Government

DOJ Issues Letter Clarifying Obama’s Remarks: Court‘s Power to Strike Down Laws ’Beyond Dispute’

DOJ Issues Letter Clarifying Obamas Remarks: Courts Power to Strike Down Laws Beyond Dispute

AP

The Department of Justice has submitted a letter stating its belief in the doctrine of judicial review — the power of the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

A federal appeals court ordered the Justice Department to submit the letter earlier this week following remarks by President Barack Obama that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down his health care overhaul.

“The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute,” the letter states.

Signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, it adds that the Justice Department has never asked any court “to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Obama prompted outrage on the topic when he said during a news conference Monday: “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.”

“While duly recognizing the courts’ authority to engage in judicial review, the executive branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress,” the letter states.

Read the full letter below:

This post has been updated since it was first published.

Comments (136)

1 2 3
  • Joe Schmuck
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:53pm

    I think we need to hear from Geraldo.

    Report Post » Joe Schmuck  
    • db321
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:35pm

      It looks like Obama stopped campaigning and took his medicine.

      My letter would have been so much easier.
      One Page – Signed and Dated – Double Spaced – Resignation!

      Report Post » db321  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:37pm

      Do you mean what Rush L says when there is death and Geraldo is put on the air? Is the Obama Hlth Care dead-on-arrival? or SCOTUS agrees with Obama. Geraldo, who I like by the way-don’t agree with him all the time- but like the signal in Rome, Geraldo is our smoke-signal.
      Dana’s hair looks great on Fox…speaking of death…Dana’s dog, Henry, died a few days ago and I feel for you, Dana…it is like losing a family member. You & I did not have children but our animals are our children.

      Report Post »  
    • obamasacommie
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:41pm

      Amazing the Supreme Court has the guts to stand up to the Pres, its too bad we dont have a single Republican who is willing to stand up to this Moron and remind him just exactly were his power ends and the other branches of the government take over. Between the Czar’s the health care laws, the refusing to apply laws he just does’nt agree with, constantly bragging as to how he will go over the congress, going to war in Libya not only did he not get permission from Congress, they voted and said no. I could go on all day as to the laws broken by this President and not scratch the surfice he should have been impeached a long time ago. But not one honest respectful Republican in congress they are all so afraid they will be called racist and so they continue to be silent and sell us down the river to hold on to their pathetic little power. Dont be amazed when they wake up one day and realize they have no power left because they’ve given it all away.

      Report Post » obamasacommie  
    • cuinsong
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:44pm

      It would appear that NObama has let his outrage about the forthcoming ruling on the healthcare bill get the best of him and now the justice department is trying to clean up the mess!
      I think he has gotten a heads up from one of his appointees that it will be stricken down and is trying to intimidate the justices into changing their vote!
      He continues to sing the “The Devils Song” http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_10789987

      Report Post » cuinsong  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:55pm

      You’tre right Joe, I never form an opinion until that turd weighs in.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • doomytram
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 3:07pm

      Chicago thugs, dept of justice

      Report Post » doomytram  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 3:09pm

      “2. In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” … and the Supreme Court has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” … (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” … In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1820 (20 1 0) (”Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”).”

      THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN FALSE – There is NEVER a PRESUMPTION of Constitutionality!

      It’s not “precedent” that determines the validity of laws, but the Constitution and original intent.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • Leopold
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 3:10pm

      All of this will fit perfectly into Obama’s plan to render Congress irrelevant.

      He made numerous comments about Congress not doing their job. He appoints people pretending Congress is not in session. Announced he will do things by himself because Congress does not give him what he wants.

      If this law is overturned he will use this in his election campaign and say:

      The courts have rendered the “elected” Congress irrelevant.

      That will become a slogan.

      That will contribute to all the other comments made about Congress for instance it’s low approval ratings.

      If he does this successfully he will be crowned King.

      People want to have something to worship.

      God is out of the question and so, next to that is the King or the dictator.

      People be careful. This outcome has the very high potential for a civil war.

      Which then will give an opportunity to replace the old Constitution with a new one.

