Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Barry

This, arguably, is the date on which Barry lost the upcoming election. I am not a lawyer, and most certainly not a constitutional law professor, but Barry is both. How is it that I, ignoramus that I am, know more US constitutional law than he does? Damn it, I’m not even a US citizen, let alone President of the United States.

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.

And I — I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that, uhhh, an uninelected, uhhh, group of — of people would somehow overturn, uhhh, a duly constituted and — and passed, uh, law. Uh, well, uh, uh, is a good example. Uhh, and I’m pretty confident that this, — this court will recognize that, uh, and not take that step.

Sigh.

Really?

Does he truly know so little of US Constitutional history and the role of the Supreme Court? Does he really not understand the other branches of the government of which he is part?

Remember the Cairo speech? Where he referred to himself as a student of history and then went on to demonstrate his ignorance of Islam and the United States over the previous 232 years? There was no point talking about this back then, Barack Obama was the most intelligent President in modern history, and no demonstration of ignorance or foolishness was going to change that….

Until yesterday.

Seriously, it has been building, and yesterday the dam wall broke.

So, consider, was George Dubbya Bush an intellectual? Not on your nelly sport. Did he present himself as an intellectual?

Hahahahaha.

Of course not. He didn’t even try.

Was Dubbya an intelligent and informed man? Too right he was. His style of speech was folksy, and he wasn’t an orator, but he was no fool either.

Now take Barry. Is he an intellectual?

No.

No he is not.

Does he present himself as one? Why yes. Yes he does.

Barack Obama is a fool. He is an accomplished orator, provided he has a chance to practice and has a teleprompter handy, but that is the limit of his ability. What he is, is ignorant. I don’t know if he is an intelligent man, but any law school pre entrant should know more constitutional law than does this man.

The days are over when a commentator could seriously refer to Barry’s intelligence, and get away with it. As from yesterday he would be a laughing stock.

From here on he is a joke. Seriously. If one of his sycophants out there wibbles on about his intelligence and intellectual attainments, laugh in their face. Those days are over.

Go read the Powerline commentary. See how Barry went on to turn error into high farce.

38 Comments

  1. Kevin B says:

    I wonder if the MSM is having any regrets about its failure to investigate Obama’s past?

    Nah.

    Meanwhile, I wonder why the US is going down the pan when they have laws like these, (in the Powerline link), on the books?

    To name just a few examples a great deal more recent than 1905, the Court ruled unconstitutional provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that had permitted only “for cause” removal of members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in 2010; the 1990 Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act in 2001 (this case was actually quite similar to Obamacare because the Court held unconstitutional provisions that required mushroom growers to contribute to mushroom promotion programs); provisions of the Patent and Plant Variety Remedy Clarification Act, the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, and the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in 1992; the Harbor Maintenance Tax Act in 1998;

    The fucking Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Inforfuckingmation Act. For fuck’s sake. All the graft, all the lobbying, drafting and debating; all the bureaucracy set up to administer the fucking thing, and all the lawyer’s fees as the execrable monstrosity was dragged through the various court cases and appeals to get the fucking thing on the Federal law books.

    Our world is in the best of hands.

  2. CountingCats says:

    Now, now,

    We don’t want you to burst a blood vessel there.

    I am sure that if you had calmed down, counted to twenty, and thought a little about what you were saying, you could have inserted at least another half dozen ‘fucks’ into that.

  3. Red Admiral says:

    Maybe we’re going to have another Worcester v. Georgia 1832, where the executive ignores the Supreme Court.

  4. Mr Ecks says:

    The Supes have not covered themselves in glory so far. Two days ago they ruled that anybody arrested in the US for any reason can now be strip searched. As if that won’t be abused by bluebottles looking to punish people for “contempt of cop”.

  5. NickM says:

    Mr Ecks has a point. Bu Kevin and the ‘shrooms. Just sayin’.

