Waaah! Democrats Crying Over Scalia’s Performance This Week

Posted by on Mar 30, 2012 at 8:18 am

This is hilarious. After having their heads handed to them this week in what some call the most brutal week of the Obama administration, crybaby Democrats are sniveling over the beatdown administered by the conservative justices, notably Antonin Scalia. The left came in unprepared to defense this abomination of Obama’s, clueless that the right has logic, the law and the American people on their side. So now having failed miserably with their silly War on Women nonsense and with the War on Limbaugh having badly backfired, get ready for the War on the Supreme Court.

Democrats are fuming over Justice Antonin Scalia’s conduct during this week’s Supreme Court deliberations on President Obama’s healthcare law.

Scalia appeared hostile to the law while several of the high court’s liberal justices seemed to cheerlead for its defense. But it was Scalia’s attitude that rubbed some Democrats the wrong way.

Scalia mocked the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” without seeming to know that provision was stripped out of the law two years ago.

Scalia also joked the task of having to review the complex bill violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

“You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he quipped. “Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one.”

Aren’t we always told conservatives have no sense of humor while unfunny so-called comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are on the cutting edge of humor? Well, here we have Scalia cracking a joke and these people are whining over it. Who are the ones with no sense of humor?

“Scalia said [Wednesday] that it was totally unrealistic to read the whole law. Sen. Nelson didn’t think it was too much for the justices to know what they’re talking about when questioning the law’s content,” said Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson.

“It seems fitting that Justice Scalia’s attempt at humor instead displayed his ignorance of the law. Sen. Nelson hopes the justice will concentrate on the actual instead of the perceived or interpreted views as he weighs the laws against the Constitution,” Thompson added.

This from a guy who sold his honor by voting for the law without ever reading it himself.  Really, you can’t make this stuff up. It’s not Scalia’s job to read 2700 pages, it’s the responsibility of those who voted for it. Or has Nelson forgotten that “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”?

meanwhile, get ready for the intimidation campaign against Scalia to take off. Just a taste:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said colleagues should not be surprised by Scalia’s behavior.

“That’s the way he always is. This after all is the man who helped push through Bush versus Gore, which every historian is going to say was a crazy thing,” Leahy said.

See, that Scalia is crazy, so how can he be trusted?

Whenever a Republican or conservative questions the credibility of a hack judge we’re lectured about separation of the branches of government, how sacrosanct judges are, blah blah blah. But when a Supreme Court justice follows the law and goes against the left’s desires, well, he’s just a little nuts, isn’t he?

If that’s not enough, there’s always guilt by association.

Scalia’s close relationship with former Vice President Dick Cheney adds fuel to Democratic doubts about Scalia’s impartiality on politically charged legal issues.

But Sotomayor and Kagan, not to mention Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, they’re above reproach.

So expect the flailing failed president to run against the Supreme Court once ObamaCare is consigned to the dustbin of history. As always, his media finds the silver lining for him in what’s sure to be a humiliating, crushing defeat.

Democratic political consultant James Carville said that if the court were to strike down the law, “the Republican Party will own the healthcare system for the foreseeable future.”

“Go see (conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia when you want healthcare,” he told CNN.

A ruling against “Obamacare”, as opponents have dubbed the law, could also take much of the steam out of an issue that has been a rallying cry for Republicans seeking to take over the White House and Senate, and keep control of the House of Representatives, in the November 6 elections.

19 Responses to “Waaah! Democrats Crying Over Scalia’s Performance This Week”

  1. BackwardsBoy on 30/30/12 at 9:24 am

    So, Carville thinks this is the only “rallying cry” for Republicans in the upcoming campaign? Not so. It’s a big one, to be sure, but it’s just the beginning.

    Everything that has been done by the 111th Congress and Obama needs to be undone. OCare is a great place to start, though.

  2. Rich K on 30/30/12 at 9:52 am

    Carville WHO? Heh, that clown has been wrong on every score since his mysoginist in chief left office back in 2000.

  3. Alec Leamas on 30/30/12 at 10:16 am

    Scalia wasn’t objecting to reading the law, he was objecting to the prospect of the Supreme Court sitting together and deciding which provisions could be severed if the mandate failed. Essentially, you would have a mini-Supreme Court case about each of the several (hundreds?) provisions, with x-number of Justices in favor of allowing each provision to stand, and x-number in favor of allowing the provision to fail with the mandate.

