« GOP body snatchers | Main | Marriage matter of law »

April 02, 2012

Democrats to blame

Something isn’t right. In 2004, the Democrats blamed Republican President George W. Bush for high gas prices — then close to $2 a gallon. In 2008, the Democrats again blamed Bush for high gas prices — then close to $3.30 a gallon.

So now gas is predicted to reach $5 a gallon, and the Republicans shouldn’t blame Democratic President Barack Obama? There is no energy program in place. Offshore drilling is curtailed and there is no willingness to bring in Canadian oil through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

There is an anti-gas, anti-coal sentiment and anti-anything else environmentalists dislike. You can’t use wind power to run a car. It is barely enough to power some homes.

It appears the president can be blamed — for making our lives miserable instead of making our lot in life better.

Jean Bourvic

Overland Park

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/01/3526443/letters-monday-april-2.html#storylink=cpy



"Ultimately, 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," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.


Did you forget to leave out the part about using something other than the Constitution sense? You are simply a lying child shielding yourself from the truth, as has been pointed out before, so nothing new here. For those judges that like the general welfare meaning you can do anything and forget that that not expressly enumerated is the prevue of the states will always be wrong in my book. Unlike some I educate myself and read what the judges say to justify their rulings.

I have disagreed with many rulings but when they have a strong backing in the Constitution it can be respected. When they reference foreign laws as part of their decision, they should be impeached. Show me where abortion rights for women exist in the Constitution. Show the enumeration of powers over the school system. When did the cost of health care start to skyrocket? What about the cost of education? When a govt gets to large and controlling it will fail just as you see in Europe and now in the US.

Uncommon sense

Sorry, It should have been that knaves spun a trap for fools.

More precisely, "...If you can bear to the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."

I read that poem to my little 8-month-old quite often. I think it's quite the little example of manhood.

Uncommon sense

JD, please see my 11:03 post where I provided the entire quote where the "basic" understanding of what President Obama said was derived. I'm not sure where I left out the part where the word, unelected, was referenced.

To any cry of activism, it was not I who made the claim, nor President Obama. I, as I think he also, was simply showing the convenience of the conservative position. Look at Woody's post as an example. If a court rules in favor of gay marriage, conservatives cry out about activism. If a court rules in favor of a woman's choice, conservatives cry out about activism. If the SCOTUS strikes down the ACA, I doubt you will hear many cries about activism. However, it has already been stated by numerous conservatives that their main push will be to repeal the ACA regardless of the SCOTUS ruling. It just seems to me that cons dont even understand their own arguments at times and have a funny way of determining activist rulings.

I guess the con litmus test about activism is pretty simple. If a con doesnt agree with the ruling, it must be activism. If the con agrees with the ruling, well then it must have a solid ruling based on the constitution. We see the same intellectual malaise when it comes to actual historical facts. We also see this when conservatives want to invoke the spirits of America's founding fathers. It all just freaks me out.

I agree, the SCOTUS exists to uphold the Constitution. I do not agree that President Obama should have just kept quiet. It's not his fault that fools spun a trap for knaves.


UC, no condescending taken.

You know what the President said and so do I. Seems you left out the "unelected" segment. You only a part of what he said. And I stand by my "basically".

The SCOTUS has a duty to uphold the Constitution. That is a far cry from "activism". Activism is striking down something and replacing it with something else. I highly doubt you can give me an example of where the SCOTUS has ever done that.

Simply put, the SCOTUS has a history of sending legislation back to Congress. Obama should have just kept quiet.

Uncommon sense

Sorry, JD. I don't mean to come off condescending or irritated toward you. You just seem a little more rational and thoughtful on these threads, yet you parroted something that wasn't either.

President Obama did not "basically" say what you posted that he said. I watched a little news yesterday and most networks provided the context of the speech. I turned to Fox, there was no sound of the speech, just a video of President Obama speaking. There were talking heads telling the viewer what was "really" said while a tag ran down in the ticker saying, "Obama believes unelected members of Supreme Court shouldn't overturn laws," or something like that.

My initial thought was...oh my God, how stupid does Fox really think their viewers are?

Uncommon sense

What's the duty of the SCOTUS, JD? I thought you knew?

As I have learned about it, it us to rule on cases where there is (actual or perceived) conflict with a state law or statute or a federal law or statute and the U.S. Constitution.

What's your point. President Obama didnt say he thinks the SCOTUS has no authority to rule on this case or any other case using the Constitution as the ruler. The belief that he did is where your Fox News spoon feeding comes in. He simply pointed out that there are many conservatives who cry and whine (just like woody here or even Mark R who posted how the courts ruling shouldn't be followed if the ACA is found constitutional) about perceived activism. It's just funny about conservative convenience of position.