    Anyway Cats I think you make an assumption here… You assume ignorance and not informed malice. It is entirely possible that Obama knows full well the constitution. Also, frankly for all his sins of omission or commission is Obama actually that differrent from Duby or indeed Romney? The most remarkable thing about election 2012 is that the Republicans have split into “Careful now!” Romneyites and frothing at the mouth elders of the future Republic of Gilead (that’s you Rick!) whereas Gary Johnson got nowhere. Are they too haunted by Goldwater’s failure to break their bi-polarism between a consensus that nobody wants (Romney’s “Whatever-ism) and chucking a bone to the religious right.

    Let’s state facts here. Johnson got nowhere despite being a two term governor who got state-spending under control, seems a generally admirable chap and doesn’t fucking witter on about homosexuality all the fucking time.

    Newt Gringrich is of course the comic relief. Let’s build cities on the moon! Oh, for fuck’s sake!

    I am no Obama fan and as ever I support (to the extent it matters to this Brit) having a congress against the Prez so nowt get’s done because most of it is reprehensible one way or another.

    Anyway, back to my basic point. Johnson ought to be a stormer. That he isn’t and a complete fucking mentalist like Santorum can be seen as a front-runner. It upsets me.

  6. CountingCats says:

    It may be informed malice, but that is irrelevant. It was such an absurd comment, followed by further absurdities, that the damage was done regardless.

    Whichever it was, the man is seen to be an ignorant fool. His image is shattered.

  7. NickM says:

    Cats,
    I want you to think on what you just said in that comment and get back to me. I would also like you to think about precisely why you said what you did in your comment. Just the comment.

  8. Paul Marks says:

    Well Rick (although a Catholic) would be with those rebel Babtists BRIEFLY mentioned “The Handmaid’s Tale”. In a rare moment of partial honesty the author half admits that the Republic of G. is rabidly ANTI traditional in its theology – in the story real Chritians are up in the hills, but this is mentioned so briefly that most readers will miss it. After all the main purpose of the book is to smear Christianity (and to distract attention from where the threat to freedom really comes from), the reference to the rebel Babtists is a fig leaf to cover the author from complaints.

    Still that is by-the-by as Santorum has no chance (and never did) – nor does he even deserve a chance, as he walks into every leftist “gotcha” question as if he was six years of age.

    Turning to the actual freaking post…..

    Judge Smith down in Houston has asked an Obama Administration Justice Department person (engaged in an Obamacare case before his court) to provde a formal document giving the Obama Administration position on Judicial Review.

    This document must be at least three pages long and single spaced.

    There are also other conditions laid down (to prevent a joke reply).

    The document must be before the court of Judge Smith within 48 hours.

    Or local employees of the Justice Department will be held in Contempt of Court.

    This (the denial of the idea that courts can uphold the Constitution) is rather serious.

    Of course courts have often failed in their duty in the past, but no President (not FDR – no one) has ever formally denied the existance of the power of “Judicial Review” before.

    So can we please stop the Republican bashing – and consider the fact that Barack Obama is de facto threatening the establishment of a totaltarian system.

    The mask he normally wears slipped – and his true face was (for a moment) seen.

  9. Paul Marks says:

    Just in case someone does not get the point….

    I am not aware of Mitt Romney denying the existance of the power of Judicial Review – i.e. the power to strike down Acts of Congress or Executive Orders.

    However, if a President Romney ever did so I would support (support 100%) “Judge Dredd” down in Houston going after him as well.

    I also remind British readers that a senior Federal Judge (such as Judge Smith in Houston) has armed men (U.S. Marshalls) under his orders – and may order them to arrest people for contempt of court.

    Including employees of the U.S. Justice Department who have come before his court in an Obamacare case.

    Which they have.

    Should there be physical resistance to such arrests (should the demanded document not be delivered to the court within 48 hours) then the Judge may appeal to State and local law enforcement officers to assist in the arrests.

    In Texas this means the Texas Rangers (formally speaking – the Texas State Police).

    Lethal force may be used if there is physical resistance to arrest.

    Should the A.G. (Erick Holder) or his superior (President Barack Obama) come within the area covered by the court (say in a campaign stop) and also do not respond to the formal demand for the document covering their position on Judicial Review in relation to the case OF WHICH THEY ARE A PARTY before the court of Judge Smith, they also would be subject to arrest.