      After all, the present Constitution is also responsible for not being able to do what is “right”.

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 3:19pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      Federalist Papers #78
      http://constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm

      “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

      “Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 4:05pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 4:20pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “This is a circu*****mstance …”
      (Remove asterisks)

      “… calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 4:23pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 4:54pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 5:10pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      “These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circu*****mstances …”
      (Remove asterisks)

      “… of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.

      “Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established good behavior as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government.”

      (End quote)

      (Continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 5:58pm

      (Continued from prior post)

      The courts do NOT have the final say on Constitutional interpretation; The courts are BOUND BY the Constitution, and therefore the people of the several sovereign states have the final say – not the Legislative branch, and not the Judicial.

      Report Post »  
    • MAMMY_NUNN
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 8:02pm

      Think about it Obama studied law couldn‘t make it in the private sector as being a lawyer so he became and teacher couldn’t make it as a teacher so he became a Senator couldn‘t make it as a Senator so now he’s President and not doing well at that I would call that a LOSER a Failure. With all his professor buddies none of which are qualified in their assignments will be put in their place a unemployment line for the over educated and over qualified losers.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 3:39am

      In ObamaVille… there will be no need for a Congress, therefor there will be no need for a Supreme Court! “God” knows what is best for everyone!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • EP46
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 6:25am

      Yep…the empty vault again……….was it sheer spite by holder to make the letter only 2 1/2 pages ??

      Report Post »  
    • G-WHIZ
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:40am

      The DOJ IS E.Holder… and again He’s lieing just to appease the court.

      Report Post »  
  • 3ebfan00
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:51pm

    They screwed this up so bad. Not even two pages really, and I heard what that judge said. They were to respond with specific reference to Obama’s comments. They did not do that at all. If this was a college paper or work assignment, they should have to do it over again, and make it twice as long as they originally asked for. Pitiful…

    Report Post »  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 7:17pm

      Well, they did at least reply.

      I was sure that they would just ignore the instruction and I was wrong. Again.

      I hate it when that happens.

      Report Post »  
  • caleejr
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:50pm

    They say the Supreme Court has the authority – but keeps trying to say that they really don’t. They try to say the law is ‘constitutional’ because Congress took the same oath as the judiciary to uphold the constitution – so therefore it HAS to be constitutional.

    WHAT BS.

    Report Post » caleejr  
    • Locked
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:21pm

      Agreed, total BS. Arbitration of constitutionality rests with the SCotUS. Their word isn’t law; but the Constitutionality (the bedrock of the law) is interpreted by their word. Short of a Constitutional amendment, or overturning prior rulings at a later date, what the Court says, goes.

      Obama shot himself in the foot; not even “activist” judges will support open rebellion against the 200+ years of Constitutional law and rulings since judicial review was established.

      Report Post »  
    • karen162
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:22pm

      I agree. They are trying so very hard to do what Liberals do best….change the wording and the subject…but Pres Obama really backed them into a corner. He was too specific and it sounded too much like Chicago intimidation of the SCOTUS.

      Report Post » karen162  
  • docgreen
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:49pm

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/muslim-brotherhood-envoys-met-with-white-house-officials-in-dc/

    Anyone see this about the White House and their muslim brothers? Anyone remember when they said Islamic flags will fly above the White House? Well here’s your Warning!…..

    Report Post »  
  • Sue Dohnim
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:49pm

    “I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.”

    Senator Barack Obama,

    Speech on the CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS

    Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
    • DaphneTaggart
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:11pm

      It is not the role of the Supreme Court to take sides between the weak and the bullies. It is their role to be impartial and fair. Asking Judge Roberts to side with the weak is essentially advocating judicial activism.

      Report Post »  
    • Sue Dohnim
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 3:01pm

      The takeaway is Obamas inconsistency. the SCOTUS role is to uphold the Constitution unless, of course, Obama disagrees with their interpretation, then they are activist and going against the will of the people. So Obamas own view and words contradict his recent comments. Clearly, he was LYING then and is trying to Bully and intimidate SCOTUS now undermining their role as a a check and balance.

      “the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch.”

