Obama to the Court: I’m Following FDR’s Playbook
Many have commented on President Barack Obama’s remarks on the Supreme Court this week, when he stated “I’m 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,” referring to the passage of the unpopular ObamaCare, and the chance that in June, the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.
The Wall Street Journal ’s editors took on the president’s claim that a negative Court ruling would be “unprecedented”:
Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what’s up with that “unprecedented”? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a “democratically elected” legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by “strong” majorities.
The so-called Affordable Care Act, moreover, was not passed with any kind of a strong majority. Democrats pushed it through the Senate on a purely partisan vote, attaining only a drop more than the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster. And in the House the vote was 219-212, despite a Democratic majority.
Now, Obama is too smart to not know about Marbury v Madison. As a graduate of Harvard Law School and later a “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago, he obviously knew this case very well. Indeed, most students whose high schools still have history or civics have heard about it way before college.
So if we accept that the president was not ignorant of basic constitutional law and the concept of separation of powers, then we have to come up with other theories to try to explain why he made this statement.
The most obvious is that he was both trying to inflame his base before the election and to threaten the Supreme Court justices in advance, especially Judge Anthony Kennedy, the supposed swing vote who many think might side with the liberal justices. The president also said the following while making his remarks:
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.
There are two things wrong with the president’s statement, and it does not take a professor of constitutional law to spot them. First, judicial activism refers to justices making social policy via law, by using their power to mold the law into a mechanism for making policy, rather than leaving that task to Congress.
An aroused citizenry? I guess we’ll find out in November if Obama’s insulting and dangerous remarks are sufficient to finally shake the somnambulant, “low information” citizens out of their stupor long enough to boot him from office. It’ll also be interesting to see if any of the liberal-leaning justices summon the integrity to vote against the mandate. I’m not holding my breath.
Obama is cynically counting on Americans not knowing their Constitutional history. And he’s right about that, they don’t. I doubt that more than 1 in 5 Americans know what Marbury v. Madison was all about. They forgot all that stuff as soon as they passed their civics exams and graduated from high school.
But that will fail.
Every poll I’ve ever seen shows that the Supreme Court has a higher approval rating than Congress does. If the Supreme Court finds part of ObamaCare unconstitutional, the voters will blame Congress for having passed a flawed bill.
Marbury v. Madison did indeed stipulate SCOTUS as the the court of supreme jurisdiction. They get the final say. They do not get to get to engage in conservative judicial activism, especially when two different Reagan and Bush appointed justices at the appellate, along with numerous legal scholars who are far more qualified to speak about this than I am, found the ACA to be Constitutional. Moreover, the mandate IS a Republican idea, so to argue against it is a bit disingenuous.
Marbury v. Madison as ruled showed what is known as Judicial Review where the Supreme Court decides whether a law is Constitutional or now other than resolving other disputes before the court they also determine whether or not a law enacted by Congress and signed by the president is in fact Constitutional, that is part of their job description, anything else is judicial activism (making a law or right where there is none found in the Constitution, example Roe V Wade)!
Cat out of the bag?
The great transformer, the New Kennedy for the final solution of America into a collectivist nation controlled by a self-appointed, self-propagating group of control freaks? Does this sound like monarchy or at the least unaccountable oligarchy as in Commissariate, or Brussels.
Never mind government of the people, by the people and for the people with Constitutional Law that prohibits such a Change without consent from the governed. The clear contempt for the citizens who have selected him, Obama, to do this job is breathtaking. Do the citizens who voted for him really deserve the contempt. They did clamourously elect him to do his damndest even after he told them what he intended.
That he confesses his plans as culmination of the designs of FDR, a demi-god to many Americans, not least the socalled Democratic Party is in accord with his contempt for Americans. Lest we forget, he was elected even after he admitted during his campaign for President that he was “ashamed of the country” of which he wanted to be President.