    And, should members of the Secret Service, physically resist such arrests then lethal force may again be used.

    I would strongly advice the Justice Department to present the document (in terms that meet to Judge Smith’s satisfaction) before the court within the 48 hours.

  10. CountingCats says:

    Nick,

    Wot?

    You’re being cryptic, or I’m being thick.

    I firmly believe Barry has shot himself in the foot.

  11. JuliaM says:

    Oh, if only…

  12. NickM says:

    Paul,
    I believe that you are utterly wrong on Atwood’s book. Partially because I suspect everyone gets from a book what they put into it. Yes, she is a socialist. So was George Orwell. One point you allude to is very interesting – them Baptists in the hills. Now both Orwell (We have always been in War with East Asia) and Atwood who I think deliberately (in the form of Orwell) messes with geography. Why? Totalitarianism is intrinsically based on geography so Atwood never state exactly what the extent is. Literally that adds to the feeling of extreme claustrophobia. In any case there could only be very vague rumours about the renegade Baptists or others because it is a first person narrative of someone living in a totalitarian state.

    I re-read it recently. It’s a brilliant book. Is it a feminist tome? Maybe but that isn’t a bad thing in itself. If one political thingie influenced it’s writing it was probably the Iranian revolution. Anyway I think it a vastly more nuanced and universal book than a book for a bunch of bra-burners and did wymyn’s studies in the seventies and thought not shaving their legs would bring down patriarchal oppression or sell more Che T-shirts. Note in the book the handmaid on more than one occasion regrets her lack of a razor and her hairy legs (they are banned due to the suicide of handmaids) . There are also frequent flash-backs to her earlier days as a free young woman sun bathing in the park.

    Atwood writes brilliantly about being in the prison but as to how that comes about she also does very well and if she has one barrel on the “religious right” she also has one on what IanB would call the “proggy left”. It majestically shows how these strange bed-fellows come together and enact hell.

    Santorum is on record as comparing homosexuality to bestiality and peadophilia (in a major Catholic paper). Is that someone who ought to run a whelk stall? I know gay and lesbian people. A gay friend of mine recently got a small terrier-ish dog. He loves that pooch (not like that!). Santorum actually publically stated that it would be much the same morally if this guy did love his dog like that. It is almost too absurd to be lamentable.

    But ultimately it comes down to the simple fact that a text is nothing until it is read. If you honestly believe that “The Handmaid’s Tale” is an argument for differently abled feminazis in Mao suits and crew-cuts breaking wind in the palaces of the once mighty that is down to you and not the book.

    There is a subtle point here. By assuming that words are fact before being interpretated you assume whatever spin you have on them is universal. So you read that book as a vile lefty tome. I didn’t read it as that. I read it as a study in tyranny (it did a number on trust – not knowing if you can trust someone else is a key tool of tyranny) and it did it via a theocracy.

    You recall the gubbermunt anti-HIV ad from years ago about how in terms of infection everyone you have sex with is like having sex with everyone they ever had sex with? Reading is a bit like that. What you bring to a novel and how you choose to see it at least as important as ink on paper.

    I actually think quite posmodernly you know. Apart from maths upon which I am a Platonist.

    God that sounds pretentious so I shall stop ;-)

  13. RAB says:

    Haven’t read the book, will give it atry and get back to you.

    So let’s cut to the chase, Barry.

    Cats, do you think that the American voters will care or notice that Barry, a supposed clever man and expert on the Constitution, appears not to know his arse from his elbow about it? I think not. They will vote along the usual tribal lines and about all the usual tribal topics.

    I’m sick of being told obvious fuckwits are clever by the way. The British media kept saying it about Gurnin Gordon, with no proof being proffered whatsoever. Clever at being a devious vicious cunning cunt perhaps, but Economics? Not a chance!

    As for Barry’s stratospheric intellect, where is the proof? Do we even know if he had a First or a Desmond? Has anyone laid eyes on his Master thesis? To my knowledge no.

