Comments about ‘Obama administration had 'terrible, awful, horrible' year in Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, June 23 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Apparently President Obama does not have complete control over the "fundamental transformation" of our country. Before conferring Constitutional credibility as they did with Obama, maybe Harvard should impose more stringent qualifications for the presidents of their Law Review, in terms of understanding our founding document. It's hard to imagine, but the one, and pretty much only, actual accomplishment of his pre-executive resume now looks like a joke. Far and away the least qualified person ever elected president.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

jackie lifts an anti-President Obama piece from the daily beast and serves it up to the usual anti-President Obama readers...

Surprise, Surprise...

American Fork, UT

Things will get better for them here in the next week or so.

clearfield, UT

LetsDebate, I agree. Mr. Obama was a man that had every door opened to him throughout his life. He wanted Columbia, he got Columbia. He wanted Harvard Law, he got it. He wanted Law Review, he got it. He wanted President of Law Review, he got it. He got it by the way without having written anything of significance at Harvard. The President of Law Review usually has a lot of cred going in. Obama wanted the Senate, he got it. He wanted President, (after a rousing 2 year career in the Senate), he got it. I doubt anyone ever said no to the guy until he became President. And now he is finding out that the world will not revolve around him, and finally Obama has gotten an adult reality check. One most of us get in our 20's. As you said, the least qualified President ever.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

If the Court actually followed its mandate, we would never have the mess that we now have in Washington. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. No other law is superior to the Constitution, yet the Court often cites court rulings as reason for ignoring the Constitution in favor of pleasing some group that, for the moment, has caught the media's attention.

Today, in the DN, there is an article about a Court ruling 50 years ago that prohibited the reading of scripture in schools because doing that somehow violated the 1st Amendment. Even a grade-schooler can read the 1st Amendment where it explicitly tells us that Congress shall make no law pertaining to an establishment of religion. Every English teacher in America could explain to the Court what the words "an establishment of religion" mean. Together the grade-schooler and the English teacher could show that the Court had violated the Constitution, since Congress had not passed a law pertaining to an establishment of religion.

The Court will rule. Half the country will disagree. Few will take the time to see if the Court violated the Constitution.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

Mike Richards

I'am glad to read someone that thinks like I do regarding the "Establishment" clause. Clearly when the founding fathers thought to write the 1st Amendment, it was because many of them had had experience with the Church of England. They did not want a Church of America, or any other church that the state established and supported monetarily. That Supreme Courts have said that the mere mention of any religion in a publically funded place, is a violation of the clause, is an extreme interpretation that has no merit. And by the way, the 2nd half of the establishment clause says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In truth, the 1st Amendment regarding religion and Congress is a neutrality clause saying that Congress shall stay out the religious question altogether. That is how it should be interpreted by the courts.

Ogden, UT

But he got Obamacare. You know the law you have to pass to find out what is in it. And now we have immigration reform another bill that the smartest people in the world is about to ram down our throuts. And they have not read it either.

The Skeptical Chymist

@Mike Richards

In the 14th Amendment, the guarantees provided in the Bill of Rights were extended to State Government. When the Constitution was adopted, several states actually did have a State Religion. It is incorrect to claim that the First Amendment only places restrictions on what Congress can do - with the 14th amendment, those restrictions now extend to the states and other governmental entities.

@m.g.scott - I agree with you - Congress and all government entities should stay out of the religious question altogether. That is why no government sponsored entity should require people under their control (students, prisoners, members of the military) to participate in prayer or scripture readings. To do so is a gross violation of their individual right to form their own religious views.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Mike Richards and m.g.scott: You are right - a child can read their holy book/scriptures at school and they can pray at school. What they cannot do is disrupt classes or assemblies by doing so, nor can they force others to listen or participate. Additionally, teachers and administrators cannot force students to listen or participate in scriptural readings or prayers.

And the Supreme Court ruling said exactly that.

If you are going to argue against something, at least know what you are arguing against.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

Obama had an awful year in the Supreme Court? If you're talking the last 12 months, it wasn't near awful enough.

Five Supreme Court Justices will have to answer to the Almighty as to why they foolishly thought forcing their fellow man to pay "fines" or "taxes" (call them what you want) for literally choosing to do nothing (i.e., to NOT participate in 'Obamacare'). That was a win for Obama and it will be one that will prove devestating to our economy and our way of life.

Count on it.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

You'd think that someone who "knows" the Constitution should have a better passing rate than that. I guess Obama doesn't really know about anything. Maybe when he says he didn't know about Benghazi, the AP scandal, or the IRS scandal, he was telling the truth. Likewise, it would appear he doesn't know anything concerning the Constitution, the meaning of transparent and open government, economics, or integrity either.

Or, worse yet, maybe he DOES know all these things. In that case, he is more dangerous because he is deliberately trying to bring our nation down. Conclusion: Obama is either ignorant or evil. Take your pick. But.... someone that ignorant doesn't get elected twice despite lies and broken promises and a bad economy that didn't turn around like he said it would. Remember his comment about deserving to be a one-term president if the economy hadn't recovered?

Salt Lake City, UT

"Reading the tea leaves, Winkler said more losses seem imminent in ... the Defense of Marriage Act case."

I am not sure the Obama administration would view that as a loss. If their weak arguments caused the DOM to be overturned and gay marriage allowed, there may be a party at the White House.

Layton, UT

This is actually a good thing for Obama to learn. The best social changes occur not by an appeal to the courts, but by winning a political majority and passing things in legislation. Many of the issues thrown back out of the courts even this week were of the sort that even the most liberal-leaning judges (i.e. Ginsberg) hoped would be a matter that congress dealt with, rather than the courts.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments