Skip to comments.Carney: Obama remark about Supreme Court was misunderstood
Posted on 04/04/2012 2:30:56 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Carney: Obama remark about Supreme Court was misunderstood By Jonathan Easley - 04/04/12 04:25 PM ET
In an occasionally testy exchange with reporters, White House press secretary Jay Carney defended President Obamas remark that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn the administrations healthcare law, saying the comment had been misunderstood.
Speaking at a Rose Garden news conference on Monday, Obama weighed in on the matter for the first time since last weeks high court hearings that left many Democrats fearful that the five conservative judges would band together to strike down his signature domestic achievement.
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, the president said.
Republicans pounced on the remarks, citing more than 150 cases in which the Supreme Court had overturned an act of Congress.
On Tuesday, Obama said he meant the Supreme Court hadnt overturned a law that involved the Commerce Clause, as the healthcare law does, in the last 80 years since the New Deal.
Carney defended that take at a White House press briefing on Wednesday, when asked if the president regretted his initial remarks.
Not at all, Carney said. As Ive said a number of times now, the president was making the unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history.
When asked if that meant the president was now clarifying his remarks, Carney shot back, Only because a handful of people didnt understand what he was referring to.
The fact that it would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress, designed to deal with a matter of economic importance like our healthcare system, Carney continued.
Thats what would be unprecedented about it. He did not suggest, did not mean and did not suggest that it would be unprecedented for the court to rule that a law was unconstitutional. Thats what the Supreme Court is there to do. But it has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congresss authority on matters of national economic importance.
Critics blasted the president for his comments, saying his remarks were an attempt to influence the outcome of the courts ruling and claiming that the president attempted to diminish the justices by referring to them as unelected.
Carney said that was not meant as a swipe against the Supreme Court, and that the president respects the power of the judicial branch.
Nobody would ever contend in his office, and he certainly is not contending, that the Supreme Court doesnt have as its right and responsibility the ability to overturn laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional, Carney said. He was referring to 85 years of Supreme Court precedent with matters like the one under consideration, and its maybe fun to pretend otherwise, but everyone here knows what he meant.
[The president] was a law professor, Carney added. He understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court.
"Obama is nothing but a ghetto organizing Flim-Flam Man. Obama would make a great Carnival shill.Hittin' on all cylinders today Gator! A perfect post.
This pathological liar should have already been impeached.... and he should be doing prison time, NOT charting the course of 300 million lives.
There is nothing honorable within him or about him."
"...my muslim religion"
"Your Christian Religion, Your Christian Religion, Right! "
He was an instructor.
Its mot hard to understand Obama..he is a manipulative calculating radical marxist usurper who wants to fundementally destroy what is left of our Constitutional Repuplic. Everything he says is the truth wrapped in lies and distortions. All with a smile.
See U.S. v. Lopez, here:
This should be played at the intro of any broadcast about the Liar in Chief.
I would REALLY be curious to know if Jay Carney has any bones in his body!! It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to twist and spin like this and not break several bones in the process.
I heard Obama’s comments and he meant what he said. I was driving at the time and nearly wrecked my car at the arrogance of the man!
Justice Smith - Fifth Circuit Court, relevant transcript in full context:
Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Justice Smith: Im referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect
that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed he was referring, of course, to Obamacare what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And thats not a small matter. So I want to be sure that youre telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because theres no
Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the presidents statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.
How about during SOTU when he lambasted them to their faces after they overturned McPain-Feingold?
You guys just don’t get it. He wasn’t speaking English when he said that. He was speaking Obamanese. So, bow down and worship!
Mexico and Canada make poor hostages. ;p
We’re back to what “is” is.
So, Obama wasn't wrong, and he didn't misspeak. We're all just too stupid to understand his pan-dimensional chess-player mind.
And I'm the queen of England.
The lies never end with this jerk.
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.