President Barack Obama used his press time today to launch a frontal assault on the judicial branch of the US government. Speaking to press in the Rose Garden, the president said “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
That “strong majority” came entirely from the Democratic Party, which was defeated in the 2010 mid-terms over dissatisfaction with the ObamaCare law. The majority of American voters did not support ObamaCare’s passage and still want the law repealed. So, the president’s call amounts to an appeal to keep an unpopular law intact just because his party passed it and he signed it.
The president continued: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years all we’ve heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here’s a good example.”
That “unelected group of people” head a branch of the US government that is co-equal with the branch that the president heads. He appointed two of those unelected justices himself, one of which had a hand in formulating the defense of the law that is now under review.
The ObamaCare case is an example of judicial oversight in a case brought against the federal government by 28 state attorneys general. Overturning it would not constitute “judicial activism.” “Duly constituted and passed laws” get overturned by the courts routinely, if they violate the Constitution. The Congress and the president do not always get things right, nor do the courts that review those laws. But it is the system we have and it has worked mostly well for centuries. “Judicial activism” occurs when a court essentially legislates policy from the bench or finds ways to invent powers not expressly granted government in the Constitution. The president, a former adjunct professor of constitutional law, surely knows the difference.
“I continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”
The president did not appear very confident, while assuring the press of his confidence. He went on to call on the Supreme Court to consider the “human element” in ObamaCare, and essentially abandon its duty to deal with the legality of ObamaCare’s individual mandate.
Positively and utterly shameless; the man has no scruples whatsoever. Is there anything at all he is NOT willing to say or do?
To answer your question in a word: No.
He will not support George Zimmerman.
He will not declare disaster areas in red states.
He will not prosecute vote fraud.
He will not insure clean voter rolls.
He will not prosecute race-baiting people of african descent.
and on, and on, and on, and on ad nauseum.
“Is there anything at all he is NOT willing to say or do?”
I explain this by saying that Barry has no gag reflex.
What do you suppose Constitutional Law Professor and certified Smartest Man on Earth Barack Obama thinks “duly constituted” means?
Boy, it sure is funny how a Constitutional law professor is always baffled to discover that there are actually three equal branches of Government in the United States, and he only got temporary command of one of them.
And what is he saying? That laws passed by the legislature should always be upheld? Then what is the purpose of the Supreme Court? What is the purpose of the Constitution if not to bind the desires of governance?
Barack Obama, that brillian constitutional scholar, must have missed the lecture on Marbury v. Madison at Harvard Law. I didn’t go to Harvard but even I know that the purpose of the judiciary is to act as a check on the Legislative and Executive and insure that their statutes, edicts and actions comport with the Constitution. (What’s that term – “Checks and Balances?”)
But of course the modern Left is increasingly uncomfortable with anything as declasse as the Constitution if it stands in the way of their agenda. Power, not freedom, is the goal of these people. Obamacare promises to provide it’s sponsors with an ocean of political power unmatched in U.S. history.
If the Court comes down 5-4 against the individual mandate will we hear Nancy Pelosi again telling us that “Supreme Court rulings are like the voice of God?” Probably not.
This is a guy who wanted the Warren Court to “transcend” the Constitution and create a whole bunch of “positive rights.” He does not believe in the Constitution, his oath to protect and defend the Constitution is meaningless.
– not sending me back would have been “judicial activism”.
of course Obama’s not the only constitutional scholar who believes overturning ACA would amount to judicial activism.
For example, noted socialist appellate court judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, appointed by avowed communist Ronald Reagan & a favorite of GW Bush.
Oh yeah, and the majority of con law scholars, regardless of political affiliation.
But you pathetic wretches should continue your frantic circle jerk; something intelligent is bound to come of it eventually.
…
ROTFLMAO!
Oh my gosh…! *wiping eyes* Whew! Oh, wow, I needed that laugh! Thanks, civisisus!
Feel free to go crawl back under your rock now and stick your head back in the sand. We won’t miss you!
“Oh yeah, and the majority of con law scholars, regardless of political affiliation.”
