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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.