Obama and Gingrich join forces in attacking the rule of law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 16, 2012 8:20 p.m.

    There is a remedy for Obama's dictatorial desires and Romney has the prescription. The liberals need to pay closer attention to the polls starting the end of June. What Obama needs is the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters to rally for him.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 15, 2012 5:08 p.m.

    It's getting to the point now that anything that benefits the people, is considered unconstitutional... while anything that might help some corporation or rich guy is considered completely constitutional.

    The Affordable Patient Care Act= Unconstitutional, because it helps millions of Americans and prevents insurance companies from instituting death panels for their "pre-conditions."

    The Citizens United= Completely Constitutional because it essentially legalizes the buying up of legislation and representation for CEOS, lobbyists, and rich people.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    April 15, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    Oh my gosh, what a silly letter. It's getting to the point where the phrase "constitutional scholar" essentially just means "right-wing gasbag."

    Ever since the founding of our nation, politicians have criticized judges, and the Republic still stands. While they're at it, Congress people have criticized Presidents, Presidents have criticized Senators, and the whole pack of 'em have joined together to criticize journalists. And let's not even get started on the things people say about baseball managers!

    In fact, I take issue with the phrase 'attacked the Court.' Attack implies an act of violence. All the President did was offer some criticism. Like, oh, every President ever.

    The funniest moment in this whole insane column was this phrase: "Obama articulated his view that rights are mere accommodations that may or may not be granted by the democratically elected branches of government." Really? Where, when, in what forum did he say this? That actually WOULD be extreme, if the President had ever said it, or anything like it. But of course, he didn't, What he did do was say employers have to provide appropriate and responsible health care for women. And the Republic still stands.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 15, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    Over my lifetime I believed the Supreme Court to be a friend to the people. That notion was largely based upon the isolation from party politics and private influence by the lifetime appointment policy.

    In the last few years that notion seems to no longer be true.

    The growth of business influence has reached into the Supreme Court and we have rulings like “corporations are people” and businesses owned by churches are protected from civil law under the notion of “freedom of religion”.

    The author’s seemingly distain for majority rule, indicates to me that he is a part of group wanting business interests to take over our government.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 15, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    I have to say that this op-ed left me a little more than dismayed. The author is noted as a conservative, and we know that conservatives have been railing against activist judges for several decades. Now that the activism has switched to being in their favor, the argument that conservatives are using has completely reversed. I would have expected more consistency from Mr. Smith as he was around when the tables were turned. This relativism is disheartening. It is yet another example of how many of the "principles" on which conservatives stand are actually political and self-serving. I find it amazing that Gingrich, a man who gets very little respect from me, is actually the one who is consistent to the principles of judicial activism, no matter what the issue. President Obama is playing the same tug of war separation of powers game that all Presidents have done since the early 19th Century. For that he can be forgiven if kept in proper context. But for Smith to not condemn the hyper-activism of the current Supreme Court leaves me more cynical than ever about the principles, or lack thereof, of the right.