The majority of constitutional law scholars at “prestige” law schools are liberals. And given that Obama never published a single law article, it’s hard to argue that he counts as a congressional scholar. Rather, he was briefly an “adjunct professor of constitutional law” (basically a lecturer) where he reportedly focused on critical race theory and the law (echoing his mentor Derek Bell).
A couple responses already posted from the good folks who brought you Randy Barnett:
http://volokh.com/2012/03/30/why-did-legal-elites-underestimate-the-case-against-the-mandate/
http://volokh.com/2012/04/01/lawyers-who-voted-for-obama-want-his-health-care-law-to-be-upheld/
And is it really necessary to point out the distinction between judge-made law and a ruling that by striking down the mandate that is both respects the constitutional limits imposed by federal system and is in keeping with prior precedent like Lopez?
Incredible. Just… incredible. And there are stupid people in this country who will listen to the nonsense this “President” spouts and actually believe it. “Hey, yeah! What right does the SCOTUS have to overturn a law? That’s totally not somethng they should be able to do! Hey, pass me another doobie, man. This one’s almost gone.”
something intelligent is bound to come of it eventually.
>>> I hold no such feigned hope for you under any circumstance.
Now now, Rick. It’s not nice to make fun of the mentally disadvantaged. It’s not civisisus’ fault that he/she/it is a bumblimg imbecile and borderline illiterate.
…
Okay, yes it is. But still, punch up. *nod*
You mean like the California Supreme Court did with California’s proposition 8, the US Supreme Court did with gay sex and military commissions, and his own administration did with Doma? How about that unelected bureacracy that is not even a separate branch of government but acts like one — the EPA? As usual, to liberals judicial activism and unelected bodies are ok when it comes to imposing on the rest of us what they want. Shoe — meet the other foot!!
awww….mini-prez hasn’t noticed- they’ll be there when he’s gone. awww. wittle ego-maniacs run up against guys in philadelphia in a grey room….200 years ago…
Obama is just setting the stage for November, in case he loses by a small percentage. If the Supreme Court rules against whatever ploy the DNC has, Obama would ignore the Court’s ruling and act as if he won. Boy oh boy would we then have a Constitutional Crises…..
although, counting all the lies wound through every little sentence of that press conference…I think I’d buy the popcorn for the summer horror flick a good deliverance on BHO would be. pea soup, head-twisting, moving furniture, nonsense words……oh, wait…has it already started?
The SCOAMT was NOT a professor, but a lecturer.
But he answers to “smartest humanoid to ever bless the planet Gaia”.
I wonder what he answers to when he’s with Michelle?
The justices voted on Friday about whether or not to overturn the mandate.
Ten seconds after the vote, Elena Kagan excused herself to go to the “ladies” room and called Obama on her cell phone, giving him the bad news.
The only people who know the outcome of the vote, therefore, are the Supreme Court itself, and Obama.
The fact that he attacked them in the first speech of the week is the best news I’ve heard in a while. He has to pretend to “not know” how they voted, but he simply must have been informed by his minions on the court, and if he’s attacking them already, it means the vote went against him and he’s framing the narrative for the liberal media to attack the Court in June when the vote in publicly announced.
Yay! Obamacare was overturned!
– you are correct, but if Kagan did such an unethical thing, then the Republic is still finished.
Yes, that’s it Obama… insult them. It went over so well at the SOTU that time.
Yep. Spoken: “”. Mouthed: “Not true”. Thought: “… you fatuous, ignorant creep. Oh, when is that case coming up? Something about your ‘signature legislation’…”.
He carefully neglects to mention that he’s picked 2 of those 9 unelected people personally, and that the liberal block of 4 justices shows more lockstep unity than the 5 conservative-leaning justices that might reject Obamacare.
Barack Hussein Obama is punching above his weight.
Over 60% of the American public opposed Obamacare, and it took a parliamentary trick and the willing venality of the Democratic Party to pass it (for which they paid in blood in 2010). The message to Obama now should be that the American people are waiting for SCOTUS to correct the wrong that was done to us. Of course, he won’t receive the message. It’s hard to get through that cocoon wall.
