It’s no secret that the Obama administration did a less-than-stellar job during last week’s Supreme Court hearings … particularly on the individual mandate.  That Solicitor General they had arguing their side couldn’t have gotten Mother Teresa off on a solicitation charge.  No surprise though.  He’s emblematic of the incompetence of most of the people Dear Ruler has placed into power in DC.  Come on:  Holder?  Geithner?  Sibelius?  You have GOT to be kidding me.

Obama smells defeat.  In fact, there are some folks in Washington who suspect that Obama has some inside information as to how the Supremes voted on this issue last Friday.  Here’s a possibility!  Kagan!  That’s right, Justice Kagan!  After all, her last job before becoming a Supreme Court Justice was that of the U.S. Solicitor General … appointed, naturally, by Obama.  Before she was named to the court she was actually helping Obama craft his defense of ObamaCare before the very court on which she now sits!  Some thought she should have recused herself from deliberations on this case.  Yeah … like THAT was going to happen.

I’m still not convinced as to how the Court will vote --- though Obama’s mouth yesterday seems to indicate that he feels his precious ObamaCare is doomed.  Be warned, however, that tenacity of the Justices’ questions and the impotence of Obama’s Solicitor General do not necessarily mean that the law will be overturned.  But ya gotta admit, it doesn’t look good for Obama and the cause of government-controlled health care. 

So in preparation for the possible demise of ObamaCare, the Democrats have taken to making accusations and excuses.  When (if) ObamaCare falls, the Democrats simply must find a way to blame it on anything but a poorly crafted legislative effort.  No!  It couldn’t be THEIR fault!  Any finding that the law is unconstitutional cannot be allowed to stand.  After all, didn’t a spokesweasel for Nancy Pelosi say that questions as to the Constitutionality of ObamaCare were “not serious questions?”  Well if Pelosi says that questions regarding Constitutionality are not serious questions, what further expert opinions could you possibly need?  Clearly, then, there’s something wrong with the Court; not with ObamaCare.  In other words, it will not be the fault of legislators who drafted the unconstitutional bill, the Democrats who passed it, or the president who signed it.    Nope.  It will be the fault of …

Activist judges! 

Yup.  That excuse came straight from Obammus himself.  Obama held a little presser yesterday, and had this to say:  “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint: that a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

So now the Supreme Court of the United States has been reduced by our Marxist ruler to the status of “a group of people?”  You will find “a group of people” waiting for a bus.  There’s “a group of people” waiting at the Publix deli just down the street even as we speak.  Groups of people congregate outside of homeless rescue missions and crack houses.  You can find “a group of people” waiting outside of a hip hop nightclub wondering which rapper is going to show up, and whether or not he can get inside without getting his ass shot.  See those guys working out with the weights over in that corner of the exercise yard at your prison?  Now THAT’S a “group of people.”  The Supreme Court is so very much more than a group of people.  These are the nine people who are charged with determining whether or not the three branches of government, the legislative, executive and judicial, are acting with in the supreme law of our land – the U.S. Constitution.  They don’t often get it right … hopefully this time they will. 

Now I know that the Constitution is nothing but a hindrance to Obama.  He no more considers the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land than I do tattoos to be attractive.  Remember … Obama is not a leader; he’s a ruler.  The co-chair of his transition team before he was sworn in made it clear what his role would be.  “We will be ready to RULE from day one,” said Valerie Jarrett.  Rulers neither need nor appreciate Constitutions … nor laws, for that matter.  They Rule. 

How about a little home-schooling!  Today, class, we define the word “ruler.”  The dictionary defines a ruler as “a person who rules, a sovereign.”  Well, class … looks like we need to go for a definition of “sovereign” to complete our assignment.  Here we go!  “Sovereign: a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.”  Well .. I think that pretty much completes our class work, don’t you?   Obama’s most trusted advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was telling us that we were about to crown a king!  A monarch!  A supreme ruler!”  Are you comfortable with that?  Well, apparently Obama is.  He never corrected Ms. Jarrett.  He simply donned the crown and moved into the Oval Throne Room in the presidential palace on Pennsylvania Avenue. 