  4. weft cut-loop on 30/30/12 at 11:35 am

    Can’t wait for the day Carville’s head implodes into the creases of his rat face and gets sucked down to his sunken chest.

  5. Becky on 30/30/12 at 12:19 pm

    Scalia and Ginsburg are good friends and socialize outside of work, I believe.

    Humor, like decorating seems to be a matter of personal taste, and I think those who are witty (and I think Scalia is, especially here) are generally quite sharp. In a few years, Scalia’s comments will catch up with the Carvilles and Leahys. Like all liberal arguments, when they become indefensible by logic, they are defended by name calling. Getting old.

    I think to assume that the nine are oblivious to the last few years is insane. I took his amendment joke as a wink to those of us who have commented repeatedly on the massive size of the law, and the mocking of Pelosi’s “we need to pass it to find out what is in it” comment. Kagan was paid in the other branch to be partial concerning this law, and I do not know how she can do anything other than vote to uphold it.

    Gilbert Livingston, delegate in NY during the ratification process, worried about the future of politicians (thought Senators did not have sufficient checks on their power, and wanted to limit term to only 6 years in any 12) cloistering in their new city to become so corrupt they would become out of touch and wealthy, and was laughed at at the time. Wish he were here to be vindicated.

  6. Always On Watch on 30/30/12 at 12:57 pm

    Taking a case to the Supreme Court of the United States is playing in the big leagues.

    Or, “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”

    I think back to that SOTU message in which Obama scolded the Supreme Court for a recent ruling. Well, what goes around comes around — and Obama may just be finding that out in June when SCOTUS rules.

    Congress hasn’t reined in Obama. SCOTUS just might!

  7. joated on 30/30/12 at 1:04 pm

    Senator Leahy is apparently unaware that the recounts of the entire state of Florida conducted after the SCOTUS ruling in 2000 proved that Bush would have won…by an even larger margin than he was given credit for. Perhaps Leahy let his NYT subscription lapse that year. Who’s crazy?

  8. Rlynh on 30/30/12 at 1:47 pm

    I say don’t get cocky, because the Justices could still uphold Obamacare. If they do, it won’t be the left they have to fear.

  9. Merovign on 30/30/12 at 3:19 pm

    Leahy, as usual, is an abject liar. Gore is the one who went to court and tried to change election law after people voted. The SC said *no*, you can’t do that – you have to judge the election by the laws you have in place at the time.

    The left is full of abject liars, and they lie constantly because practically the entire press corps are their corrupt allies, so there’s no real penalty for them being liars.

  10. a good guy on 30/30/12 at 6:43 pm

    The socialist is charge just can’t figure how anyone would not want government to take care of you from cradle to grave. This guy was a law professor at university of Chicago and he never understood the constitution. Wonder how he ever really graduated from any school?

  11. el polacko on 31/31/12 at 2:07 am

    i am so weary of all of this. when a court decision favors ‘the left’ the opponents deride the liberal judges as ‘activists’ and, when a court decision favors ‘the right’, the opponents deride the conservative judges as ‘activists’…and back and forth we go.
    are there any independent thinkers left in this country or has all politics and justice devolved into partisan gamesmanship?

  12. horn on 31/31/12 at 12:21 pm

    Yeah, he really ‘pushed through’ that 7-2 verdict against Gore’s appeal to change vote-counting methods after the Election.

    Seven to Two.

  13. Freddie Sykes on 31/31/12 at 4:04 pm

    There are at least two overlooked FACTS in the Bush v Gore case.

    One, there were actually two rulings issued in the final result. The SCOTUS had asked the Florida Supreme Court to cite pertinent laws justifying their first ruling. The FSC did bot respond but returned a whole new ruling about vote counting methods. The SCOTUS then vote 7 to 2 to overturn this new FSC ruling. That is right: 7 justices ruled against Gore. Only then did the Court voted 5 to 4 to end the debacle rather than giving the FSC a 3rd try.

    Two, after this ruling ended the election, many major newspapers sent reporters to Florida to do their own recount. The results?


    Newspapers’ recount shows Bush prevailed

    By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

    George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida’s disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 “undervote” ballots that were at the center of Florida’s disputed presidential election.

  14. Blue Hen on 2/02/12 at 12:28 pm

    are there any independent thinkers left in this country or has all politics and justice devolved into partisan gamesmanship?

    Good question. Why don’t you address it to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Leahy? Ya know, the guy that gets paid over $100k in taxpayer dollars to whore out the process?