Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Features News

Would President Hillary Appoint Barack Obama To The U.S. Supreme Court?

Would President Hillary Appoint Barack Obama To The U.S. Supreme Court?

Photo credit: Hillary photo credit: JStone/Shutterstock.com | Obama photo credit: Drop of Light/Shutterstock.com

Hillary Clinton just returned from “hugging it out” with President Obama on Martha’s Vineyard over the weekend. We’ll probably never know what she said to try to bury the hatchet, or to get him to back off on the Justice Department’s investigation of her deleting State Department emails from her private server. But one possible scenario is impossible to ignore. 

If you ever needed a reason to vote against Hillary Clinton next year—and do everything you can to prevent Hillary, or any other anti-gunner, from winning the White House in 2016—consider this: 

If Hillary Clinton becomes the next American president, you can bet there’s more than just a “smidgen” of a chance that she’ll appoint Barack Obama to the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. 

That’s no joke. Although the spoof news website nationalreport.net published a tongue-in-cheek report on the possibility this spring, the idea isn’t as remote or far-fetched as Hillary and her apologists would have you believe. 

The truth is that there are many interlocking reasons why:

a) Obama would want a seat for life on the U.S. Supreme Court, and

b) Hillary would calculate that it’s expedient, and profitable, to trade Obama’s help for her campaign today ... for her nomination of him to the Supreme Court tomorrow. 

Consider these propositions in chronological order.

First, why would Obama throw his support behind Hillary Clinton? All the reports from inside the Beltway suggest that Obama can’t stand her. Chances are, he views Hillary the same way many Americans do: As a corrupt, imperious, self-entitled heir to the throne of the White House, who’s really not much more than a carpet-bagging, money-grubbing crook.

So what could Hillary possibly dangle before Obama that could conceivably buy his help to get her into the Oval Office?

We all know the only thing bigger than Barack Obama’s ego is his ambition to “transform” America—completely and forever. When you’ve won the Nobel Prize ... when you’ve carried around copies of GQ magazine with yourself on the cover until they’re dog-eared ... and when you’ve portrayed yourself as the messianic leader of the free world for eight years straight—what do you do for an encore? Flip burgers at Micky D’s? Obama is “ideally suited to lead the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.”

So: What could possibly satisfy Obama’s hunger for power and prestige except an appointment to the highest court in the land for the rest of his life? It’s a quid pro quo from hell for anyone who cares about firearm freedom, or any of the freedoms we cherish as Americans. 

Now consider what “qualifications” Obama has that would give Hillary cover for nominating him to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At Harvard Law School, Obama edited the Harvard Law Review and served as president of that journal. He also worked as a research assistant to Laurence Tribe, one of the heaviest-hitters of American constitutional law today. Obama then went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for over a decade. 

Moreover, Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University and author of The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, wrote in the Washington Post that Obama has temperamental qualities that make him “ideally suited to lead the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.” 

How might Obama continue his “transformation” of the United States from a seat on the Supreme Court?

We all saw the unprecedented spectacle of Obama scolding the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union address for its Citizens United decision, which restored the right of political free speech to groups like the NRA. Although the Citizens United decision is misleadingly oversimplified by the media (and for perfectly logical reasons—keep reading to find out why), the McCain-Feingold law that the decision partially overturned was toxic to free speech, and was specifically written to silence the NRA in the run-up to elections. 

How? Because the McCain-Feingold law made it a federal crime for groups of like-minded people, such as the NRA, to pool their money to pay for political communications during election campaigns. Under the law, it was illegal for the NRA or any similar group to even mention the name of a candidate or incumbent in political communications within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. 

The only people exempted from the law were the candidates themselves and members of the media. So it’s no mystery why the media did all they could to promote the McCain-Feingold law, and to attack the Citizens United decision that partially did away with it. 

And before Clinton or Obama puff themselves up with righteous indignation over the Citizens United decision “giving corporate interests a voice in elections,” let’s get something straight: The media, which are exempt from the law, are owned and controlled by some of the biggest, most powerful corporations in the world. They all have “special interests” of their own. They all employ armies of lobbyists. And they all have much at stake in legislation and elections—just like everybody else.It’s a quid pro quo from hell for anyone who cares about firearm freedom, freedom of speech—or any of our freedoms.

For those massive media conglomerates to get a blank check to say whatever they want, whenever they want, as often as they want, regarding legislation and elections—while groups like the NRA are silenced—is the antithesis of political free speech, and the end of the First Amendment as we know it.

That’s why organizations from across the political spectrum—including the ACLU—opposed the McCain-Feingold law and applauded the Citizens United decision.

Yet Clinton says she’d make opposition to Citizens United a litmus test for any nominations she makes to the Supreme Court. (It’s no wonder why: The whole case started after Hillary tried to black out publication of “Hillary: The Movie,” which is a documentary critical of her.)

And Barack Obama is with her 100 percent on that count.

How else might a Supreme Court Justice Obama affect your freedoms?

First of all, don’t forget that the Supreme Court’s two recent landmark cases upholding your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—D.C. vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago—were both 5-to-4 split decisions. If just one justice of the nine had voted the other way in either of those cases, your gun rights would be as good as gone today.

And as attorney, author and America’s 1st Freedom writer Dave Kopel has pointed out, Obama’s positions on the Second Amendment are clear and well-documented. 

Obama:

  • said the Right to Carry should be abolished nationwide.
  • endorsed a ban on all handguns.
  • supported a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic” firearms.
  • called for a federal law banning all gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would close the vast majority of gun stores nationwide.
  • refused to join 55 other U.S. senators in signing a “friend of the court” brief calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to end the D.C. gun ban in the Heller case.
  • reportedly believed “the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”
  • defended the Chicago gun ban that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald, claiming, “What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.”

 

For a glimpse of what an anti-gun ideologue Barack Obama really is, consider the shameful case of Hale DeMar. When a career criminal broke into DeMar’s house in the middle of the night for the second time in 24 hours (he’d stolen DeMar’s car keys and his vehicle the night before) while DeMar’s two children were asleep upstairs, DeMar used a handgun that he’d owned for over 20 years to stop the criminal, possibly saving his children’s lives.

The problem was, handguns were banned in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette where DeMar lived, and DeMar was charged with the crime of having the gun. When Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill to exempt people like DeMar from prosecution if the reason they violated a handgun ban was to protect themselves in their homes, Obama voted against that legislation.

In other words, Obama not only supported Wilmette’s total handgun ban, he also believed homeowners who used firearms to protect themselves in their homes should be punished! 

This is the man that you can bet would love to sit on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life. And you can bet Hillary Clinton would be happy to nominate Obama to the court—especially if he agreed to throw the considerable support of his office behind her candidacy. 

Considering that the Second Amendment survived in the Supreme Court by a margin of just one vote in the Heller and McDonald cases, can you imagine the damage to your right to keep and bear arms that a Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama—or anyone like him—could inflict for generations to come?

Use Your Power!

That’s what’s at stake in next year’s elections. And that’s why, if you want to: keep your right to keep and bear arms; keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House; keep Barack Obama off the Supreme Court; keep your firearms and your freedom to own them; and protect freedom of speech and all the rights we enjoy as Americans … you need to be a part of the strongest political force in America today—by joining NRA.