    And a great Orator? Well I can’t see it. Even with an autocue, he delivers speeches in Yorkie sized bites of three or four words at a time (your quote above captures this perfectly Cats) like he doesn’t understand a word that has been written for him and off the cuff he is clueless.

    Reagan was an orator, Clinton even, This man is a fuckin robot.

  14. dfwmtx says:

    We wasted time asking for his birth certificate when we should’ve been asking for his college transcripts.

    And Barry’s “I’ve traveled to 57* states in the Union” comment was never replayed over and over on TV like Bush’s gaffes were. Funny; I know libs believe the US is some sort of evil empire, but I don’t know any way of territories, protectorates, and overseas military bases which gives one the 57 figure. Maybe he got it off the Heinz bottle like about famous progressive did in the movie “THe Manchurian Candidate”.

    *Maybe he said 54. DUnno. THe Media has already sent Barry’s comment down the Memory Hole.

  15. NickM says:

    RAB,

    I actually think Obama is quite a good speaker.

    As to Brown. He was the ultimate emperor’s new clothes merchant. He, or rather his script-writers, made shit-up. The journalists didn’t understand a word so assumed he must be very clever. It’s like reversing the polarity of the neutron flow.

    Cats,
    What I was driving at is that you said he was thick. I said he could have been not thick but malicious (he wouldn’t be the first US prez to regard the Constitution as bumpf) and then you came back with “Yeah but he’s now made an arse of himself”. Maybe, maybe not but there is no logical progression in your argument and it sounded cheap. It’s like saying Eddington was wrong on the Chandrasekher limit because he did favours for sailors and not because he didn’t know QM.

  16. Ian B says:

    Well, the quote to me just seems to be a veiled threat in the style of FDR. Not nice, but not new either.

    I’ve always thought, well thought for a long time, since I started thinking about these things, or a bit after actually, anyway, I think myself that the Supreme Court is the biggest error in the US Constitution. I think Jefferson realised it too, when they so rapidly declared themselves guardians of the Constitution, and thus its interpreters. The US Con was a major improvement on the English one, but with hindsight had a number of serious errors in it, and IMV the Supreme Court is one of them.

    But then you know me, I want to abolish judges-as-we-know-them anyway. Very bad idea, judges.

  17. Mr Ecks says:

    Looking forward to the Texas Rangers vs The Secret Service shoot out.

    Ten quid on the Rangers.

  18. NickM says:

    Interesting point Ian. An example of course is abortion. The fact abortion rights are predicated on a supreme court ruling on the basis of the fourth amendment.

  19. Paul Marks says:

    Nick you persist in ignoring the actual post and going off on tangents.

    However, as I do that also, I will follow you.

    “the hills” was (I thnk) added by me – I just remember rebel Babtist groups being hunted down in Atwood’s story (that they were up in the hills is a guess on my part).

    Santorum does NOT believe that homosexual acts should be illegal – not in Federal law and not in State law either (although, of couse, States have a right to ban these acts if they want to do so – he does NOT believe they should do so).

    As to what he compares homosexual acts to….

    Well he can compare a homosexual act to the square root of minus one for all I care – as long as he does not want to use the criminal law to ban them.

    But it is a total waste of time to discuss Santorum any way.

    I repeat what I have said MANY times.

    He has no chance, he never did.

    And (of course) he does not deserve a chance – because of the stupid way he replies to questions (he walks into every trap).

    For example, do you remember the “quote trick” (you must do – everyone comes upon in their school days).

    Someone will say something innocent sounding (or even quite sensible) and say “do you agree with that”.

    And if you say “errr yes…” they will promptly say “you have just agreed with Adolf Hitler” (or Vlad the Impaler or ….) and your name will be mud in the playground for a day or so.

    Well I watched Rick Santorum fall for that trick.

    Not when he was six years old – but only a couple of weeks ago. If was a quote about not radically changing the structure of the army in time of war, “do you agree with that” said the Fox News person. And Rick said “errr yes”.

    Only to be then told that it was a quote from F.D. Roosevelt about not letting blacks into ordinary army units.