Now this New Kennedy admits that FDR’s New Deal was the seed of the New Age. Fed and watered by Kennedy the First, eldest son of one of FDR’s primary advisors Joseph P. Kennedy with HIS Dream of a “Kennedy Dynasty” in America. And then LB Johnson with his Great Society. Don’t these “Democrats” love high sounding titles for their depredations? A bit like five-year plan?
All this for citizens whose forefathers threw off controlling oligarchy at great cost. To become the haven for oppressed persons and those who wanted to live free or die since its inception. To become that place on the globe where people were protected in law to live free to pursue their own designs without controls from courts, courtiers, nobles, church, or any part of the State.
This New Kennedy confesses his aim is to re-institute that old black magic of oligarchy even monarchy. Arrogant enough, and contemptuous enough of the citizens who gave him the highest honour in their gift to even steal their symbols. Believing – is he right? – they neither know nor care that the Great Seal of the United States has as its identifying motto “novus ordo seclorum”..
New Age Americans. “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child”.
Obama isn’t threatening the Supreme Court.
He is reminding them that there will be a price for messing with America’s first king.
Like what for example? Will he now hold his breath and or throw a tantrum? Will he tell Holder the worst AG ever to do something other than try to cover up the illegal and also unconstitutional activities that the DOJ is involved in? What what does he have…nothing but bluster!
Will the Army Navy Marines Air Force or National Guard follow an illegal order from a CIC that is clearly insane? Use your head and find the answer there…God is in control not Obama!
On the other hand, there’s this:
SCOTUS to POTUS,
Sorry, dude, but we don’t work for you.
The other difference was FDR’s answer to his irritation at the Supreme Court was to attempt to change the ground rules of the court’s make-up. Which wasn’t good, but Obama’s Monday statement was a thinly-veiled invitation for people on his side to just ignore the rulings the court passes down if they don’t like them.
Their end goes are the same — try and intimidate the Court into doing what you want them to do — but FDR’s plan was to add Justices to the bench who agreed with him. He didn’t openly say the rulings of the Court were invalid and delegitimize their power as Obama seemed to be doing. (though the other difference here is FDR made his move after winning re-election, and Obama’s trying to pull this off before the election is held. With the 5th Circuit’s action on Tuesday, it’s unlikely a pre-election Barack Obama or his Justice Department is going to double down on Monday’s remarks, since even some liberals are warning the statement is a bridge too far on questioning the rule of law in the nation if things don’t go your way. A post-election Barack Obama in 2013? That could be a far different story).
Obama, a narcissist, is incapable of admitting a mistake. More, and more ominous, he believes himself to be what others have called him: a “savior,” a “lightworker,” and “the smartest man ever to become president.” That emotional foundation makes it credible that, should the Supreme Court strike down ObamaCare, he will:
– Attempt to impose its key provisions by executive fiat;
– Invoke various forms of retribution against his opponents in office;
– If thwarted, move against the Constitution directly, perhaps by refusing to accept the verdict of the election on November 6.
Sound farfetched? Why? He plainly thinks himself above the law. Name even one aspect of his character, his conduct, his antecedents, or his associates that would suggest the contrary.
A major limitation to Obama being merely narcissist etc is that he has many people, powerful people, people in the highest levels of the government who accept, support and cheer his depredations. Who display his same contempt and disrespect for the institutions they are enjoined to uphold and defend. Display much the same thuggish and even criminal behaviours. Openly in full view of the people of America.
The punditry and informatin media see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing. Many the putative guardians of the lawful rights of Americans, cheer lustily Obama’s actions however clearly unlawful. Or sit on their hands and let things happen. People in the Congress and Judiciary of the USA at both State and Federal levels.
And they contemptuously dismiss that description of their group behaviours as conspiracy. Marcus Tullius Cicero again?.
Francis, you’re the first one besides me that believes it is possible that this President just might find a way to postpone or cancel the election. You just watch, there will be a crisis somehow. He will not give up power without the ugliest fight you’ve ever witnessed in your lifetime.
Nice little Court you’ve got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
We should expect that from time-to-time the president’s inner Chicago thug will sneak its way past the slick veneer.
