Today's Synapses

NYT Editor Lyza Anne Phibbs: "The truth about Zimmerman is not fit to print. It doesn't fit our agenda."

Obama tells news media to report that he's a centrist, not a liberal: "Everybody is either right or left of me," he said. "I'm the only one in the middle. Look at my budget. It was voted down 414 to 0, which proves I'm centrist."

Texas conservatives would rather die for their country than spend two hours working on a campaign, said Tea Party activist Raz Shafer.

Supreme Court justices who believe the Obamacare violates the Constitution must be impeached, argues Texas law professor David Dow: "They would be committing the unpardonable judicial sin by reversing a long tradition of ignoring the Tenth Amendment."

New Orleans police officers convicted of killing unarmed residents in Hurricane Katrina aftermath. "I've never seen justice served so fast," said prosecutor I.B. Sewinn.

Obama sends angry email to California vineyard owner and political blogger Ray Zens, who had reported that the president was angry with the Supremes. "I don't have an issue with Diana Ross," he said.

Guest editorial

Supreme Court should rule itself unconstitutional or face impeachment

by President Barack Obama
Skinnyreporter.com

During rarely recorded Supreme Court hearings last week, several justices shamefully attempted to portray as unconstitutional the crown jewel of my presidency, the Affordable Care Act. Their actions constitute a political maneuver that is the epitome of judicial activism and a clearly unconstitutional and partisan overreach of the court into legislative matters.

As the leader of the free world, a former constitutional law professor, a graduate of Harvard University, a former legislator, a former Senator, the reigning champion of the National Teleprompter Reader Finals, a former community organizer and the only Democrat to win the Presidency with a majority of the vote since Jimmy Carter, I respectfully submit that some of the justices displayed an alarming propensity to cite the Constitution to support their opposition to a mandate that requires all Americans to buy proper health insurance or pay a penalty.

It is clear to any thinking person that certain judges have an antipathy toward what was originally called the Affordable Care Act but is now known as Obamacare, a term I originally considered pejorative but now embrace as a tribute to my mother's son, who I humbly submit is the fourth greatest president of all time. As all presidents before me, I wish to be remembered for my accomplishments, the greatest of which is the Affordable Care Act, which admittedly isn't as affordable as the 157 clerks who wrote it led me to believe it would be but is still the greatest transfer of wealth ever passed by Congress.

My view is that conservative justices are attempting to persuade one or more of their colleagues to subscribe to their theory that this monumental bill is unconstitutional in order to discredit me and to harm my legacy.

The Supreme Court is nothing more than a group of unelected people who sit in their ivory tower and study trivial details of law in order to justify their political positions. In this case, it is clear from last week's hearings that the court is considering the unprecedented step of striking down a law that was duly passed by a clear majority of a democratic body with no regard for the millions of citizens who are benefited by this bill. In short, I am outraged that five unelected judges could strike down a bill that passed because of five unelected senators.

There are times when the Supreme Court clearly must act to protect the civil rights of our citizens. I clearly supported its rulings to overturn duly constituted and passed laws that restricted abortion, sodomy and prayers in school. Striking down those bills took courageous, intelligent judges who were adept at the law and expert in the English language to find previously unseen rights in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, the right to enjoy complete separation of church and state and the right to abort a fetus.

On the other hand, I still have not forgiven the Supreme Court for allowing to stand a bill that restricted partial birth abortions. The justices in that case fell for the Republicans' inane argument that terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester and at the end of the third trimester were legally different. My argument was the consequence is the same whether an unwanted fetus is sliced and diced and vacuumed into a bowl or its skull is opened at the moment of birth and its brain scooped out and discarded into a medical waste bin where it belongs. Whether an abortion is early or late in pregnancy is the right of the woman to use her body as she sees fit, and no governmental body on earth should interfere.

I am pretty confident in this case before the court now that the competent justices who sit on the bench will be able to find in the anachronistic and flawed parchment that we still call the Constitution the right for the federal government to coerce its citizens to buy the kind of health insurance that my administration considers proper and necessary and to pay for the insurance of citizens who cannot afford it. As I promised the American public, I would not raise taxes on the 99 percent, and so I have renamed all revenue sources mentioned in Obamacare. None of the 23 income sources listed in Obamacare, therefore, are called taxes but rather penalties or fees.

I am proud that I was the president who appointed Justice Kagan, who already has worked on this bill for me, and I cannot see her ruling against a bill that she already has declared constitutional. I'm proud of her for standing up to the mentally challenged opposition who wanted her to recuse herself, citing obscure and rarely quoted laws and rulings. I'm confident that as one of the most intelligent judges on the bench, she will ask penetrating and incisive questions, and though some of us might not have the capacity to comprehend her congnitive reasoning due to her vast intellect and astounding vocabulary, I'm confident she will ardently defend Obamacare in her insightful way. She has assured me that she will follow my advice and distill the arguments of this case down to its simplest component, that Obamacare is nothing more than a boatload of money that the federal government will distribute with no strings attached. What possible objection could there to be that?

None of this is meant to divert attention from the fact that the justices should recuse themselves from ruling on this bill, particularly those judges who were appointed by Republican presidents and are, therefore, naturally biased, bigoted, homophobic and prejudiced against a powerful central government. It should be noted that none of them should be concerned with Obamacare regardless of its benefits and costs because it applies to none of them. They, like members of Congress, are already covered by federally subsidized health insurance and are, therefore, exempt from meeting the requirements of Obamacare. I also am exempt from the rules therein, but as the driving force behind my namesake bill I reserve the right to protect it from judicial activism.

It is hardly a coincidence that the Supreme Court agreed to review Obamacare during an election year because the conservative justices are opposed to my reelection. Though they are not subject to Social Security taxes or Obamacare, they still must pay income tax, and they clearly have an antipathy toward me for publicly stating that I wish to redistribute the wealth of people who are fortunate enough to have succeeded in life to other people who clearly need it, such as my friends in the blighted areas of Chicago and comrades who are doing their best to harness the energy of the sun.

Some legal experts have criticized me for ignoring the landmark Supreme Court decision, Marbury vs. Madison, which is how the court illegally justified its interference in our democratic process. My view is that the current court should reverse that decision by ruling itself unconstitutional and leave the job of running this country to the legislative and executive branches. If the court reverses Obamacare, I will do as some of my supporters have suggested and start the impeachment procedure. The Constitution must be changed to reflect the will of the American people, who voted me in office and who overwhelmingly want me to appoint every member of the Supreme Court, not just those who are needed to replace those who have become mentally or physically incapacitated.

Editor's Note: In the interest of complete disclosure, this article was partly written by ghostwriter Bill Ayers, who also has been credited with penning President Obama's first book, Dreams From My Father.

Home page
Article Archive
Synapses Synopsis Archive
You might be a liberal if ...
You might be a conservative if ...
Facebook page
Position on bigotry
Glossary (under construction)

Arriving at truth, through the Non-Scientific Method: Testing political theories by examining absurdity through the application of illogic, satire, sarcasm, spurious news reports and humor.

Articles are copyrighted. You may email or use articles if they are attributed to Skinnyreporter.com. Websites may publish as many as 20 Skinnyreporter articles, but you must have written permission to publish any of them in a printed book or magazine.

Note: The names of sources often have hidden meanings. Click on links for facts relating to the stories. We strive to answer the question, What would politicians say if they didn't think normal citizens were listening? A skilled observer studies body language and becomes expert at what some call "reading between the lines." We attempt to fill in those lines.

Please support:

Spurlin Heating and Air
Farmington, Utah

Call 801-709-9280 to purchase an advertisement here ($200 per column inch per month).