Is Obama Radical? The Evidence of the Supreme Court

by Mark Horne 

If you have friends who think of Obama a centrist or moderate, I applaud you for not being insular in your social relationships. But the problem with such people is that they have obviously bought into so much ideological garbage, including the delusion that only other people are ideological—like “those Tea Party people”—that it is hard to know how to get them to reconsider such a position. 

Perhaps it impossible to reason with people, but I do think there is one piece of evidence that might catch their attention. It is found in the Supreme Court.
I’m no fan of the Supreme Court. I fear, in fact, that they may actually create their rulings in a way designed to convince us that they are sometimes on our side so that they can get away with egregious violations of the Constitution (i.e. Obamacare is constitutional because it is a tax). I am afraid we are being softened up for the Hobby Lobby case. Perhaps I’m just pessimistic and paranoid.

But since most people don’t think of the court that way, they should be open to a different kind of argument. The Supreme Court has some liberals and conservatives on the bench. Everyone knows this. Furthermore, the Daily Caller tells us that, “Historically, at least five Supreme Court justices side with the federal government about 70 percent of the time, according to The Washington Times.”
So with that in mind, how can it be that the Supreme Court has ruled against the Obama Administration, nine to zero, thirteen times since 2012. 

According to the Daily Caller,

In one case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Court unanimously rebuked President Obama for his three unconstitutional attempts to declare the U.S. Senate in recess when, in fact, the Senate was not in recess.

In a second case, McCullen v. Coakley, the justices unanimously threw out a Massachusetts law that outlawed protests within 35 feet of any abortion clinic. The federal government was not directly involved in this case but the U.S. Deputy Solicitor General did file an amicus brief in favor of the free speech ban.

The solicitor general filed another losing amicus brief in another 9-0 case decided this week as well. In Riley v. California, the court unanimously held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant to search cell phones belonging to private citizens. 

In a similar Fourth Amendment case decided in 2012, U.S. v. Jones, the Obama Justice Department again lost 9-0 when it tried to argue that the federal government does not need a warrant to affix GPS tracking devices to anyone’s car, at any time, for basically any reason.

 So, if Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer, how is he so bad at taking the Constitutional issue according to every single judge, including his own liberal appointment, sitting on the bench?

The most obvious conclusion is that Barack Obama is a radical.
But there is one other thing that you need to consider as a conservative.
If rulings are coming up to the Supreme Court and being decided 9-0, what does that tell us about the lower courts? Is it possible that they are more debauched than the Supreme Court? It seems likely. In that case, as much as I hate to admit it, it seems like the Executive branch and the lower courts are “evolving” (though I’d prefer a much more negative word) much faster than the membership on the Supreme Court can be stacked. In fact, it seems that even the most liberal member of the Supreme Court is more conservative than the Executive Branch and many of the lower courts.
The Daily Caller also notes,

During the last three presidential terms (so including George W. Bush’s second term), the federal government has actually been losing more than it has been winning. 

So it seems that the Supreme Court is sometimes functioning as a conservative brake on the Executive Branch, and that our Executive Branch is attempting to completely slip the bounds of the Constitution.
Seeing this Supreme Court as a conservative force tells you just how liberal the rest of our government has become!