Should King Obama be intimidating The Supreme Court?

[Paul Wharton]

I just read a segment about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts,
in which Rush Limbaugh said:

"...back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal
circles that a key vote was taking place and that Roberts was feeling
tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the
mandate."

Yesterday, Obamacare and its mandate was upheld in a 5-4 decision with
John Roberts writing the majority opinion.

I think the actions of Barack "The Kenyan" Obama have earned him a new
title:
King Barack "The Kenyan" Obama. After all, if the U.S. Congress is
forced to vote for bills without even being able to read them ahead of
time, that essentially nullifies Congressional powers. And, if
Supreme Court Justices are reliant upon the executive branch to manage
their security and protect them, but the "King" refuses to execute
state, federal, and above all of this--Constitutional Law, and not
only that, but goes out of his way to aggressively intimidate the
office holders of the other branches of American government, then we
are no longer a Constitutionally Limited Republic, but instead a
tyrannical monarchy.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

[Paul Robinson]

On Jun 29, 1:55 am, Paul Wharton <paulwhar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>  After all, if the U.S. Congress is
> forced to vote for bills without even being able to read them ahead of
> time, that essentially nullifies Congressional powers.

Bzzt! Try again. Nobody held a gun to their head, they chose to go
along. Politicians are basically dishonest, any of them could have
said that they would not vote for anything that they couldn't read.
Any of them could have made a public announcement for printing in the
Congressional Record saying it was wrong.

But none of them did anything to show opposition. They went right
along with everything.

A half dozen members could have froze everything and forced it to be
made public. A motion to adjourn is always in order, is privileged
and cannot be tabled. One of them, when the bill that they weren't
allowed to read came on the floor, could have moved to adjourn,
another could have seconded, and demanded a vote, then when the
Speaker said the motion failed, asked for a vote, which would require
every member to come back to the floor. And if not enough showed up,
suggest an absence of quorum. And then after the first motion to
adjourn fails, someone else can suggest an absence of quorum, which
drags everyone back. Then move to adjourn again. Tie them up in
knots until they legitimately release a readable bill and refuse to
allow that sort of garbage to continue.

I mean, I'm not even that familiar with parliamentary procedure or
Robert's Rules of Order but I know a few things.

[1Z]

On Jun 29, 6:55 am, Paul Wharton <paulwhar...@comcast.net> wrote:

> in which Rush Limbaugh said:

Fail!