And how does our Ruler feel about the role of the Supreme Court in protecting our Constitution?  Well yesterday Obama said: “Ultimately, I am 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.” 

Holy Cow!  Just where to you begin with that obscene utterance from our president?  This guy used to be a Constitutional law professor?  Well … uh … actually, no.  He wasn’t.  He was never a professor.  Never an assistant professor.  Instructor, maybe.  Perhaps he just graded papers.  This “Constitutional Law Professor” is an ObamaMedia myth.

There is nothing “extraordinary” about the Supreme Court overturning a law .. an act of Congress.  Happens all the time.  Been happening since 1803.  That’s when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion on the concept of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.  That was 209 years ago, and since then … well, let me just lift this paragraph out of a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning:

“Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.”

You can read the entire editorial here.

So … it turns out that overturning laws passed by democratically elected congresses is the job of the Supreme Court!  Who knew!  And if the Court does that with ObamaCare, it will be anything but “unprecedented.”  Somehow our “Constitutional Law Professor” and the editor of the Harvard Law Review (in which he never wrote a law review article) wasn’t aware of this!  If you’re surprised, you haven’t been paying attention.

But there’s a more important tell from the Oval Office Occupier here .. and that is Obama’s reference to “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”  First of all .. ObamaCare was hardly passed by a strong majority.  It received no Republican votes, and the House had to resort to legislative gimmickry to get the bill to the Ruler’s desk for a signature. Secondly … Obama’s homage to “democratically elected” is your indication that Obama believes we are a country of majority rule, rather than the rule of law.  Obama’s position seems to be that a majority vote of the Congress overrules the Constitution.  Again … this guy taught Constitutional law?  I know more about how to perform a laparoscopic tubal coagulation than Obama does about our Constitution.  I guess he just can’t be troubled to pay all that much attention to a document he despises. 

If ObamaCare is overturned, look to Caesar to start screaming “judicial activism!”  The incomparable Thomas Sowell saw this “judicial activism” ploy over ObamaCare coming over a year ago. 

You don't need to ask whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution. That key question can be sidestepped by simply calling the judge a "judicial activist."

A judge who lets politicians do whatever they want to, whether or not it violates the Constitution, never has to worry about being called a judicial activist by the left or by most of the media. But the rest of us have to worry about what is going to happen to this country if politicians can get away with ignoring the Constitution.

Howard Dean is also out there making excuses if the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare.  He also pre-emptively blames this on the political motivations of the Justices.  He told Fox News over the weekend, "This is the most political Supreme Court we've ever had, 73 percent of the American believe that politics motivates the Supreme Court. I'm one of those 73 percent."  I didn’ see his appearance, so I don’t know if he did a fist pump and screamed after that statement.  But now we know that ObamaCare will fail because the nature of the Supreme Court has changed and it is now motivated by politics … never mind that two of the Justices were appointed by Obama himself.

You might also want to keep in mind that Obama and the Supreme Court aren’t exactly buddy-buddy.  Remember, in his 2010 State of the Union address when he scolded the Supreme Court for its ruling on campaign finance reform.  He stated, "With all due deference to the separation of powers," the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."  There was the President of the United States attempting to humiliate the Supreme Court as the Justices sat right there in front of him during a State of the Union address.  Classless hack.  The court was none too pleased.  As I am sure they would not be pleased by Obama’s condemnation if his pride-and-joy, ObamaCare, is found to be unconstitutional.

This man is dangerous.  If he is not defeated this November you, my friends, may well be privileged to have lived through that portion of American history that saw the destruction of our Republic, and all that men and women have been fighting and dying for over 230 years.

You simply cannot go to sleep on this one.  Over 230 years ago patriots would wrap their bloody feet in rags and drag them across frozen ground to engage the British in the next step to independence.  Surely, on election day, you can manage to put your healthy feet into a pair of warm shoes and make your way to a voting precinct near you to preserve that independence.  Nobody will be shooting at you as they were our Revolutionary War soldiers.  (Well – Holder’s Black Panther Party may be there for a little voter intimidation .. but you can handle that.  Just look at them and say “Yo!  Where’s Moonpie?”) … and some nice ladies might even be having a bake sale. 

If you’re on the sidelines on this one, you’re backing Obama.