Posted on 04/03/2012 9:45:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”
To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.
That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.
And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Politicizing the court by bringing up the party of who appointed whom — Zero is a disaster. God help us.
Not so subtle TYRANNY!
Oh, that Ruth Marcus, she’s such a little minx!
Brother, if she thinks this is a good law, she needs to take a look at Marbury vs. Madison.
What difference does it make, truly, if the individual mandate is shot down 5 to 4? 5 is still more than 4, is it not?
See my tagline.
-Rex
This rant by the so called Constitutional Professor was great. It fully exposed him as the blithering idiot he is. He had no idea what an activist court was and he kept using phrases that made no sense.
bttt
love your tagline
His vernacular is that of a 13-year-old. He is not a good speaker.
He may be a marxist, but he is not an intelligent human being.
Barkie Obummer demonstrates yet again he has no sense of propriety, no class, no decency, no nothing except a narcissistic ego the size of Russia. IF, by some miracle, Obamacare gets struck down, we will see a temper tantrum to end all temper tantrums by the occupier of the WH.
The judge had some good comments regarding Obama and his intent ,...this morning...on Fox Business news,
Barry and Van Jones created Occupy Wall Street to reinvigorate the youth vote and under the expectation Mitt Romney, venture capitalist would be the Republican nominee.
Barry declared war on the Catholic Church against the best advice of Joe Biden in order to reinvigorate the single women vote.
Barry's minions spun up the Trayvon Martin case thinking George Zimmerman was a white man. When the pictures came out, and Zimmerman looked like somebody loitering around Home Depot for day work, the MSM created the new ethnic category "White Hispanic".
Barry put Elena Kagan, White House Solicitor involved in not only the creation of ObamaCare, but the drafting of the ObamaCare legal defense strategy on the SCOTUS to try to prevent ObamaCare from being overturned.
Given ObamaCare is likely to be overturned, Obama is forced to use a scorched earth strategy.
War on capitalism and economic liberty.
War on the Catholic Church and individual responsibility.
War on white Americans.
War on the Supreme Court.
This is Obama's reelection strategy.
The fact that SCOTUS is unelected is not an issue when the ruling is in favor of the left, is it?
Well here’s one liberal lawyer who has awoken to the reality that his ideal of socialist centralized power precludes the judicial branch. You get one or the other: a constitutional republic or a socialist utopia. One preclude the existence of the other.
Without a constitution, there is no separation of power; no courts and no Congress. Without limits on Federal power, the constitution is dead and so is the legal profession. Suddenly a bunch of liberal lawyers are without purpose beyond bowing to Dear Reader and The Party. They do this now, but it is a political fad choice. If they get what they work for - socialism - there will be no choice anymore.
He has “joked” in the past about wanting to be a dictator (once in front of La Raza which chanted “Yes we can, yes wwe can” in response)
The totalitarian mind doesn’t deal well with conflict, competition and independent thinking, especially when the desired goals of the state are delayed. After reelection, Obama will have little choice but to purge the Supreme court of undesirable conservatives. He knows best, and best knows that people have to be told what to think, and forced to think it, including these arrogant judges.
I wish I could put a /s after that short rant, but there is no sarcasm in it. The left and their leader Obama know the importance of controlling the way we think, and that goes double for law makers.
Bzzzzzzt.
Sorry Ruth. You just intellectually disrobed yourself, rendering anything you write barely worthy of reading. (Ginsberg, are you using an alias now?)
Shut up, SNOB-ama
” it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.”
Who appointed Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg? Wasn’t that a Repub?
Should have looked it up. Ruth Buzzy was appointed by Clowntoon.
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.