    Ann Coulter (not the kindest of women) was laughing like a demon when she found about this blunder by Father Rick.

    Nick you think Santorum is a bigot – I think he is worse than that.

    I think he is THICK.

  20. Paul Marks says:

    To get back to the actual post……

    All three judges on the Fifth Circuit have signed on to Judge Dredd’s (I mean Judge Smith’s) formal demand that the local office of the Justice department (with is before him on an Obamacare case) write the letter accepting the power of Judicial Review.

    The Obama people now have till tomorrow moring (Houston time) to produce the letter.

    Or the local Obama people get to go a to big house where acts that Rick Santorum does not approve of take place.

  21. Philip Scott Thomas says:

    Apart from maths upon which I am a Platonist.

    Please, God, no. Not you, Nick. An Aristotelian at the least.

  22. Philip Scott Thomas says:

    Oops. My (tag) bad.

  23. NickM says:

    PST,
    Just testing… But you do know that mathematical platonism has very little to do with Plato don’t you?

    There are essentially three basic viewpoints on mathematics.

    1. Platonism. It is true facts about real things.

    2. It’s no really than chess. It might be true but it ain’t real.

    3. Constructivism. A sort of halfway.

  24. Philip Scott Thomas says:

    But you do know that mathematical platonism has very little to do with Plato don’t you?

    Erm, no. I didn’t know that. Sorry.

    My speciality is philophy, so Plato is something of a hate figure.

  25. RAB says:

    Erm… excuse me for butting in, but I thought Euclid was the kiddie for maths?

  26. CountingCats says:

    I’m instituting a new personal policy for the posts I produce, and just pointing out that the discussion about fundamental mathematical philosophy is, while both interesting and potentially of value, kinda off topic for the posting……

    Wanna keep comments pertinent?

    If not, then fine, but just a thought.

  27. NickM says:

    I was on topic and just clearing something up.

    Paul, It’s nearly 1am so I shall reply later.

  28. CountingCats says:

    Yeah, but everyone else was heading down that track. Just thought I would say something before they traveled too far….

  29. RAB says:

    Well I’m just happy if people actually read and comment on my posts, in whichever way they please. Nobody has noticed my comments about my wife retiring last friday, or commenting on that, it seems.

    And you still haven’t commented on my very on topic post above on whether this matters a flying fuck to the average American voter.

    The Washington Post thinks not, in fact it is just a Judicial Tantrum. Ho hum for America and the Constitution then?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/disorder-in-the-court/2012/04/04/gIQAvByOvS_blog.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

  30. Bod says:

    I’ll answer that for a dollar, RAB.

    You’re right; the tribalism of the US electorate is such that people like Van Jones can say (with a precision and level of truth he’s not normally known for) that Obama can rely on 95% of the black vote, even if he came out as a gay man. Whether this is one of those ‘out of the mouths of babes’ moments or not isn’t particularly germane, but the guy is right. It’s one example of tribalism, and there are many on display; indeed, more each day.

    When you look at what constitutes a ‘landslide’ in presidential elections, the results come in at closer than 60%/40%. That means that people like Jimmy Carter – f’in JIMMY CARTER could still rely on 4 out of 10 of the voters to think he had done a bang-up job and was fit for the CEO of the US job for another 4 years.

    I swear, this democracy thing is so broken.

  31. NickM says:

    “Nobody has noticed my comments about my wife retiring last friday, or commenting on that, it seems.”

    You had an interview with a guy from The Police (I mean the band, I am not incinerating anything – well other than a fag for which I shall surely go to Hell* because there is a maternity hospital 6 miles from here and they have baybees).

    Anyway. Yes, RAB completely forgot where I was going with that but yes, I did note your comment. The problem is I for a very long time have been thinking of posting on MoD arseholery and I’m like Father Ted and Mrs Doyle keeps on making tea endlessly. I was actually just thinking after I saw The Sun headline on the RAF tankers. I dunno the truth of any of that but I do know the very similar KC-X in the USA project turned into an utter fiasco. The problem I have is I think I could write this stuff up but I simply don’t have the hours in the day to do that here for no monies.

