn’t about Church but about Religious beliefs. There is a distinct difference. The Justices didn’t find in favor of a Church. They found in favor of a group of business owners with strongly held religious beliefs.

And even if that isn’t your discussion. She is quite free to write whatever she wants thanks to the First Amendment. That pesky little scrap of paper thwarts the Tyrants of Liberality again.

“He fails to do the job of the executive and enforce the laws as passed.”

What can a president do with a House that fails to do its job?

@mangy. He doesn’t have to concern himself with their job. He is expected to faithfully fulfill his responsibilities. Enforcing laws doesn’t require anything from congress that he doesn’t already have.

Reading the decision on appointments, it seemed appropriate, as these “recess” appointments are only temporary until the next Congress comes on, the issue isn’t quite what people think, but I would agree that Senate RULES need to be changed so that only if a quorum is available for a vote, are they actually “in session”. SCOTUS didn’t address this possibility.

“Hobby Lobby” is purely a violation of the Constitution in a further effort to make a quasi-official “national religion”. I’d be willing to bet that had Scalia et all been looking at either strict Jewish or Sharia law being the claimed “faith”, the decision would have been different. That is what Ginsberg was in part reflecting in her dissent, this RELIGIOUS decision was NOT just about contraception, and a big ugly door has already been proven open!

@dtroutma – Wrong and Wrong (your 2 for 2 there in one posting). It is up to the SENATE to decide what their rules are. If Harry Reid wants to change the rules and can get a simple majority to agree he can make that happen. But it is neither the President’s business nor the Supreme Court’s business to interfere in the internal workings of the Senate unless their is a violation of the constitution or laws – Neither of which have happened because the Senate calls a single senator evidence that the Senate is in Session.

Hobby Lobby asked for it’s Religious Freedom as was guaranteed in the Constitution and the Supreme Court agreed. They didn’t say: Women you can’t have birth control. They just said that forcing your corporation to provide a medical service that you find offensive is not allowed under the first amendment. They also discussed ways that Obama could get free health care to these women without involving the employer – Basically giving them an alternative.But the Liberals are Hell Bent on Forcing others to do their bidding whether they like it or not.

dtroutmaI see your still here spewing out non-sense. To bad! But I would never take that right away from you!

MephistopholesAbout Hobby Lobby, it is to bad that 4 of the idiots on the supreme court sided against the constitution.

do they pay for testosterone replacement Viagra, Or cialis, etc? For men of course with reproductive problems,that affect mostly their egos?

SCOTUS should be in the corner – corporations do not have religious beliefs. The owners of Hobby Lobby incorporated in order to separate themselves from the company and protect their private assets – then turn around and want to merge their private religious beliefs back with the company. You can’t have it both ways – oh wait, SCOTUS says you can (if you’re doing it to deny women access to birth control, that is).

Wasn’t Obama a professor of Constitutional law?