Skip to comments.Obama echoes conservatives on 'activist' court
Posted on 04/08/2012 5:28:56 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
It may be too little too late, but the Obama administration is using conservative legal ideas to win support from Supreme Court justices - and the general public - for its signature health care law.
Obama even invoked the conservative mantra on "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism," and how conservatives traditionally decry "an unelected group" of judges overturning "a duly constituted and passed law."
Obama "knows that nothing he says will matter to them at this point," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine School of Law. "I think it was a statement with a political goal, not a legal one."
But regardless of timing, the points are valid, said Vincent Bonventre, law professor at Albany (N.Y.) Law School who believes the law should be upheld.
"The conservatives' own philosophy suggests they should uphold Obamacare," Bonventre said. Respect for court precedents and deference to elected officials are "fundamental principles of conservative justices."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Deference to the Constitution should be the fundamental principle of ALL justices. Not temporary elected officials. The congress that passed Obamacare is gone, but their legacy lives on.
Where’s the double bucket BARF alert?
Of course, the one thing they leave out is the sworn duty of ALL officers of government, at all levels, in the judicial, the legislative, and the executive branches, to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION.
Does this mean that the liberals on the court will rule to over-turn the Obama-care law under his logic?
Or that the liberal judges will rule to keep all the laws that Obama/Holder are suing to overturn, and DOMA?
No, this lib writer only has rules for the Republicans to follow.
Classic Alinksy tactic is to frame the other side's rules and then claim they are breaking them.
0bama showing clearly he lumps them together. This "constitutional (sic) law professor" thinks these two terms are one and the same thing.
It is going to be lies 24/7 for the next 7 months.
By the end - the media will just be making things up.
Humans are fallible, which is exactly why judicial review is needed in the first place. If we could count on Congress to always adhere to the Constitution, there would never have been any need for SCOTUS to overturn more than 150 laws. But by the same token, SCOTUS itself is fallible, which is why, if need be, Congress had end-around SCOTUS by enacting amendments to the Constitution. But this is a very laborious process (accomplished in the period after the enactment of the original Bill of Rights with only about 1/10 the frequency that SCOTUS has turned down unconstitutional laws).
Thus, another crucial check on SCOTUS’s momentous power to declare laws unconstitutional is SCOTUS itself. The current Court always can decide that a past Court was wrong in making a particular decision. Indeed, it was just such a change of mind that led SCOTUS in the 1930’s to reverse its earlier judgments on Commerce Clause cases. But there’s nothing “conservative” about making those earlier decisions sacrosanct and beyond further reversal (especially since those earlier decisions themselves were the reversal of decisions only a few decades old).
I don’t think it will ever happen, but it’s absolutely within the prerogative of the Court to reverse its earlier ruling that Social Security, for example, was constitutional. And the basis for doing so would be reliance on an originalist understanding of the Constitution. What’s conservative is using the Constitution rather than ideological druthers to determine whether a law should be struck down.
He has perverted the meaning to be a court that strikes down his unconstitutional laws.
” It is going to be lies 24/7 for the next 7 months.”
No distinction here.....we have had over 3 years of lies