      “I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.”

      Senator Barack Obama,

      Speech on the CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS

      Report Post » Sue Dohnim  
  • biohazard23
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:48pm

    “…respect the legislative judgments of Congress”? How about respecting the will of the people???? Princess Nancy must have missed that memo……

    Report Post » biohazard23  
  • justangry
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:48pm

    I have a strange feeling things are going to get interesting. It’s not unheard of for presidents to challenge the court. Jackson, FDR (in a round about way), and even Reagan. None of those guys had the power that Barry has.

    Report Post » justangry  
    • Schteveo
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:56pm

      Challenging the Court is not new, in that you’re correct.

      THREATENING the Court IS. An it was a threat. There was plenty of talk from the Leftist Talking Heads before this ‘clarifying statement’, backing up his play at ‘impeaching’ any activist judges.

      As much as I dislike some of the decisions SCOTUS makes, it’s got to exist for our form of government to keep going.

      Report Post »  
    • EP46
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 6:32am

      Former presidents have disagreed with “decisions” made by the Court…AFTER a decision was handed down. Barry was trying to ‘warn the High Court’ that they had better not rule against him. It is just the Chicago Way, he can’t get over it.

      Report Post »  
  • Schteveo
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:47pm

    AND here‘s WHY it’s beyond dispute.

    Without the courts, without SCOTUS, President Obumble‘s life isn’t worth a plugged nickel. Anyone could put a bullet in him, and there’d be NO courts., no laws, no rule of law to do ANYTHING about it. I‘m guessing someone pointed out that his verbal ’shot‘ at the Court and his ’threat’ towards the court could be taken as his attempt at dismantling the Constitutional Powers scenario.

    And at the point where he goes all typically Stalin / Hitler / Mao / Chavez take over, I’m in charge, it’s me at the top no one else counts crazy…that pesky thing about ‘When in the course of human events’…would bite him where he sits!

    Report Post »  
    • Countrygirl1362
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:56pm

      And he would like nothing better than the only one in this country to have any say and get rid of the other branches of govt. The other branches need to watch their backs with Obama around.

      Report Post »  
  • Deb Parks
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:46pm

    Last line of letter:
    The President ‘ s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein. <~ LIE

    Report Post »  
    • Joe Schmuck
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:56pm

      Yea, that line gave me a real chuckle!

      I‘m surprised that they didn’t find a way to blame Bush.

      Report Post » Joe Schmuck  
    • I.Gaspar
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:36pm

      Joe:
      They’ll leave the Bush blaming to carney in his next briefing.

      Report Post »  
    • HuskerDave
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 10:53am

      Yeah I found that pretty arrogant, and completely innacurate, as well.

      Report Post »  
  • youdidthis
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:43pm

    Ron Paul Continues To Draw Huge Crowds
    http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-continues-to-draw-huge-crowds/
    “It sounds like the revolution is alive and well” Ron Paul said last night as he strode out into a stadium brimming with around SEVEN THOUSAND people.

    Reports stated that participants had waited in line as long as nine hours to get a seat to hear the Congressman speak for over 45 minutes at the UCLA Straus Stadium. Once the stadium was full beyond capacity, hundreds of people still waited outside and had to be turned away by marshals concerned about overcrowding.

    The huge crowd represented the largest attendance for any of the GOP candidates during this campaign and broke Paul’s own attendance record, which was remarkably set the previous night!

    Report Post »  
  • welovetheUSA
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:42pm

    Comrade Obama is filled with such arrogrant admiration for himself and his duty to fulfill his marxist goals in taking over America that he and his zars have planned since Bill Ayers grabbed onto Obama, that his ever waking hours of everyday are consumed with this take over…He said what he feels and lives…he is king and no one will stand in his way to whatever end he..Obama will take over the government and no one will stop him in doing so………..this is Obama..a naked communist at work.

    Report Post » welovetheUSA  
  • HorseCrazy
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:40pm

    I think holders interpretation of the word “clarifying” is off. Putting words in someones mouth, making excuses and backtracking is not clarifying it is a stinking hot pile of manure just like holder himself. the dictators thug has spoken.

