My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review

Fox News ^ | April 5, 2012 | Thom Lambert

[COUNTrecount]

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question.

[COUNTrecount]

Shorthand.

[samtheman]

Obama, through Carney, is now trying to say that he only meant “unprecedented” with regard to “major national economic legislation” (whatever that means). They know they screwed up on this and they’re trying to change what he said.

[GoldenPup]

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor

NOT ever a law professor. Ever.

[randog]

The author has what’s commonly called a “resume stain”.

[Chewbarkah]

Obama’s attack on federal jurists as “unelected” is fascinating. What a hoot that he would imply that “democratically-elected” judges would be less political, and to question HIS OWN appointment powers. Does Obama feel his judicial appointments are improper? Does he find the “democratically-elected” legislative branch incompetent to confirm them? Maybe he should take a poll on whom to appoint. Any other parts of the Constitution he wants to denounce?

[Verginius Rufus]

Professor Lambert also appeared on Greta's show last night. The video is worth watching. He thinks Obama is in effect jury tampering--trying to get the Court's desire to have the public respect the integrity of the Court to get one or two swing justices to vote the way Obama wants. The only reason that might work, of course, is the vituperation the Court has experienced from Democrats over their slap-down of the Florida Supreme Court's attempt to steal the election for Gore in 2000, and the more recent denunciation of the Court in the State of the Union address in 2010.

Lambert explains that the course Obama taught just dealt with the Fourteenth Amendment. Someone speculated here recently that Bill Ayers' wife prepared the syllabus for the course (Obama always has someone else do the heavy lifting).

[Gargantua]

Barry Soetoro is NOT our president. He usurped the seat via the most massive and repugnant fraud ever perpetrated upon the American public, and in so doing has created the most massive Constitutional Crisis this Nation ever has, or likely ever will see.

He deserves to be arrested, tried, convicted, and given life in prison without the possibility of parole. Though, in reality, we'll be lucky just to vote him out this year, given the appalling lack of brain function among the vast majority of the drooling, crap-stained, inbred American votership.

The Liberal Commie Progressives have done an amazing job of churning out thought-deprived, logic-challenged gerbils from our Public Schools and Universities over the last 50 years.

O'Bunghole is but a symptom of a malaise which finds little left worth saving in this waste-encrusted shell of what was once the greatest Nation in the hisory of mankind. I'm old now, and have no children, so the pain these truths cause me is largely anecdotal——but I'd still like five minutes alone with the Quisling faggot.

8^D

[RedMDer]

Click!

Donate to Free Republic.

[StonyBurk]

And if one were to take what he said originally at face value—what does that say about the executive attempting to have a duly constituted law -passed by Congress while he was a member of that liars club —overturned as if it were unconstitutional? (DOMA—anyone?)

[StonyBurk]

And if one were to take what he said originally at face value—what does that say about the executive attempting to have a duly constituted law -passed by Congress while he was a member of that liars club —overturned as if it were unconstitutional? (DOMA—anyone?)

[MrB]

He just knew that know one in the media would dare call him on the obvious hypocrisy of his statement.

Roe V Wade, [dingle]Barry?

[Chewbarkah]

Funny you should mention Roe v Wade. The media seems equally incapable of pointing out that Roe v Wade ruled that government has no power to interfere in a US citizen’s fundamental right to privacy regarding health care; ObamaCare is obviously unconstitutional on this basis alone. Since we now learn that Obama’s Constitutional Law course was focused solely on the 14TH Amendment, it’s especially rich that Roe prohibits the States from violating this right to privacy, precisely because of the equal protection clause IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT. Guess he forgot. What a joker.

[Publius6961]

Bookmark