Posted on 04/04/2012 5:22:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's complaints about the Supreme Court's critical review of his health care law suggests that he has a real problem with the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.
He also seems to have a problem understanding that the court is a "co-equal" branch of government. Its powers are set forth in the Constitution. This is not some obscure government body that can be lectured about its duties and insulted as nothing more than -- in Obama's words -- "an unelected group of people."
Just a few days after the highest court in the land heard three days of oral arguments on a lawsuit brought by 26 states against the health care mandate, Obama seemed to be issuing a not-so-veiled warning to the justices, some of whom appeared to suggest that they may be prepared to strike it down.
Obama, in very blunt language, was essentially lodging a pre-emptive attack on the justices -- rare for a president in a pending case -- flatly telling them that striking down his mandate would be an unacceptable act of "judicial activism."
"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is that the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," he said in a Rose Garden news conference Monday.
"Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama added.
And if the judges didn't get his message, he added that it would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the court to strike down the mandate in a law passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Excuse me, Mr. President, but the vote by which a law was passed is irrelevant to whether it is unconstitutional or not. As it happens, the law was passed by the slimmest of margins along party lines.
This is a president who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, who graduated from Harvard Law School, who was president of the Harvard Law Review.
Did he miss the class that dealt with the separation of powers doctrine? Did he forget the lecture in Constitutional Law 101 about the Supreme Court's inherent authority as a co-equal branch of government?
There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests the court is an inferior branch of government because the justices are "unelected" and the president and members of Congress are elected by the people.
Indeed, in Article III of the Constitution, it clearly states "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court ..."
And there are no restrictions on the court's purview. Indeed, it says, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States."
And what's this business about "unprecedented" if the court should strike down Obamacare? That's what the court has done in countless cases throughout our history, striking down laws that violate the Constitution -- from Marbury v. Madison in 1803 to anti-free speech laws in campaign finance reform.
Maybe Obama skipped his law class on the day it took up the Supreme Court's decisions in 1936 when it struck down 16 pieces of New Deal legislation. At least President Roosevelt had the decency to wait until he had won re-election before attacking the court on that one.
Obviously, the president knows full well that the court under Chief Justice John Roberts has overturned a lot of laws in some major cases.
There was the historic ruling striking down the handgun ban in the District of Columbia in which the court said the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" means exactly what it says.
There was the deconstruction of much of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms that imposed severely unconstitutional restrictions on political freedom of speech.
And there was the decision in the Citizens United case that corporations were just like people and should be free to contribute money to the candidates of their choice.
That ruling really stirred the president's ire in his 2010 State of the Union address. In an unprecedented public display of presidential petulance, with the embarrassed robed justices sitting before him, Obama charged the court had "reversed a century of law" that would "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence the outcome of political campaigns. Justice Samuel Alito could be seen mouthing the words, "Not true."
Obama's feigned outrage didn't last long. His campaign set up a super-PAC to accept business contributions from Wall Street and the like that his fundraising handlers hope will push his total contributions to the $1 billion mark.
Still, Obama's outburst, months before the court will hand down its health care ruling, was a rarity in presidential posturing.
"Though past presidents have occasionally inveighed against judicial activism, legal analysts and historians said it was difficult to find a historical parallel to match Obama's willingness to directly confront the court," The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
This was a performance dripping in politics, and Obama was preaching to the choir to energize his party's base at a time when polls show voters aren't very enthused about their choices in this election.
The nearly $2 trillion health care law is widely unpopular, especially the mandate that forces uninsured Americans to buy health insurance they do not want or cannot afford.
Obama says he expects the court will uphold the law, and the White House says there is no "Plan B." They had better get one soon, because this mandate is going down.
So, the USSC is "an unelected group of people" who should not be making decisions about laws that affect US citizens.
But unelected czars, unelected EPA, unelected ATFE, unelected TSA, unelected on and on government bureaus ad nauseum completely unaccountable is just fine and dandy?
I think Elena Kagen or the “wise” Latina must have texted Obama the individual mandate is going down and he thinks he has nothing to lose by attacking (threatening?) the court.
I’m sure Herr Hitler had a problem with the German judiciary
in his first term. Not so much in the second one!
