65 votes

Video: Judge Napolitano Slams President Obama's SCOTUS Criticism as Incomprehensible!


"He’s rejecting a basic premise of American law that’s not been seriously questioned in 175 years! Which is this: the courts have the right to review what the Congress does and what the President does and if the court finds that behavior unconstitutional, they can void, they can invalidate what the Congress and the what the President does. That’s our system. That’s what preserves the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority. No president has questioned this since Andrew Jackson!”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

war on SCOTUS !

lol, the judges must be having nightmares about drones !

Dr.Ron Paul's 2002 Predictions

FYI, I'm just posting this

FYI, I'm just posting this here to get eyeballs of whomever it may apply to.

I'm from southwestern Michigan and am looking to move some Ron Paul slim jims (issue cards) to northwest Indiana, especially the South Bend area. I'm willing to deliver about seventy-five dollars worth of them for just twenty-five bucks, all of which will be going to fund more campaigning. The campaign saves the shipping and production costs which do nothing to help the campaign, you save a lot of money period, and I can move left over inventory that would otherwise go to waste and help fund my Uncle and I for delegate campaigning in Michigan. Win-win-win= win for all.

Let me know if you're interested, thanks!

Can the Supreme Court

Can the Supreme Court determine was is Constitutional? The Supreme Court having the ability to declare a law or act of the Federal government unconstitutional says that a branch of the Federal government can determine its own scope and power. A concept not in line with "limited government". This was an issue durring the Constitutional Convention and likely why Article III is short and vague. I believe there were those that saw the judicial as a backdoor to expanding power, hence there was a flurry of judicially related legislation the last decade of the 18th century. There was a movement in Congress at the time of Jefferson to greatly limit, or outright dismantle the Supreme Court and related Federal courts, as they were seen as dangerous and overreaching. Jefferson not taking action here is sometimes pointed out as one of his greatest failures.

From a Libertarian / freedom standpoint Marbury vs. Madison was not seen as good, but a usurpation of power by the Federal body. Virginia had stood ground in the 1790's refusing to enforce in full the Treaty of Paris and Jay's Treaty. The point there being the State's determined what was constitutional, not the Fed. I believe some New England states did this during the War of 1812 as well. So much lost history here...

A good primer essay on this is Marshall DeRosa's "Supreme Court as Accomplice: Judicial Backing for a Despotic Presidency".

I wish

Obama would just go play dictator in another country and stop trying to change the Constitution.

I'm not ready to dismiss his ramblings and attempt

to, somehow, intimidate the Court. FDR used a not-dissimilar tactic with Socialist inSecurity, after having already been rebuffed by the Court in the sick-chicken case (and it worked). The utterances of the Dalai Obama take on the appearance of coming from a man whose signature legislative "accomplishment" is so far distant from Constitutional muster that such tactics are about all he has left in his arsenal. From a practical standpoint, he probably only has to intimidate one vote (Kennedy) in order to get an outcome that will please this particular despot-in-chief.

"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

The justices have already

The justices have already voted. They voted on Friday and the justices and their clerks are just spending the next few months writing the opinion.

Obama's statement may indicate he somehow knows how they voted already, for all we know.

Excuse Me?

We do not have judicial activism, we do have executive branch activism and overreach. The individual mandate is unconstitutional, and without a severability clause,the entire Obamacare tyranny is unconstitutional. Let's hope the United States Supreme Court rules for the Constitution and the people, not the death panels and penalities (taxes?) enshrined in this legislation.

If you'd heard the speech in

If you'd heard the speech in its entirety, you'd note that Obama wasn't criticizing judicial review, he was criticizing hypocritical right wing commentators who complain about judicial activism until it's applied to something liberals want.

reedr3v's picture

Is it not so that both liberals and neocons are

hypocritical and playing the voters with false sound bites, and that both factions care nothing for the Constitution? Sure the Judge could go back and condemn Bush and previous presidents. I'd rather he focus on present attacks on the remnants of constraints on tyranny.

There are plenty of horrible

There are plenty of horrible things they say in context that we needn't misconstrue what they say out of context.

ytc's picture

We really need a DAILY Judge A Napolitano SHOW!

Our liberty movement needs the daily infusion of his wise loving dynamic exposition of WHAT is so wrong with this world and HOW to fix it.

