The Supremes may strike down ObamaCare but it will remain constitutional in Obama Bizzaro World

President Obama has launched multiple political attacks in the media against the Supreme Court and their potential ruling throwing out ObamaCare in June. For the second time in the past 7 days his use of words has come into question. This time it is not his understanding or misuse of the words “subsidies” and “taxes”, but rather his understanding of the word “unprecedented”.

First let’s all familiarize ourselves with the definition of the word “unprecedented“: without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled: an unprecedented event.

As Kyle Wingfield points out so deftly in his article, Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’ Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the meaning of “unprecedented”, the history of Supreme Court rulings or what makes a law constitutional. If his lack of understanding extends to all of the above then we are all in deep doo-doo.

…the Supreme Court has been overturning laws — which necessarily have been passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress — since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison decision. By this count citing the Government Printing Office, the court declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional between 1789 and 2002, which works out to one about every 16 months. Which strikes me as “precedented.”

Now, com’on, is this really the smartest guy in every room he’s in?

Perhaps — as he continually explains to the country and the world — it’s not his fault. One possible reason for it not being his fault would be his education. I know you’re going to say, “How could it be the fault of his education when he went to Columbia and Harvard?” What if he took U.S. Constitution 101 in Derrick Bell’s class? Since Professor Bell didn’t follow the curriculum for that class he taught at Stanford his students lacked the prerequisite knowledge to build a solid understanding of the U.S. Constitution. So if Bell continued to teach that class as he did at Stanford and Obama took that class from him that lack of a constitutional foundation explains why President Obama governs 180 degrees in its opposite direction.

However, that does not explain his inability to use words correctly.  I humbly suggest that he hire tutors to help him with his constitutional issues and his recent vocabulary problems.

In addition to Obama’s preemptive verbal ridicule of the “unelected” Supreme Court Justices he suggests to them publicly that they use “empathy” for those  adult “children” — an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one — who now have extended health care insurance on their parents policies and will not if ObamaCare is overturned.

I have empathy for my fellow citizens and for the hardships they have endured under the Obama administration, but I have none for the persons inflicting those hardships.

Mr. Obama is looking less presidential with each passing day and appears to have more in common with Homer Simpson — the animated glow-in-the-dark nuclear plant worker — than he does with the former presidents (Lincoln, FDR, JFK and recently Reagan) he likens himself to.

Life is good in Obama Bizzaro World where he is always right and is never wronwro…at fault.


About FishyGov

Practicing Independent Conservative and recovering Liberal celebrating 20 years of political sobriety.

2 thoughts on “The Supremes may strike down ObamaCare but it will remain constitutional in Obama Bizzaro World

  1. Pingback: The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court – John Malcolm

  2. Pingback: Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare – John Malcolm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s