Posts
You know every time
Just a fact; he's the Regime's 'mouthpiece'.
Like last Wednesday.
Mister Carney attempted to explain away the disparaging remarks his boss--"Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist"--made, relative to the perceived position of the Supreme Court's Justices in deciding owe-bamaKare's mandating the purchase of health insurance. Let's refresh with the "Clown Prince's" blather concerning the audacity of the Supreme Court:
"We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce--a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre New Deal."
....and this:
"....the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
....and this:
"....I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jusrisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has. As a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies."
....and this, from Monday's Rose Garden blather:
"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'd just remind the 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 an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
Mister Carney--in lying to cover his boss's lyin' ass--tried to gloss over the egregious blatherisms:
"He [the "Clown Prince"] certainly was not contending--that the Supreme Court doesn't have as its right and responsibility the ability to overturn laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional. He [the "Clown Prince"] was referring to 85 years of judicial precedent, of Supreme Court precedent, with regard to matters like the one under consideration. And it's maybe fun to pretend he [the "Clown Prince"] ment otherwise, but everyone here knows that that's what he [the "Clown Prince"] meant."
Operating under the cloud that "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist" is a pathological liar, how long can--what would seem a basically honest man--Mister Carney continue to defend the "Clown Prince" in the "Slick-Willie" Clinton manner of repetitive lies?!? Does Mister Carney not know that the case cited by "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist"--'Lochner' (actually entitled: Lochner v. New York)--is not even a federal-level case?!?
NOTE: In Lochner v. New York, the state--via The Bakeshop Act (of 1895)--attempted to regulate the number of hours in a baker's work day; work week, citing health concerns for said bakers. The United States Supreme Court saw the case not as a health issue but as a labor law which attempted to regulate the terms of employment; an interference with 'the right and liberty of an individual to contract.'
We shall see what we shall see!
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Arschloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....
No comments:
Post a Comment