If I remember correctly, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. Didn’t help Marbury that much.
Perhaps Barry is just trying to position himself in case anyone ever proposes a way to check Congress and the President in a way not really involving the court, for he is admitting the system has something of a flaw, from a philosophical point of view. Which is as conservatives have been saying for decades. Of course, I’m very interested on what Professor Obama’s views on the subject he is unhappy about today was back when he was teaching ConLaw back in Chicago, and what he told his students. My guess would have to be that it was not quite along the same lines as what he said today. We certainly know one of his own Court appointments thinks South Africa has a better constitution, because it explicitly calls for judicial checks, so I guess he failed with that pick, based on the Obama of today vice the Obama of two or so years ago. At least considering what he said today. Myself, I believe the current system needs revision, though I do not see the Court going away completely (though it needs a direct check vice an indirect one).
But the current system is the one we have until it gets changed into something better (and we will always need a Supreme Court, for the direction of the lower courts if nothing else), and as liberal victories given by the Court over Congressional majorities are still on the books, and as Barry has shown no intention to push for reversals of those, so should Barry grow up, learn what good sportsmanship is about, and take, if it comes, his healthcare defeat *like a man* does, instead of the whining he is doing. Live by the courts, die by them. And liberals have lived by them. So….
“An Unelected Group of People” … once again our president trashes our Constitutional system and its system of checks and balances, and expresses his contempt for it.
Many other presidents have expressed dissatisfaction with decisions made by the Supreme Court — but never before has a president called the Court’s very authority and existence into question … and our entire system along with it.
He’s blatantly attempting to arouse the ignorant.
He’s working on causing riots.
He’s escalating his tactics.
This is still (though he’s been doing it all along — not in quite such obvious way)
just the beginning.
As we move closer to election, expect more and more of this kind of behavior from him.
If he’s re-elected … and if he still retains a majority in the Senate and is thus un-impeachable — his attacks on the system will be unstoppable.
It’s always amusing to see these liberal statists try to de-legitimize the Constitution. What these clowns fail to realize is that the only thing that gives them any legal authority at all is the US Constitution ITSELF.
If Obama thinks the US federal judiciary has no Constitutional legitimacy, then by the same logic his federal executive office also has no legitimacy.
Being unelected? Sometimes that’s a GOOD thing! It’s why our Constitution provides for some officeholders (such as the SCOTUS) to be appointed and confirmed, instead of being directly elected via popular vote. Those officeholders need not fear getting voted out simply for abiding by their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution.
Obama’s attack on the SCOTUS as “an unelected group of people” serves to delineate the difference between a republic and a democracy. Let’s turn his idiotic remark into a great teachable moment!
A republic was what our Founders sought to create. That’s why they set up our Constitution so that these United States would be a republic of republics. A republic is a representative system of government that sets limits on governmental power, so as to curb the rule of men and replace it with the rule of law.
A democracy is the very thing that our Founders took pains to avoid. Democracy means “mob rule” – in other words, anything goes, as long as you can get a majority vote on it. Democracy is all about mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is what forced Socrates to drink the hemlock. And if you read the Gospels with regard to this Paschal season, you can see democracy at work in the angry crowds that sought the death of Jesus with their cries: “Crucify Him!”
Sounds like somebody’s worried
But SCOTUS is just enforcing the Constitutional law of the land as laid down by the Founding Fathers
All of this exists primarily to protect the country from power-drunk radicals like yourself, Barry- no wonder you’re bummed out lol
Obama has already usurped our Congress by following the “Project Podesta” rule: Using Executive Orders to rule by fiat.
Obama cannot control the Supreme Court……YET. That is WHY he attacked the Supreme Court Justices in his SOTU address with Alito lipping “That’s not true” during his speech.
Now Obama is using threats against our Supreme Court Justices about Obamacare.
Obama is trying to usurp the Judicial Branch endowed by our Constitution as a check and balance of our government.
Has Obama already proclaimed himself as Dictator?
Imagine this scenario:
- SCOTUS declares ObamaCare unconstitutional
- Obama announces the decision is illegitimate and he will ignore it.
What should our next move be?