Battlefield: SCOTUS

We have an emerging crisis and battlefield developing in the war against America. 

With the comments made over the last several days, a new narrative has begun to emerge for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.   As he “threatened” the Supreme Court, Obama showed his intentions to run against an “activist” court, signaling he seems to expect (already knows?) that an overturn is coming.

During his absurd rambling, Obama used two important terms in reference to SCOTUS and the ObamaCare case:  “unelected” and “unprecedented”

“…that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law…”

By singling out this “unelected group of people”, the President has begun to play to the uneducated masses. His hope lies on mobilizing individuals to outrage not only at the upcoming ObamaCare decision, but also the Court itself. With no knowledge of how the checks-and-balance system works, it easy to see how many could be shocked that nine “unelected” justices could determine the fate of laws. This ploy is very dangerous and could be effective for the President because of the multiple generations raised under the government-ran public education system.

It is not enough to convince the public that the Supreme Court is “unelected”, as they will not grasp this concept alone. There must be an element of rebellion against the President and the perceived public will. This is where “unprecedented” came into play when the President continued his remarks:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

By setting the expectation that the Court will uphold the President’s law, the belief is created that the Court has little involvement in government’s creation of laws.  The combination of these two concepts allows for the formation of President Obama’s main goal in attacking the court:

De-legitimize the U.S. Supreme Court and show it irrelevant to today’s United States.  

The result of this goal is twofold and extremely dangerous if accomplished.  The first part is to aid and expand Obama’s campaign message of “It’s not my fault!”  It has already been accepted that a “Do-Nothing Congress” portrait will be painted this fall by the Administration, as the GOP-controlled House has put the brakes on their agenda for the last two years.  To deflect against the President’s shortcomings and the floundering economy, “Obama2012” is now deflecting attention toward an “Activist Court” as well.   In doing so, they will have created an election message that pits the Presidency against an obstructionist Congress and misunderstood Supreme Court.

In a society conditioned to love drama, their hope is that this perceived power struggle will give way to a sympathetic view of Obama’s first term.

The second goal is more threatening to our current system of government, as there is little doubt Obama will go down swinging if he loses this November.  If at all possible, President Obama is attempting to place as much public skepticism and doubt around our most misunderstood branch of government.

Once again, due to government-ran public education, it may not be a difficult task.  The Supreme Court is not directly elected and is the only branch of government that is intended to not consider the will of the people.  Very few realize that the Court’s only intended role is to interpret law and the Constitution, not what is popular or what benefits the majority of the public.  As the media drums up an overturn of ObamaCare as “activism”, a potential tide of public sentiment could be created over time as public schools and college classes switch into full courses of progressive revisionism. While this may take years, it has become apparent that liberals are extremely patient.

If placement of anger and fear of this “unelected” group’s decisions can be successfully implemented, the United States’ entire system can be opened for challenge and re-examination.  Commentators and legislators will bow to perceived public outcry that the Court is, in fact, unnecessary since laws are passed by “elected” officials.  While perhaps losing in the general election, Obama would still go down in history as the progressive liberal hero who began the restructuring of the U.S. government. Again, these changes would not occur overnight, but rather through multiple future years of continuing the premise that the Court is a relic.

If this scenario seems unlikely, then consider that only days after the President’s comments, David Dow from The Daily Beast has already written an article calling for the impeachment of the five conservative Justices if they overturn ObamaCare in a 5-4 ruling. The title of his inane article is, “Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law”.  Within a day of this article, Maureen Dowd, who’s vocal opinion counts only to show a look inside the liberal mind, referred to SCOTUS as “hacks dressed up in black robes…”

While some may shake their heads now, this is the playbook and game plan we will be facing this November and perhaps in years to come.  As liberal ideas continue to fall short and fail intense scrutiny, their proponents are turning to refocus on damaging or completely removing entire branches of government.  With roles significantly lessened, their ideology can thrive on the absence of debate and challenge.

There is one major ray of hope throughout this entire scenario.  ObamaCare would have to be overturned for this strategy to play out to its fullest.  In this case, no one could deny that Conservatism would have given the first blow in this new battlefield.  This overturn could give conservatives the springboard needed to begin to express and explain our constitutional principles and beliefs in a way not seen since Reagan. This is why it is crucial that we are vigilant in relentlessly preaching the dangers of government overreach and praising the concepts of individual responsibility and liberty. 

Conservatism cannot afford to lose the battle around the integrity and relevance of the Supreme Court.

Perspective on the Limbaugh Boycott Movement

Freedom of speech!

Love him or hate him:  There really isn’t any middle ground when it comes to Rush Limbaugh and his EIB Network.   So there is no reason to debate his actions, words, or show at this time.  If possible, remove him from this whole issue for a moment and remove Bill Maher and Louis CK as well.

Ask yourself if you believe in free speech.

If you believe in the 1st Amendment, then consider why you or anyone would support a boycott of a citizen exercising this precious right.  It is a dangerous slope to be on when we begin to call for economic intervention against individuals who say things that are off-color or outside the box of politically correct barriers.  In a world where we worry so much about safety, we often neglect the safety of our constitutional rights.  Consider that when we call for companies to boycott an individual or a network for language used or comments made, we are saying that the accused stepped outside the bounds of their right to free speech.

Does free speech have a limit?  Certainly, when it causes direct, indisputable physical damage to others, it can be curtailed to a degree.    Yet, with every boycott demand, the dissidents out there are saying that they believe that the word “slut” is beyond the acceptable bounds.

Is it possible that such individuals only believe in free speech when it agrees with them?  Is it even remotely possible that this freedom protects people who use inflammatory word?

Don’t misunderstand me; people are exercising their right to voice their opposition to comments as well. I support their right to call for boycotts; and I even support the right of Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a c***.  Yet, one can use a constitutional right to inhibit others’.

Public discourse is what was intended to be protected by the founding fathers, even if in the most outrageous terms.  Why?  Without it, the walls of our freedom close in. We become silenced by the fear of repercussions of our words.  There are multiple examples throughout history of nations that limited their citizen’s freedom of speech and they all have at least one common denominator: they all had significantly less free societies than the United States has today.

Instead of using our right to free speech trying to restrict others’ speech through boycotts and advertiser complaints, let’s exercise our right to voice our opinions for and against those who speak publicly.

Unless, of course, you believe that the 1st Amendment applies only when you agree.