    Report Post »  
  • HKS
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:39pm

    Barry the idiot had to speak off script and screwed it up big time as usual, so instead of saying “I screwed that up sorry” and going on, he starts this avalanche of cover-up, duck-in, jivin and in general fumbling around like the amateurs that they are. Listening to his spokesman trying to explain that thing was pathetic. It would appear that now Holder has done the same thing, what a bunch of loose’s.

    Report Post » HKS  
  • KickinBack
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:37pm

    1. That’s not three pages. That’s like 2 1/2. I give ‘em an F.

    2. I feel bad for the poor secretary or intern who was charged with writing the letter. They should of made Obama write it himself. The insult came out of his mouth after all.

    Report Post » KickinBack  
  • drphil69
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:37pm

    This will do nothing to stop obummer from saying anything. And he will say anything to try to get re-elected.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:48pm

      Yes the little Thug n Chief .. put the lie and threat out there … I am glad someone FINALLY called him on something .. but there is sooooo much more that he could be gone after on 24/7 .. I WOULD!

      OMG 2012

      Report Post »  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 2:03pm

      Obama is laughing his way to an ultimate win in November. What’s it going to take to re-align this country into what made it great?

      We’re all sitting here with our thumbs up our butts looking at each other wondering who is going to make the initial command decision to take our country back from the progressives.

      There needs to be a counter-revolution. Criminals need to be arrested and charged with treason. This country needs a reset.

      Where is our military leadership on this topic of concern?

      Report Post »  
  • EPICBAMF
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:35pm

    Not even 3 pages,…and he tweaked the margins!

    Report Post » EPICBAMF  
  • Virus-R
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:35pm

    These morons either don’t know how to follow instructions or they did it to spite the 5th Circuit Court judges. What part of 3 full pages does Holder not understand? He used about a page just for the heading and his signature at the end.

    Report Post »  
  • Owt_Raged
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:35pm

    Just because people have been afraid to point out the unconstitutional laws that the federal government has passed, does not mean that they ARE constitutional. The Federal Department of Education should have never been allowed. Social Security and Medicare should have never been allowed. The Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, Welfare… I could go on.

    Report Post » Owt_Raged  
  • TWO BITS
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:34pm

    According to Gregg Jarrett, who was just on Fox News, the court has ruled 160 times that laws were unconstitutional. An arrogant, swaggering Obama might like some marinade for his crow…and I’m praying that he eventually has to eat his 2000 page mandate as well.

    Report Post » TWO BITS  
  • Nemo13
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:34pm

    It’s only a matter of time before the courts are called racist, haha… Obama = Delusions of granduer. He’s just a planted useful with a used car salesman gift of gab, nothing more.

    Report Post »  
  • jakartaman
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:33pm

    I think that was a STFU Barry.

    Report Post »  
  • Harry Assenback
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:32pm

    The DOJ and Obama just got hit in the nose with a rolled up newspaper by the Federal Appeals Court :).

    Report Post » Harry Assenback  
  • Collbuzz
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:32pm

    I knew it would be either a giant middle finger, or just a bunch of legal mumbo- jumbo. Nothing said here, really.

    Report Post »  
  • TH30PH1LUS
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:31pm

    Un-Constitutionally Yours,

    Eric Holder

    p.s. I have a butt-load of new never-been-fired AKs that I need to move – dirt cheap! Hit me back if interested. You could totally conceal them under those big robes. Just a thought. Did I mention dirt cheap? Holla.

    Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:24pm

    Still does not matter – Kaiser Obama will carry forward with his threats as he views himself to be above any court, law, Constitution and the Congress; he is determined to be king and will stop at nothing in his utter insanity to make it happen.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • lynnissmart
      Posted on April 5, 2012 at 1:55pm

      He is one scary, scary pos!

      Report Post »  
    • EP46
      Posted on April 6, 2012 at 6:23am

      Snow…right as always. The Supreme Leader does not have to ‘attack the Court’…he has hundreds who will do it for him. He only has to go out and be the best community organizer he can be and his sheeple will do the thug work for him.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love