Senator Urges President to Ignore Court Ruling

By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News  Federal Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that President Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional need not be obeyed says Senator Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill).“The Courts aren’t the only ones authorized to decide the Constitutionality of the laws,” Durbin insisted. “We all—Congress and President, alike—take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Just because the Court has a different opinion doesn’t mean the President must accept it.”“This wouldn’t be the first time a President ignored a Court decision,” Durbin observed. “Back in the 1830s, President Jackson chose to ignore a Supreme Court decision—telling then Chief Justice John Marshall to enforce his own decision. So, President Obama ignoring a lower court decision is small potatoes in comparison. In the final analysis, the President is the Commander-in-Chief. The Army and all federal law enforcement personnel answer to him. If he doesn’t want to abide by a court decision who’s going to make him?”The Court decision President Andrew Jackson chose to ignore was one asserting that Indians had sovereign rights that the US and state governments had to respect. Subsequently, the Cherokee Tribe was forcibly evicted from its land by the US Army so it could be seized by the State of Georgia.In related news, Obama Administration spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that Vinson’s ruling will have “no effect on our implementation of the health care reform law,” calling it “a rogue decision by a judge who is out of step with modern judicial thinking. It is one thing for courts to make laws that help people. It is another thing entirely when a judge tries to overturn the efforts of Congress and the President to help people. Quite simply, Judge Vinson is guilty of the wrong kind of judicial activism.”Would Egyptian Democracy Be Such a Great Thing?A recent poll of public opinion indicates that replacing the current dictatorship in Egypt with a democratically selected government may not be as rosy as many expect. On the surface, a government chosen by the people would appear to be superior to one imposed on them against their will. But would it in all cases?Nearly 60% of Egyptian adults say they want an Islamic regime. Fewer than 30% favor an open society that respects individuals’ rights to non-Islamic lifestyles including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So, what kinds of policies would a democratically chosen Egyptian government implement? Well 84% of poll respondents favor executing any Muslim who tries to leave the religion. As one poll respondent put it “Islam is God’s law. Only someone under the influence of Satan would reject it. We have a right to protect ourselves from the Satanists in our midst.”The Obama Administration’s response to the Egyptian crisis has been to order the country’s ruler, Hosni Mubarak, to “step down now” rejecting Mubarak’s request to stay until the end of his current term which ends later this year. “Mubarak’s notion that he can adhere to normal election procedure is untenable,” Obama said. “When people take to the streets to demand your ouster you’ve lost your mandate and must step aside.”Obama defended his prerogative to order Mubarak out of office citing “the $60 billion in foreign aid the United States has paid him over the last 30 years. He’s made a good living off our dime. If we say it’s time to pack it in he’s got to pack it in.”The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist faction that stands to garner a majority position in a democratically selected government, has called for closing the Suez Canal and declaring war on Israel. “Mubarak has made our country a puppet of the Jews for too long,” Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Ghannem charged. “We must cut the strings and slay the Jews as the Quran commands us to do.”Internet “Kill Switch” Legislation Introduced AgainOne of the ways in which the Mubarak regime tried to quell opposition was to shut down the Internet in Egypt. The idea was to block anti-government forces from communicating with one another. While this action has been widely viewed as an illegitimate attempt to interfere with freedom of speech, legislation conveying a similar authority to the President of the United States has been reintroduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine).The bill—“The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010” (S.3480)—was originally introduced last year by Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn). It would give the President the power to declare an emergency and take control over the Internet in the US in order to block all unauthorized use.Senator Collins asserted that “granting the President this power is necessary if we are to keep up with rivals like China where the government has the authority to strictly control Internet access. Right now, there is no way for the government to prevent our enemies from using the Internet to spread lies and misinformation aimed at undermining us.” Collins professed herself to be unconcerned about potential abuse of such a power in the United States because “unlike China or Egypt, we live in a democracy with a democratically elected President.”Connecticut Birth Certificate Bill AssailedA bill introduced by Connecticut State Senator Michael McLachlan (R-Danbury) to require candidates for public office to provide genuine birth certificates before their names can be placed on the ballot was assailed by leading Democrats as “unwarranted” and “an insult to the President of the Untied States.”“The argument that this is just an extension of existing laws that require a person to show a birth certificate to obtain a driver’s license or attend a public school is bogus,” said Danbury Democratic Town Committee chairman Lynn Taborsak. “Making laws to determine the eligibility of ordinary people to do things like drive a car or go to school in this state is a legitimate state responsibility. Determining whether a person is eligible to be President is not.”Democratic State Committee Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo agreed that “the President can’t be expected to jump through the same hoops we set up for everyone else. He’s the leader of the national government and that comes with special perks and privileges.”Taborsak said Democrats “might be amenable to a compromise that ‘grandfathers-in’ existing officeholders. Asking private citizens for proof of eligibility is a reasonable safeguard. Asking those already in office is an insult to them and the voters who put them there. I mean, what if it turned out that some incumbents don’t meet the requirements? It would be a huge embarrassment. That’s something we definitely don’t need right now.”Over 700 Exemptions from New Health Care Law Issued So FarThe contention that President Obama’s health care law would provide a comprehensive solution to the nation’s health care needs is being contradicted on pretty much a daily basis by his Department of Health and Human Services where Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already issued 733 exemptions.“We have the authority to waive compliance in cases where we deem it best,” Sebelius explained. “Parties that can make a proper case will get a fair hearing.” Thus far, “exemptees” include the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, major corporations McDonald's and Jack in the Box and the United Federation of Teachers.Notably unable to make a “proper case” as yet are members of the “small business” community. “We can’t accept insufficiently documented pleas for special treatment,” Sebelius contended. “Those who believe they are entitled to an exemption should hire appropriate legal counsel—someone familiar with federal law and regulations. Trying to plead your own case is a recipe for failure.”In related news, corporate giant GE was granted an exemption from EPA greenhouse gas rules. “GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been a great friend of the Administration,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Jeff can be counted on to do the right thing without having his arm twisted by regulators.”Obama Aide Defends Treating General as WaiterWhat observers took to be a gaffe was vigorously defended by Obama adviser Valerie Jarret. At a dinner hosted by the Alfalfa Club, Jarret asked a passing uniformed general to “bring me another glass of wine.”“They’re called ‘service men’ for Pete’s sake,” Jarret argued. “I’m a high-ranking advisor to their Commander-in-Chief. If I ask for something I should be served. It’s not like I’m asking them to take a bullet for me, although I believe it would be their duty to honor such a request.”CPUSA Calls State-of the-Union Speech “Best Ever”The US Communist Party website called President Barack Obama’s recent “State-of-the-Union” speech “the best ever by a US President. President Obama’s grasp of economics was remarkably free of the usual capitalist nonsense that typically spews forth at such occasions. His call for government direction of investments in green technology evidenced an insight not seen since Stalin’s last five-year plan. Comrades, the day that true social justice comes to America cannot be far away.”A Satirical Look at Recent News  John Semmens’ ArchivesMore Semmens Archives