I always thought that it was simple featherbedding that the SCOTUS has its own completely independent police force. Turns out I was wrong.
Not surprising, O like FDR is an elitist infatuated with Marxism.
The author makes some good observations, but still can’t handle the truth. O’bama is not smart, much less “too smart”. Smart people never get ‘tired’ enough to talk about visiting all 57 States. Smart people who edit the Harvard Law Review never forget that the Sup Ct has invalidated many Federal laws as un-Constitutional (smart Leftists have never forgotten the voiding of FDR’s National Recovery Act, which precipitated his Court-packing scheme). Smart people don’t publish autobiographies that probably are ghost-written by Bill Ayers. What evidence can be adduced to support the smart-O’bama theory? No grade transcripts. No Law Review articles. The ability to give effective readings from a teleprompter only demonstrates good speaking skills, the constellation of abilities which does not include intelligence. Contra this, O’bama makes stupid statements (and non-stupid statements that are stupid to make) on a regular basis. Unlike Bill Clinton, O’bama tells lies which are not defensible and in fact are easily refuted (they might be termed ‘stupid lies’). Although O’bama has checked resume items ordinarily indicating intelligence, like every minority in America, in his case these may mean nothing. There are words descriptive of affirmative-action placements in every field: unqualified, unmerited, unintelligent. O’bama’s intelligence is nowhere evidenced, but is strictly on an “ipse dixit” basis (All Leftists are intelligent. O’bama is a Leftist. Therefore, O’bama is intelligent), which commands no respect from reality-oriented, normal people. That’s the fact, Jack.
Do not confuse ignorant with stupid. Do not confuse educated with intelligent. Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Exactly. These people are not stupid. They are very cunning. They know exactly how people think and how to exploit the stupid “thinking”.
Most people are too stupid to use critical thinking to sort out things. They go with their emotions to muddle through. Their “reasoning” comes down to “Whoever shouts the loudest must be right.” Emotional intensity wins the day, so the Left uses the most emotionally loaded words they can find, the more negative the better. ‘Unprecedented’ is such a word.
Obama does not intend to win re-election based on his record. He intends to make all opposition seem even worse than himself. this is standard fare for Democrats. Obama is just far better at it than other Dems. He is not a great orator, but rather, a great demagogue. He is as good or better at it than anyone I have seen in my lifetime.
Note the difference between the two:
Orator – A public speaker, especially one of great eloquence;
Demagogue – Emotive dictator: a political leader who gains power by appealing to people’s emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is considered manipulative and dangerous.
Eloquent? No. Manipulative and dangerous? Fits Obama to a ‘T’.
Please stop underestimating the other side by thinking them stupid. They know exactly what they are doing.
Yes. He is a glib, superficial, race-baiting demagogue with an agenda. His sole skill is in falsely representing the issues of our age as always equating to “unfair” winners and sorely put-upon victims. That is his only power over us.
Don’t confuse cunning with intelligent either.
“Smart people don’t publish autobiographies that probably are ghost-written by Bill Ayers.”
Tom Ayers CEO of Commonwealth Edison and father of Bill Ayers…a very wealthy man with a known Marxist outlook who had strong political ties with the Chicago Democrat machine. Tom sponsors and gives lodging to a young, bright, jug-eared black man who has been raised and tutored by Marxists since he was a child. Tom’s son isn’t a great candidate for grooming as a far-left radical up-and-comer in Chicago politics given his felonious record and lack of the added benefit of the “right” race. Tom, with his wealth and connections, hits upon the genius of promoting the handsome black kid who just happens to be loaded with all sorts of Marxist aspirations. Tom turns to his wife Mary and says “why not?”. The path is laid down. Money is no problem. Big Tom calls the admissions folks at various prestige universities and says “admit this young man and a fat check is in the mail”. Off goes young Barack and a rising star in far-left Democrat circles is born. The Ayers-Obama relationship is cemented and eventually young Barack returns to Chicago with the rails greased for the journey into the depths of the Democrat power sewer. Maybe we are starting to get some answers concerning the mysterious questions surrounding Barack Hussein Obama. Just maybe. For example, the question has been raised as to why a young twenty-something would write an autobiography. Likely he wouldn’t but his handlers would. It’s simply PR for someone that you are putting into play. And the Ayers’ were dedicated to putting Obama into the game….surely, with payback to follow.