Bump for the fact and truth
“One could be charitable and say that Barack Obama is a bullshitter who makes stuff up whenever he is in a tough spot, or one could say that he is a habitual liar. Take your pick.”
I’ve been growing weary of hearing people mention that he’s a “constitutional scholar,” since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But hey—he taught constitutional law, didn’t he?
Not really.
His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—the favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat. There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/barack-obama-constitutional-ignoramus.php
perfect
This is a president who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, who graduated from Harvard Law School, who was president of the Harvard Law Review.
________________________________
I don’t think he actually taught *Constitutional Law,* because he he taught as a lecturer and then a senior lecturer. I think he taught related courses. And he NEVER published anything. Now that IS unprecedented (particularly with regard to his position at the Harvard Law Review).
One course he taught was “Current Issues in Racism and the Law.” His other courses had to do with Voting Rights and Due Process and Equal Protection.
BOZO has to realize the Supreme Court is the Judicial Branch of our Gov’t, and he will not intimidate the Court. No way. He just can’t stand the fact that his BOZOCARE plan is going to be overturned.
My wife came to this country, studied hard at the kitchen table for a few months, and passed her citizenship test with a 100% score. The examiner kept asking her questions after she passed because he got a kick out of how she knew everything. I guarantee she and every other legal immigrant knows more about this country than Obama.
I pick habitual liar.
But wouldn’t it be “racist” to overturn the FBP’s signature legislation?
They’re actually making this argument.
” - - - I don’t believe he has a clue about constitutional law - - - “
Not so.
Dictator Baby-Doc Barack purposed his Obama”care” to be activated AFTER his Nov., 2012 re-election was completed.
Thus, the SCOTUS could choose to not rule on the Constitutionality of his law because no one actually was financially harmed by the law.
THE NINE SUPREMES could still choose to do that by severing the Constitutionality of the law from whatever they choose to rule on.
For example, they could rule on the Individual Mandate, and wait until after The Obamanator gets re-elected before ruling on the rest of the law.
Since Obama has appointed 2 SUPREMES, the odds are 2 out of 9 that the Law will be severed.
Dictator Obama has chosen to use his “Bully Pulpit” to jawbone and threaten the SCOTUS to better his odds, Chicagah gangsta style.
BTW, if re-elected will Obama dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States of America?
Check your calendar!
>> the elena “I donts need to recuse” kegan leaked the supremes vote to the commie obama and he responded with threats and intimidation
I see it differently.
Consider who on the court might actually be influenced by Barky’s dumb comment.
Not Alito, not Scalia, not Thomas, not Roberts. (Well, maybe in the negative: if, say, Roberts was sympathetic to the Government’s case, this threat would likely remove that sympathy).
Kennedy? Who know — who EVER knows about Kennedy. Who cares.
However, Sotemeyer, Kagan and Ginsburg are liberals, true, but they’re also liberal WOMEN who take their role AS PROFESSIONAL JURISTS VERY SERIOUSLY. They have huge egos and DO NOT want to be perceived as anyone’s reliable “lap dog”, especially not a male executive — not even Barack Obama.
Suppose any *one* of the three liberal women is at all convinced that the States’ position is the most righteous and defensible position from a legal (read: professional) point of view. To vote their liberal partisanship against their professional better judgment is OK as long as it’s perceive to be THEIR OWN (e.g. “WISE LATINA”) judgment.
But if they go partisan instead of righeous NOW, *after* Barky threatened them, it’ll be viewed by the outside world as being “pwned by a male”. Their female professional egos WILL NOT tolerate that!
If ANY ONE of them, as a consequence of Barky’s threat, votes with the conservative 4 to avoid being pwned by Barky, there’s your 5-4, REGARDLESS of how Kennedy votes.
That’s lots of conjecture, I agree. But I think this will backfire seriously badly on Boy President, and it *might* be the liberal women on the court who spank him. I think it could go 7-2 or even 8-1 against Barky.
So we have reached a stage where education is so watered down in the United States that it is possible to get a law degree from Harvard without knowing Marbury v. Madison!!
Merciful Heavens!
I never saw where Obama said the exact word "unelected." Anyone have a link for that?
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.