Please welcome this guest post by Elizabeth Yore, who served as Special Counsel at Harpo, Inc. Previously, she was General Counsel at the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services for 8 years and the General Counsel at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The imperious comments emanating from the White House Rose Garden about the Supreme Court’s deliberation of the Affordable Care Act prompted a jaw dropping collective gasp. He said, what?
Did this former constitutional law lecturer really question whether the Supreme Court, an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress?
Did he actually state, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented (inaccurate), extraordinary step of overturning (inaccurate) a law that was passed by a strong majority (factually incorrect) of a democratically elected Congress?”
His shocking and ignorant statements still reverberate through the news outlets, the legal profession, and the public. Is he that ill-informed or is he that reckless? The answer bodes danger for the country.
With kingly arrogance, Obama launched a preemptory strike on the Supreme Court. How unseemly for a President, how unethical, for an attorney. Hasn’t the public learned that you can take the man out of community organizing, but you can’t take community organizing out of the man?
Saul Alinsky would be proud.
Ah, take heart, loyal subjects, the King of Hearts decided to play, not the race card, but the populist card.
This isn’t the first royal tongue lashing focused on the highest court in the land. Who could forget when the monarch humiliated his judicial servants during his 2010 State of the Union. As Obama stood above the seated justices, he blasted the majority court for its 5-4 Decision in Citizens United vs. FEC. Welcome to the Obama reign where the rules are changed to suit the king.
It is reminiscent of the rules for Shakespeare’s aspiring King, Macbeth, “Fair is foul, and foul is fair.”
In his autobiography, We, the Judges, the very liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas explained the importance of the constitutional checks and balances upon the three branches:
“Those in power need checks and restraints lest they come to identify the common good for their own tastes and desires, and their continuation in office as essential to the preservation of the nation.”
Obama mightily resists all ‘checks and restraints’ on his power in the executive branch. When his desires aren’t fulfilled, he lashes out and creates handy scapegoats. Instead of taking the blame, like a man, he blames his predecessor, or the rich 1%, or Wall Street, or the Catholic Church, or the white policeman, or the “unelected” Supreme Court.
Politics is sport, but in Chicago, it is a blood sport with royal bloodlines.
Even the lower peons in the legal system are chastised by the throne. Lest we forget, the Obama beer summit controversy when a Cambridge police officer arrested Obama’s friend, Harvard’s Professor Henry Gates. Instead of patiently waiting for the wheels of justice to turn, Obama, ever the community organizer, inserted his own ‘taste and desires’ on a situation which he exploited for his own political benefit by race baiting and agitating the base. Never one to let the facts get in the way of a good political firestorm, his words reflect the playbook of a community organizer, hardly worthy of a President:
“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case]. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”
Arrogantly, Obama’s isn’t bothered that he doesn’t have all the facts, instead demeans the police and whips the crowd into a frenzy by playing the race card.
Saul would be proud.
Attacking the police and courts are classic Alinsky tactics. Community organizers despise the police and the courts because these institutions place limits on their radical agenda.
This is an impatient King. He spares no time for court deliberations, for police investigations, nor for the careful weighing of the facts and law. Why? He insists on dolling out his brand of street justice, using the immense power of his office to shortcut the administration of justice.
Why are these tactics so destructive to the administration of justice?
Millions of American seek justice from the legal system. The judicial system is where complaints are aired, disputes are resolved, and Americans seek justice. Courtrooms replaced the gun duels of the Wild Wild West. Peaceful coexistence exists because the framers crafted a justice system that thrives in courtrooms, free of intimidation, and ex parte communications.
Lawyers, including Obama, are charged with defending the integrity of the judicial system for the sake of their clients, and ultimately, the country.
The political stakes are high for the chief executive. If his signature legislation is found unconstitutional, in the words of Justice Douglas, his ‘continuation in office’ may be in jeopardy.
He is president, not king. He was elected, not anointed. Despite his annoyance, his power is shared with those other two pesky branches of government.
The soaring, hopeful rhetoric of the 2008 campaign has been replaced with the cynical, blaming, threatening demagoguery of a community organizer. It is dangerous, and it is breathtakingly monarchial. The strategy of personal destruction was hidden in the Uniter’s 2008 campaign, but it has reemerged with a vengeance during his presidential reign.
Were we duped by hope and change?
Our founding fathers fled the despotic monarchy of King George III, who famously remarked,
‘Lord Chancellor, did I deliver the speech well?’
‘Very well indeed, sir,’ was the enthusiastic answer.
‘I am glad of that,’ replied the King; ‘for there was nothing in it.’
© Elizabeth Yore-2012 All Rights Reserved.