If the U.S. Supreme Court invalidats Obamacare there will be teeth grinding rage from the Left. However it won’t be the first time that a “landmark” piece of social legislation has been overturned by the Court. I’m surprised that nobody (at least that I’ve seen) has brought up the 1935 SCOTUS decision in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States.
In Schecter, a 9-0 Court found the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) to be unconstitutional on a variety of grounds. The NIRA (as astute PJ readers will recall) was the keystone piece of New Deal legislation that authorized President Roosevelt to virtually take over key private industries and regulate them with codes intended to reduce “destructive competition”, set minimum wages and maximum weekly hours and set minimum prices at which products could be sold. The National Recovery Administration which was set up to administer the Act had the power to insinuate itself into almost every aspect of private business.
Most of this was based on a very expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Court found this to be an excessive and unconstitutional use of the Commerce Clause as well as an unacceptable delegation of power from the legislature to the executive.
Most will regard this as ancient history but it demonstrates that there is plenty of precedent for the overturning of something as “big” as health care reform.
And let’s not forget this little sparkling gem: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/ns/us_news-security/t/justices-say-bush-went-too-far-guantanamo/
And Bush didn’t flame the supreme court..he simply responded that he would have to work with congress to find the right avenue.
Yet Barry seems to have forgotten all about it. Why, it happened in 2006 while the freshly-minted senator from Illi-noize was in office for six months when it occurred. I would think it would stick in the mind of a “constitutional scholar” like his.
Schechter is the case Radosh is referring to when he says the Supremes shot down the NRA nine to zip. For a good overview of the charges, initial trial testimony, and Supreme Court case, see Amity Shlaes’ “The Forgotten Man”.
All this caterwauling on the part of Obama is also indicative of something having leaked from the supremes (my guess, most likely Kagan)as to what the decision is turning out to be.
Otherwise, why would anyone from the WH say anything at all?
And trying to influence, threaten, intimidate the supreme court? Seriously, Barry, you’re jumping the shark here.
No he is not jumping the shark Obama is in so much trouble in all areas that there are no speeches he can make or new or proposed policies that could possibly help him so he must fight with innuendos and half truths and also divide our people, and it as well as him is really a loser.
This is our first affirmative action President how do do like it, is it working out well…I think not!
I like where Obama is going with these new sets of challenges and insults. Unlike the 2008 elections he is finally defining himself and his positions quite clearly to the masses of the voters. He has taken on congress and business as an enemy of the people, and that is not exciting. Everyone can have complaints against those groups.
Taking on the judiciary and the federal court system, the third branch of government is arrogance and defiance on a grand scale. Where congress may not act to reaffirm their legal standings in government through their usual deliberations, a federal judge can so order, supoena,cite contempt, and arrest those who would upset the balances of power. The judges are free from the persuasion of elections for good reasons.
Obama’s reflexes to “double down” on his agendas may well open the case for impeachment, loss of election, or at least, censure. May his microphone always be on until it is finally off.
One can only pray…it is long overdue.
Correction: Hamilton wrote in 1788, not 1798.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
“It was a vast government overreach and, as some on both the Right and Left argued at the time, was fascism American style.”
And at the time, fascism was not a discredited ideology. Well regarded people did think it was a good idea, a third way between unbridled capitalism and vile communism. But it seems to have made a comeback, just under a different label.
Obama has been channeling FDR for over four years now.
To most of us who come here to this site, Obama’s actions and ideals are so adverse to our perceptions of Americanism that they are incomprehensible. Yet, according to Rasmussen, approximately 45% of people polled still have a favorable opinion of Obama. Can anyone explain that, beyond the possibility that the nation has already slid over into Socialism?
