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 ...
A duly constituted law passed by Congress? So the Hell what moron,who appointed the Congress Gods? Why have any court if all they have to pass laws and that’s it? How about Congress passes a law that says all private property is hereby confiscated by the Federal government.Its a duly consttituted law passed by Congress. This guy is President of the United States?
He is more Hostile to the Supreme court, radio talk show hosts
Whitee Americans than he is to the Russians
Hey Putin just wait until after the election so I won’t have to kiss the butt of these Republicans and pretend I took an oath to that rag of negative liberties the Constitution.
re: “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.”
I’m glad Ruth is “troubled” by Obama’s language regarding the Court - but her believing the law is “good policy” and “sound law” is also troubling to me.
Then she goes on to say that it would be bad if the Court strikes down Obamacare - not because it’s constitutional or unconstitutional, but because it would look “political”.
So, now the Court should approve or disapprove of cases set before it based on how it would look politically? If, in her mind, the Court made a bad decision previously, it should “balance” it out on a new case? Sounds like how some referees give one team a “freebee” call to their advantage because of some previous bad call that benefited the opposing team - all to “balance” out the bad calls.
She perpetuates her views that Bush V. Gore in 2000 was a “bad” call by the Court when it stopped the Florida Supreme Court from stealing the election in its attempt to give it to Gore, and the Citizens United decision where the Court allowed corporations to give to whichever candidate it wanted without limits - just as unions do!
Lord! These people never quit with the BS. Give us a break!
Bzzzzt
Wrong. He was never any such thing. He was only a guest lecturer.
Lately, I have been agreeing with "Baby Doc" way too much, and it is troubling me.
The vote SHOULD be 9-0 to strike the overreaching law in its entirety.
That comment “unelected group of people” referring to the Supreme Court justices... it is just unbelievable the way 0bama takes to insulting people and groups - but this one is pretty low. As if the fact that they are not elected diminishes them or the stature of the court. I bet they all have birth certificates.
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.