He gives us the confidence and compass to navigate through the deluge of propagandized LSM lies & illusions.

SteveMT's picture

We will be getting a judge daily show very soon now,....

from his VP office!

that's exactly why they cancelled him....because we need him

the Judge is right of course. And this video is evidence of Obama's lack of constitutional knowledge or willful and deliberate skewing of our system of government.

....or both

Obama should be put in the stocks on the public square

Darn you FauxNews 2 minutes

Darn you FauxNews 2 minutes of this wasn't enough

This Might be Slightly Misleading

The Judges comments on this are probably right on target although I did not hear the full segment.

But the way this is being played is a little misleading.

There are three separate and equal branches of government for the purposes of checks and balances. Every branch has the DUTY to question the actions of every other branch (however they do not do it enough). As Napolitano points out, the Supreme Court has the right to review the actions of the other branches.


The President ALSO has the right to question the decisions of the court.

In most cases, the three branches will eventually come to a peaceful agreement.

However, it can lead to a Constitutional Crisis and is the only way that checks and balances can have any value in some situations.


Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

The assumption is that

The assumption is that Congress and the Executive branch are checked by the power of the people. You don't want a single person, the President, who often doesn't have any legal qualification, determining what is or is not Constitutional.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The Country is Based on Checks and Balances

Yes. Voters are supposed to be the ultimate checks against the government.

The branches are the people's choice, either directly or indirectly.

There would be no need for separate branches expect for the need to have them check each other.

The most famous case on how the President stood up to the Supremes, and did it successfully, is Marbury V. Madison. Look it up, if you wish.

We do not want to restrict authority only to those who have "legal qualifications". "Legal" is defined by judges and does not necessarily lead toward freedom. Strictly conforming to "Legal" thinking is the opposite of freedom.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

I noticed in this week's

I noticed in this week's Texas Straight Talk, RP mentioned that Judicial Review is nowhere to be found in Article III, but here Judge Nap seems to defend the doctrine...

I've always held the understanding that the court should only rule in cases of Federal jurisdiction but where the court can logically be an independent arbiter (such as disputes between states, individuals vs states, etc) and that basic logic would tell us that a Federal Court has no business judging what the limits of the Federal government are to be (that's the states' jobs)... This is the basis of state nullification.

what are your thoughts?

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

Judicial review is a big govt. idea

I actually prefer judicial review to state nullification, but if you look at the history of how judicial review came about...

Judicial review was invented by Justice Marshall when his Federalists were out of power after Jefferson defeated Adams.

The Federalists needed some way to hang on to power even when the anti-Federalists/Democratic-Republicans started to run things and gained the presidency after Adams lost and Jefferson wanted to get rid of the federal judiciary in what he saw as an example of an out-of-control federal government.

So voila, Marshall invents this concept of judicial review and threw out part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (because apparently the same people who drafted the Constitution didn't know what the Constitution meant 2 years later???) just to try to resolve the Marbury v. Madison dispute without making a ruling that he had no power to make Jefferson enforce but letting the Federalists cling to their big government judicial framework and still have power in government.

Of course, inventing the judicial review concept still didn't win the Court much praise from anti-Federalists and the anti-Federalist Congress impeached (but acquitted) another Federalist judge just a couple years later.

Good Point But There is More

I guess that the error is in the assumption that Judicial Review means final say. Judicial Review is not Constitutional if the court gets the final say to override another branch. And that is how the phrase is used. Since all the branches are separate and equal, they all get to review each other. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, a disagreement among branches can lead to a Constitutional Standoff (also called crisis). I agree with you and Ron Paul that State's have the final say when the Feds overstep their authority (when everything is working properly, which it is not).

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Hey Judge, you better watch

Hey Judge, you better watch out Obushma may declare your out of line and sick a drone on your a$#.

Of course and another reason

This President should be impeached. For displaying ignorance to the Constitution on such a basic understanding.

The President is succeeding precisely because he is catering to the tyranny of the majority. Most folks are happy to get goodies from government and Obama knows that. He is the guy providing the goodies and telling the tyrannical masses that he is their savior. To buttress his case, he is also convincing those same masses that the people trying to limit their goodies are racist, sexist, and homophobic.

sharkhearted's picture

The Judge is always on point

Norfolk, VA

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.