Sure. The same number (45%) pay no income taxes.
We are a Marxist country. That is the explanation. We have a society that depends on the redistribution of wealth by forced taxation of wage earners to allow the Government to give those tax monies to non-earners. That is ingrained in our thinking and is rarely questioned anymore. It is simply assumed that it is the ‘right thing to do’ and therefore must be done. That is the root of the Lefts horror that Obamacare might be overturned. It does not occur to the Marxists or to their constituents that anyone could possibly believe that the ‘good intent’ of ‘healthcare for all’ would ever be in question.
Constitutional? “Are you kidding?” What does the Constitution have to do with it? We’re doing the Good Work of Government!
Exposed: Inside the NSA’s Largest and Most Expansive Secret Domestic Spy Center in Bluffdale, Utah
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/exposed_inside_the_nsas_largest_and
Here is an update on a post I made a few days ago about the NSA spy center! MARCH 21, 2012
Exposed: Inside the NSA’s Largest and Most Expansive Secret Domestic Spy Center in Bluffdale, Utah
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/exposed_inside_the_nsas_largest_and
March 22, 2012 New rules allow US to store personal data longer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57402933/new-rules-allow-us-to-store-personal-data-longer/
Part 2: Former NSA Employee Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack on Obama Admin. Whistleblower Crackdown
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/26/part_2_former_nsa_employee_thomas
It’s interesting to hear people in the media slop together various aspects of John Marshall’s Federalist decree. Yes, the supremes can declare a statute unconstitutional and thus null and void… but so can presidents and congress-critters. All of them are required by the constitution to adhere to the constitution’s limits — to do what it requires and prevent anyone else in the federal government from doing what it forbids.
Marbury was one among hundreds of last minute midnight judicial appointments by Federalist president John Adams. The idea was to stack the federal courts with power-mongers, judicial activists to undermine the voice of the citizens to over-turn many of the unconstitutional and simply excessive measures of the Federalist administration when they voted to replace them with anti-federalist Democratic Republicans. The out-going Federalist Senate quickly confirmed the appointments. But the actual commissions from the president had not been signed and issued, so Jefferson took his time getting ’round to them while nominating his own federal judicial appointments. Jefferson’s Federalist cousin, Marshall, had only been appointed shortly before, himself.
Like Obummer, Marshall was more focused on judicial activism and power (and centralized federal government activism and power in general) than on actually complying/being bound by the US constitution. This can also be seen in his decisions regarding the Cherokee; he decreed what he felt like decreeing rather than what the constitution and constitutional laws required.
“If the U.S. Supreme Court invalidats Obamacare there will be teeth grinding rage from the Left.”
Most of the teeth-grinding will come from those with pre-existing conditions who can’t get insurance, young people who’ve been able to COBRA onto their parents’ insurance, and seniors who will once again see the donut-hole gaping.
This was meant as a reply to Chambers, #8.
“pre-existing conditions who can’t get insurance”
Before we have this discussion, let’s get the definition of ‘insurance’ right, shall we?
Insurance – Coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril.
Contingency – something that may happen: an event that might occur in the future, especially a problem, emergency, or expense that might arise unexpectedly and therefore must be prepared for.
Insurance is about preparing against some FUTURE possibility. Pre-existing means it is NOT a future possibility, but rather, is a present certainty.
Insurance in your mind is not about contingencies at all. You are viewing it simply as a means of bill payment, a source of lucre.
What you really mean is that those who did not prepare for contingencies will find it harder to get someone else to foot the bill.
People just do not know what words mean, anymore.
You just knocked that ball clean out of the park to use a baseball analogy it is a Grand Slam and yes words do mean things but when trying to convince those that came up with outcome based education where cat is spelled KAT and they can not do simple math or understand anything mathematically larger than the number of fingers and toes if you first demonstrate how to understand it then what the hell is semantics or rhetoric or demography or the use of logic like the use of a straw man or even half truths presented as fact.
Yep, it’s all semantics and straw men. There are no uninsured, no one has pre-existing conditions, young people don’t need insurance because they never get sick or injured. Now go back to sleep.
“What you really mean is that those who did not prepare for contingencies will find it harder to get someone else to foot the bill.”
Exactly the opposite. People without insurance have no trouble at all finding someone to foot the bill. We all pay the bills with our taxes.
All of which is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the law.
It always amazes me how Obama always uses ideas of those gone by and not one new idea of his own. And as lame as that is, he always uses white communists to guide his agenda while at the same time he touts his black side. How stupid does he think black folkes are?
He knows how stupid they are.
What was that Denzel movie? The Pelican Brief?
Assassinate SCOTUS Justices for voting the wrong way? to get your newbies into the position?
Death surrounds Obummah: Matt Simmons (heart attack, BP Oil Spill Insider whistle blower); Andrew Breitbart (heart attack, about to #VETTHEPREZ!); Bill Gwatney (executed); Donald Young, Larry Sinclair, Nate Bland (the gay guys connected to Jeremiah Wright, Obama Church and O – 2 executed and one turned “septic”); Lt. Quarles Harris (executed – Obama passport testimony); acccording to the film maker/producer, the Clintons who were the original birthers were threatened with the execution death of Chelsea…
’nuff said.
The Supreme Court member are protected by the United States Marshals Service below find out the truth about this groups protectors at all times.
The United States Marshals Service, Judicial Security Division (JSD), is committed to the protection of the judicial process – by ensuring the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings and protecting federal judges, jurors and other members of the federal judiciary. This mission is accomplished by anticipating and deterring threats to the judiciary, and the continuous development and employment of innovative protective techniques. The JSD is organized into two program areas, Judicial Operations and Judicial Services.
Judicial Operations is a collection of national programs, led by a Deputy Assistant Director who has oversight of the National Center for Judicial Security, the Office of Protective Operations, the Office of Protective Intelligence and the Office of Management and Administration. Working together through resource and information sharing, these missions intertwine to create a synergy intended to ensure effective security of judicial officials, USMS personnel, and the visiting public. Judicial Operations utilizes a national network of operational personnel (Deputy U.S. Marshals) and support staff to effectively manage personal and facility security programs around the globe.
Office of Protective Intelligence
The Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) is comprised of Senior Inspectors, Intelligence Research Specialists, and Investigative Analysts that provide guidance, coordination, and recommendations in the behavior based approach to protective investigations initiated by district personnel responsible for investigating threats and inappropriate communications directed at the judiciary, U.S. Attorneys, and other court officers. OPI supports the protective mission of the USMS by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information and protective intelligence, both classified and unclassified, in the form of information bulletins, alert notices, protective intelligence briefs, threat assessments, and foreign travel briefings. OPI also supports the protective mission by managing the intake function for all USMS Protective Investigations and providing analysis and quality control on all new threat and inappropriate communications cases. In addition, OPI provides a 24/7 response capability through the Threat Management Center and facilitates information sharing within the USMS and with other state, local, and federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In fiscal year 2011, 1,258 threats and inappropriate communications against USMS protectees were investigated, analyzed, and assessed to determine the levels of risk and potential for danger.
In FY 2011, the Office of Protective Intelligence:
Conducted three Protective Investigations Training classes for Deputy U.S. Marshals, Judicial Security Inspectors and other state, local and federal officers. All of the training was conducted by subject matter experts from the USMS, U.S. Secret Service, and Diplomatic Security Service.
Coordinated and provided guidance and oversight for more than 1,258 protective investigations.
Produced intelligence products that included 6 alert notices, 27 information bulletins, 16 protective intelligence briefs, and 354 foreign travel briefs for judges.
Office of Protective Operations
The Office of Protective Operations (OPO) provides guidance and support to district offices and Judicial Security Inspectors (JSIs) conducting high threat proceedings and protective responses. OPO also provides supervision, support and guidance for protective details for the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, all members of the federal judiciary, to include U.S. Tax Court and other high-level government dignitaries, including the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys. On any given day, the USMS is responsible for safeguarding more than 2,000 sitting judges, and approximately 5,250 other court officials at over 400 court facilities throughout the United States and its territories. In fiscal year 2011, nearly 1,300 threats/inappropriate communications against USMS protectees were investigated, analyzed, and assessed – some of which resulted in around-the-clock protective details.
On a daily basis, USMS personnel assigned to the Office of Protective Operations deploy state-of-the-art protective techniques, equipment, and counter-measures. These skills and abilities are deployed in a proactive manner, but can assure rapid, thorough, and safe responses to almost any emergency situation, including a terrorist attack and natural disasters. Additionally, these skills and abilities allow for unobtrusive surveillance and protection during routine judicial security operations.
In FY 2011, the Office of Protective Operations:
Coordinated and provided personnel and additional security resources for 365 protective details (outside of courthouses) to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, U.S Appellate Court, District Court and federal Magistrate Judges, and/or other members of the judicial system.
Provided security services for 186 judicial conferences and other significant gatherings of members of the federal judiciary.
Coordinated and provided personnel and additional security resources for 117 high-threat trials, in addition to 27 events related to 96 terrorist trials.
Coordinated and provided personnel and additional resources for 6 events for the Southwest Border Initiative.
National Center for Judicial Security
The USMS established the National Center for Judicial Security (NCJS) in fiscal year 2008. The goal of the NCJS is to provide educational, operational, and technical functionality to its customers, which include . municipal, city, county, state, Federal, and international jurisdictions, in the areas of security operations of their respective court systems and the protection of members of the judiciary and extended court family.
NCJS Fellowship Brochure
NCJS Fellowship Application
Office of Management and Administration
The Office of Management and Administration (OMA) serves as the center of expertise within the Judicial Security Division (JSD) to essentially manage the business processes of JSD by providing guidance and assistance to JSD staff to ensure that program areas meet directives from the JSD Assistant Director.
The OMA staff coordinates the majority of the personnel, budget, finance, procurement, employee development and training initiatives, property accountability, fleet management, special projects, congressional and departmental correspondence, audit and inspection functions, strategic planning, records management, information technology, data systems, and other related business functions.
Judicial Services is a national program in the Judicial Security Division led by a Deputy Assistant Director that has oversight for programs funded by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) court security appropriation. The funding provides for the Court Security Officer (CSO) program, security equipment and systems for space occupied by the judiciary and for U.S. Marshals Service employees to administer the daily functions. The Judicial Services is separated into four oversight areas: the Office of Court Security is responsible for the daily operations and personnel management of the CSO program, the Office of Security Contracts performs the daily contract responsibilities with the private contractors and the district Contract Officer Technical Representatives, the Office of Security Systems is responsible for all security and monitoring systems for judicial space, and the Office of Financial Management & Administration has the daily oversight responsibility of a $420 million budget.
Office of Court Security
The Office of Court Security (OCS) has primary responsibility for ensuring that the CSOs protect the judiciary and court family – as well as thousands of jurors, attorneys and visitors entering court facilities across the nation. The OCS determines resource needs and develops and enhances program operations and contract requirements for the CSOs. The OCS also provides day-to-day operational guidance to U.S. Marshals Service senior management officials in each district office.
Currently, more than 5,000 CSOs with certified law enforcement experience are deployed at more than 440 court facilities in the United States and its territories. All CSOs are required to pass a comprehensive screening process to ensure that specific background, physical, medical and weapons qualifications standards are met.
Office of Security Contracts
The Office of Security Contracts provides acquisition support to the Judicial Security Division primarily in the area of court security. This office is responsible for the full range of acquisition functions for security services, equipment, systems and maintenance.
The bulk of acquisitions performed in this office is related to the CSO Program. Contracts are awarded to each of the twelve Judicial Circuits for court security services to be performed in all 94 Judicial Districts. An interagency agreement between the AOUSC provides funding and contracting authority for the CSO security services. The estimated annual value of all 12 CSO contracts is approximately $330 million.
The second major contracting function of OSC is the support of the Office of Security Systems which is responsible for the physical security of the U.S. Courts through the installation and maintenance of security equipment and systems. The OSC has established a nationwide contract for installation of new equipment and security systems in renovated and newly constructed facilities.
The third area of contracting support provided by OSC is in the Home Intrusion Detection System (HIDS) Program through the Office of Courthouse Management. Under the HIDS Program, commercial available home alarm systems and centralized monitoring are procured for Federal Judicial participants residents.
OSC provides contractual support for other services, supplies and equipment related to the overall operation of JSD. These are primarily delivery orders (against GSA Schedule), purchase orders and credit card purchases. Most of the funding used in contracts for OSC is AOUSC related funding.
Office of Security Systems
The Office of Security Systems (OSS) is responsible for all aspects of electronic and physical security system budgeting, design, installation, construction, maintenance and service for the Federal judiciary. OSS facilitates security planning with all court offices, security committees and other Federal agencies, for a comprehensive and coordinated security approach.
OSS is responsible for security equipment at nearly 900 court facilities throughout the United States and its territories. The OSS Physical Security Program is one of the largest centrally managed physical security programs in the Federal government. Other Federal, state and local agencies look to OSS for managerial and technical guidance. The OSS has developed internationally recognized standards for courthouse public lobby design, and leads in the application of new CCTV, access control and IDS alarm technologies for the courthouse environment.
Office of Financial Management and Administration
The Office of Financial Management and Administration (OFMA) is responsible for all budget and financial aspects for the efficient and effective operation of the Judicial Facility Security Program (JFSP) and has daily oversight responsibility of a $420,000,000 budget in FY 2012. OFMA is also responsible for the Judicial Services administrative functions, including those related to human resources, property tracking, procurement and website management. The USMS receives an annual funding transfer from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for the purpose of implementing a court security program at Federal courthouses throughout the country. This funding, designated as the 0930 appropriation is utilized to:
Award and monitor contracts for over 5,000 court security officers (CSOs) nationwide;
Provide for the installation and maintenance of security equipment, and construction of physical security measures, in facilities occupied by Judicial Branch entities; and
Cover a portion of the USMS expenses to administer JFSP.”
Source http://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial/index.html
There’s crazy … and then there’s PJM crazy.
Hmmm. Does this bring to anyone elses mind that judge in Georgia?
In the end Obama will end up in the same place as FDR. I hear it get mighty hot down there.
“I’m following FDR’s playbook.” NOOOO! He’s following Saul Alinsky’s, Karl Marx’s, and he’s getting ALL his orders from the NWO fat cats. The man is just a FRONT. An “actor”. Not a very good one either. The Wall St bankers have their arm so far up his a$$ they can feel his tonsils.
Remember the old saying, “Republicans run for President; Democrats run for King.”
Obama sees himself as royalty and is dumbfounded and enraged that anyone would dare to oppose his commands.
It has been obvious from his comments since he was elected, “I won”, and his method of compromise (compromise means that Republicans support his bills) that he sees himself as a “ruler” rather than an executive.
and Michelle loves her Antoinette life style: millions of taxpayers’ (subjects’) money on lavish vacations, private jets (i.e. airforce jets for private use) to Martha’s Vineyard and Hawaii, date nights in Paris… Life in the US has never been so good.
“Obama’s running the FDR playbook”, Bullshit, Obama is running the Peron/Mugabe playbook of spending and printing the country into destitution.
The United States of Bananastan – That’s the change Obama’s bringing.
Re: Nos. 21-24: It’s good to see that RR is getting the readership he so richly deserves.
“Fascism American style” is precisely where the United States will be at the end of the year when Independents decide to vote their conscious instead of by Rovian calculus and Romney loses. The court will indeed strike the mandate, but voters will not be able to strike the source. 2013 will be the year of pain.
FDR? You’re so last week. He said he’s like Jesus in Easter.