Are we a nation of laws? Apparently not
Some Democrats and leftist media hacks are encouraging Obama to ignore the Supreme Court if it rules against any provisions of Obamacare.
Does that reassure you--make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Or does that make your blood boil?
That should make you mad as hell--because the Supreme Court is set up by the Constitution to be the ultimate interpreter of the law. If it rules that a law or provision is unconstitutional, that should be the end of it. And if a dictator-president ignores the SC, that should be grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office.
But it gets worse: A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 26% of likely voters say the president should be able to disregard federal court rulings "if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country."
When the Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to turn over the White House tapes, he complied, even though he had to have known the tapes would incriminate him. Shortly thereafter he had the good grace to resign.
Now imagine how Obozo would react if he were to get an adverse ruling from the court on some aspect of either his illegal amnesty for illegal aliens, or on Obamacare. Does anyone believe he'd comply with the court's decision?
Of course not. He's spent his entire life bluffing his way to victory, and he ain't about to change what he sees as a fabulous winning strategy.
You need to ask yourselves if you'd rather the U.S. be a nation of laws, or one in which the law means absolutely nothing. Because if government officials flout the law you can expect the populace to feel the same way.
If our elected officials openly, brazenly ignore laws that would otherwise inconvenience them, how long can we expect the rest of society to obey those laws?
This is not a theoretical or academic question: In some parts of the U.S. mobs of teenagers of certain unspecified ethnicity beat and rob whites with no consequence. They seem to have gotten the idea that they can get away with such behavior--and so far they have. Now where do you suppose they got that idea?
Actions have consequences.
Elections have consequences.
Corrupt media can swing elections.
The end of the rule of law means...the rule of force.
Are you ready for that? Do you think that system would be better?
Now a final question: Because it seems obvious to most of us that Obozo would never obey a court order invalidating one of his brilliant "accomplishments," what are the odds that the Supreme Court will vote that the clear, explicit language of the Affordable Care Act does NOT mean what it says, solely to keep from triggering a showdown between Obama and the the Constitution?