Does the president think the ACA should be upheld? Of course he does!

The rest is just spin, IMO.


So, Uncommon, what is the duty of the Supreme Court?

Uncommon sense

Does, not dies and based, not bases...but who really cares. This stuff is funnier than most things I enjoy during the day. Please, keep on keeping on.

You guys are too funny...

Uncommon sense

So, if a judge rules based on the Constitution, but the ruling doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, it is seen as activism?????

If the ruling dies agree with your interpretation, you see it as a good ruling by the Constitution????

All of this even though all judges rule bases on their educated and professional understanding of the U.S. Constitution, laws, statutes and state constitutions.

Then we call the president self-absorbed. These threads never seem to leave me short for idiotic claptrap from clearly delusional individuals.



Declaring something unconstitutional and basing that ruling on the Constitution is not judicial activism. So the o is either stupid or a liar. The activist judges are those who reinterpret laws or base their decision on things other than the Constitution, which is quite often with the leftist judges.

So the o’s statement is not only stupid but pretty pathetic from the President. A clear attempt to influence the ruling, possible the most self absorbed President ever (close with Clinton).

Uncommon sense

To ACTUALLY be fair and honest, President Obama said, "I just want to remind conservative commentators that for years, what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

He continued..."I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld."

Please turn of the Fox News and return to reality.

Smarter Than You

To be fair, JDog, Obama thinks the Supreme Court should not be allowed to rule on the constitutionality of a law because he was able to back door it through the legislative process with backroom deals and bribes.

And I thought Harvard was supposed to have a good law school.


Well, yesterday Obama said (basically) that an unelected Supreme Court has no business overturning a law passed by Congress.

Oh lord.

Big Daddy

I was going to go w/ microwave burritos but was afraid the lefties would jump all over it as a racist post.....


BD, interesting post. But come on man, bagging on QT hotdogs! That's not right.


Is it really the mantra of the Obama administration or is it the claim of his detractors that it is the mantra of the Obama administration. Such notions are simplistic nonsense.

Big Daddy

Gringo, you are so lame. In your letter you say trying to find someone to blame is a waste of time and then you go on to blame the right. huh?

Look, the lefties get upset when-ever they pass by a mirror because they don't like what they see. It's like internet dating. They draft this really nice flowery description of themselves and what they stand for and then post a fake or doctored picture of what they would like to be. But then, when the time comes to go on the date with the American voter and they ring the doorbell it's always a real OMG moment.

Some of the voters feel sorry for the poor leper and go ahead and go on the date (as is what is happening with Obama). But like any date that starts out under false pretenses, the promises of a fun filled evening just get broken. The left tells you that you will be going to a nice restaurant so dress up and you find yourself at Quick trip slamming down over cooked hot dogs and giant colas. The car runs out of gas and you end up walking but he polishes that turd by saying it is better for the environment...you are going green. You get to the club and the music is loud and the lights are bright. You can see that inside people are having a great time but he says those people are the 1% and that we aren't like them. Instead, he takes you to the sing Al Green as some Karaoke bar next door. But as you see car after car pull up and people continue to stand in line for the nice club he senses that you would rather be there. So he goes over to tell them to turn down the music...it's distracting. Oh, and as long as he is there he would like for them to send over some of their food and drinks to the karaoke bar because...well dammit....they shouldn't have ALL the fun.

Now and again, as you sit with your ugly, lying Democratic date watching all the people enter the club you really want to be at you see someone you know. They say, "come on with us...it will be fun". And as much as you want to go, you decide to stick it out. And then those people say, "don't worry about it....he can come to". You look at your date but he just crosses his arms, shakes his head, and drinks the drink that came from their party. And when the night ends and the bill comes due, he has the nerve to ask you to pay for it....all of it.

Now he is calling you and asking you out on a second date. He says he had a really great time and thinks you should have had a great time too. You ask what the date will be like and he tells you he is planning on an exact copy of the first one since it went so well. When you balk, he tells you that you really did have a great time you just didn't know it. Leave it to him, he says. He knows what is good for you even if you don't.

So there you have it. You can go out on a second date with a cheap, lying, ugly leper who suffers an inferiority complex that manifests itself as pure arrogance because you feel sorry for him....or you can just head to the club with your friends.

Your call....


Want to accomplish nothing? Spend your time figuring out who is to blame. And I bet you will NEVER figure the one to blame is the folks you like, especially not yourself. - Gringo
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Not meaning to jump right on you Gringo....but isn't this the mantra of the Obama administration..."Blame Anyone Else?"
...Seems Jean is just turning it around...


Want to accomplish nothing? Spend your time figuring out who is to blame. And I bet you will NEVER figure the one to blame is the folks you like, especially not yourself.

Oh, well, another facts optional letter.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright