Skip to comments.Obama Asks ‘Unelected’ Supreme Court Not To Take Extraordinary Step Of Overturning Health Care Law
Posted on 04/03/2012 10:48:26 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
In a Rose Garden press conference on Monday alongside the Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President Barack Obama reminded the Supreme Court justices that they have a responsibility to show judicial restraint while considering the constitutionality of the presidents signature health care reform law.
RELATED: Senate Democrats Warn Overturning Health Care Grave For Nation, Good For Democratic Electoral Hopes
I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care, Obama said. So theres not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but theres a human element to this. And I hope thats not forgotten in this political debate.
President Obama issued a veiled warning that the public would not take kindly to the courts overturning of the health care law and may view it as the overstepping of the courts narrowly defined constitutional jurisdiction. Ultimately, Im 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Video of the Judge....second image....at the link.
Wannabe DICKtator Obama may not get his way!! Waaaah!! Waaaah!!!
Hopefully the supremes tell the marxist punk to get bent.
Didn’t they already vote before he “suggested” they should uphold that bad law? White House lawyers are probably trying to come up with an end run around the Court.
Anything that’s good for Dem Electoral Hopes is grave for the Nation.
“Didnt they already vote before he suggested they should uphold that bad law? White House lawyers are probably trying to come up with an end run around the Court.”
I’m sure they planned their end run well in advance; this is the formulated righteous indignation that’s going to “justify” it.
The “Bulldyke” already got word to the little girl, Obama. He lost!
Members of the Supreme are nominated by the president and then confirmed by Congress. That’s an election by elected representatives of the voters. There may only be one candidate at a time, but the Congress is free to approve or turn down any nominee.
Calling them unelected sounds like they are being set up to be removed from office by the usurper and his henchmen.
My suspicion on this vote is somewhat mixed. IMO it will be 6-3 against the individual mandate with kennedy and Ginsburg joining the other 4.
I suspect, the regulation portions will be left in tact as within the perview of the G...that vote will be 5-4.
Just my thought based on the questioning during the hearing.
Meanwhile, Obunghole will not be happy, even with half a loaf so watch for him to try something extra legal. Recall how he sided with the marxist in central america against their courts when they tried to remove him.
No....their opinion is expected by June,....but with this presidential outburst....maybe they will reply sooner.
If your scenario plays out, Obama had better hope that they strike the whole law and not just the mandate.
If they strike the mandate but not the regs, Obama will have essentially double-crossed the health insurance industry. The deal they were offered was 50 million new paying customers at gunpoint, in exchange for the pain of Sebelius and her regulations. The lack of severability was done to protect them in case the mandate were to be tossed.
For Obama, crossing the insurance industry is the political equivalent of crossing the Mafia. Remember Harry and Louise? They are going to use their massive warchests, plus Citizens United, to absolutely bury him under a blizzard of negative ads this fall.
I suppose this means that Obama would have preferred that “Seperate But Equal” not been overturned. It was, after all, established law voted on buy the people’s elected representatives.
LOL....OK by me....He needs some good stewing.
Funny how “constitutional scholar” Obama just discovered that the unelected SCOTUS can overturn laws. As if that’s something new. Also funny at how the Left considers upholding the Constitution “judicial activism”, yet having the Courts make law out of whole cloth is OK.
And, of course, the MSM can’t be bothered with such blatent hypocracy.
He’s given them little choice, to wit “don’t legislate from the bench” which they’d have to for repairing any excised components, and “don’t overturn anything passed by Congress”, leaving them no option but to rubber-stamp approval of an existing law which is incompatible with the Constitution. This, plus your points about double-crossing the industry, brings every potential outcome to simple & complete overturning of the entire law as the only viable path. Notwithstanding the judges having already decided, any justice still persuadable would have to side with vacating the law in question insofar as this is the only way to satisfy such extraordinary demands by POTUS.
” My suspicion on this vote is somewhat mixed. IMO it will be 6-3 against the individual mandate with kennedy and Ginsburg joining the other 4.
I suspect, the regulation portions will be left intact as within the perview of the G...that vote will be 5-4.”
I might have agreed with you, had it not been for the outright threat by Obama, after the Bulldyke whispered to him over the weekend.
1) SCOTUS knows that Obama will ignore the ruling, if any of it is left intact.
2) They would have to read all 2700 pages, which they won’t do.
The entire thing will be tossed, 5-4.
Just MHO...thanks for the post!
Come on conservatives, if this is to be his "straw man" argument, then true conservatives need to expose, as the writer on some threads have, the fallacies of his premise.
For him to take conservative opposition to what they describe as "judicial activism" and attempt to turn it against the Court's appropriate role of interpreting the Constitution's limits on government power is the maneuver one might expect from him. Meanwhile, his own appointee knows exactly what conservatives have meant when they speak of "judicial activisim."
When conservatives complain about "judicial activism," they are describing the same kind of "activism" as his appointee to the Court, Sotomayor, described in her meeting at Duke University when she stated that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," and then added, "I know I shouldn't have said that, but . . . ."-- with a smile.
His open attempt at intimidating what he referred to as the "unelected" branch of government is a reminder of the wisdom of America's Founders in their making it just that: an "unelected" and, hopefully, an independent and objective group of individuals who would look to the approbation of future generations, and their liberty and freedom, rather than the railings or approval of a temporary and Partisan political tyrant of the moment.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us of such "artful" persons who, once elected to positions of temporary power, might attempt to subvert the Constitution's limits on their power.
Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, concluded with these words:
"The national constitution is our last, and our only security. United we stand; divided we fall.
§ 1907. If these Commentaries shall but inspire in the rising generation a more ardent love of their country, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the Union, then they will have accomplished all, that their author ought to desire. Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of fife, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."
And, as far as Judge Napolitano's bringing up the name of Andrew Jackson, the following words from Jackson indicate a far different message about the Constitution than those heard so far from this Preeident:
From Page xv of "Our Ageless Constitution,", here excerpted words from President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation of December 10, 1832:
"We have received it [the Constitution] as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution . . .? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault. . . . No, we did not err! . . . The sages . . . have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent* Constitutional compact. . . . The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace: it shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity. . . ."
*Underlining added for emphasis
And, it was Thomas Jefferson who used another metaphor with reference to the Constitution when he indicated that "the People" must "bind them (government) by the chains of the Constitution." In another instance, he declared: "It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers. . . ."
Maybe they Dems should have thought this through before “deeming” this “law” passed in the first place.
The Mass senator that was needed for the vote was not legally seated either.
Oh - and forget about actually reading it before it was passed. Nancy - “you have to pass it before you know what it says” (paraphrased from memory)
See # 26.
May be some technical reason ...it was there earlier.
The article with the enbedded video is not available.
Seems to be available again now.
You B talking about sotomayor? Man, not much woman there eh?
Nope : )