    RAB, I actually thought about your wife and stuff after I saw that on The Sun. The problem is If get into stuff like that and n it is very difficult to blog on because it’s like congealed toffees – there is always another thing, must be to book on (I know!).

    It just isn’t blogging material. Why do you think I tend to write the funnies here?

    *For which I care not. I have not made my bed (literally – I slept under a bare duvet last night – doing a bit of a spring sort-out) yet I shall lie in it and if the Devil’s jazz club and S&M dungeon is anything it’s cracked up to be than an eternity there is infinitely preferable to an eternity in righteous heaven at composting seminars. The Quakers are big on composting. This gives me sustainable ideas.

  32. Kevin B says:

    Nick, here’s Obama displaying some of those great oratorical skills.

  33. Paul Marks says:

    Nick is right about the mathematics (in relation to basic philosophy) point.

  34. NickM says:

    Paul,
    I’m sorry but you know about my Quacking duties and all and the date. As a maths point my wife’s Bible actually has a set of ways to work out Easter based on astro-calc. I was taught celestial mechanics (they call it solar system dynamics now) by Carl Murray (who must be good because he is on the telly quite a bit) and it is nails stuff and when the disturbing function is introduced in it’s full panoply (to fourth order it becomes sureally but it was nothing to working out Easter. So I been busy is all. Not working out Easter. I just know that when ASDA try and sell me chocolate eggs.

    Anyway, my argument was not whether or not Rick Santorum was trying to ban homosexual acts (and I didn’t say that) but that what he did say was grotesquely offensive. I have no problem with that in the sense that he ought to go to jail for it or whatever but I have a problem with it (and so does he – in a way) because clearly it means he is a foul bigot from a by-gone age* who I and many others wouldn’t vote for. Moreover if you believe “the left” has a ratchet then so does “the right”. By which I mean if I were a gay or lesbian American (like arch evil villain Dick Cheney’s daughter) I would worry. The de-normalisation of non-procreative sex is the right’s version of the left’s de-normalisation of, say, smoking.

    *The “gays = peadophiles” is illustrative on that specific point.

  35. Andrew Duffin says:

    He’ll still win, though.

    You see if he doesn’t.

    Look at the opposition – omg.

  36. Edward Lud says:

    NickM, a gay chap I know recently told me that he preferred sex with men because sex with women was boring. I quote verbatim. It called to my mind Ayn Rand’s controversial claim that homosexuality was a result of “psychological errors”.

    I must confess that, taking the two claims together, as well as anecdotal evidence of traditional homosexual practices which seem often to have been a rite of passage as much as a permanent defining personal characteristic, I am inclined to think that there are (for want of a better word) grades of homosexuality, grades which are more or less open to change. This may be a different way of making a very old point, namely that there’s a degree of homosexuality in everyone.

    But if sexual preference in these matters is to some extent a question of time, place, mood, whatever, if some gay people are motivated to be gay not by being repelled by the opposite sex or even by being attracted by the same sex, then they have very refined and rarefied tastes indeed. Fair enough. But I’m not sure I see a material distinction between deliberate and exquisite perversity in matters of hetero/homosexuality, on the one hand, and, for instance, miscegenation or bestiality, on the other, so much as I suspect they’re points on a continuum. Those points may be more or less icky, depending on your perspective, but I am no longer convinced that unusual sexual tastes are DNA hardwired.

    None of this should be taken as expressing any view of morally normative sexual behaviour (although for my own part I like to think of debauchery as either part of my youth or as an aspect of a true loving relationship), just that analytically I think Santorum (“the frothy mix of faecal matter and lube”, btw… Teh gays have had their revenge) might have a point. Whether or not he’s too stupid to understand why is another matter.

    I should add that I have no brief for the man and am unfamiliar with his musings beyond what I’ve read of them on this here blog.

  37. [...] I reiterate, I simply do not believe that Barry will continue to get the free passes he has been able to expect so far. Those days are gone. [...]

  38. [...] I reiterate, I simply do not believe that Barry will continue to get the free passes he has been able to count on to date. Those days are passed. [...]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: