Barack Obama disrespected the office of the presidency with a speech he gave earlier this week. His challenge to the Supreme Court’s authority was wrong. They represent an equal but separate power of our government. It is not his place to challenge that authority. Further, to do it while they are considering his case (Obama-care) was unprofessional, undignified and shameful. It is a new low. And, though you’ll never read it in “proper” publications or hear it spoken by talking heads, most of America is asking a simple question, ‘just who the hell does this guy think he is?’
“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,” Obama said. Then adding, “I’d like to just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, 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. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Let’s see, strong majority? Hardly. Obama-care passed the Democratic controlled House by seven votes. Judicial activism is not determining whether a law is or is not constitutional, as he would have you believe. Judicial activism is when judges allow their personal outlooks to guide their decisions, often contrary to precedent or to well established interpretations of the Constitution. And to push the idea that “…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed…” is just a blatant lie. That’s a large part of what the Supreme Court does.
USA Today showed clearly, the Supreme Court has a long precedent of over-turning cases. Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137):
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. … If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
The Constitution is first. All other laws are evaluated against the principles put forth by the Constitution. Period. End of discussion.
The truth is, in law school the Marbury case, when compared to a general education for us common folk, is on the scale of gravity or the world is round. It is a foundational block. There’s no chance it is skipped. And there is no chance, none, that Obama missed the class that day. No, he just outright lied to the American people, again. But why?
The prevailing thought is Obama’s comments were meant to intimidate the court, in hopes they will rule on Obama-care in his favor.
Texas Republican Lamar Smith, “I am very disappointed by our President,” Smith told FOX News Radio. “That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I’m not sure that’s appropriate,” he added.
Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, “What President Obama is doing here isn’t right,” Johanns said Tuesday in an interview with local Nebraska radio station KLIN. “It is threatening, it is intimidating.”
Newsmax.com reported, “Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III told Newsmax that President Barack Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court earlier this week was a dangerous attempt to “intimidate” the justices into upholding his controversial Obama-care law.”
Meese went on to say, “I think he is trying to intimidate the court, or at least trying to in effect rile up the public against the court — if they should make a decision which is constitutional, and which is adverse to him,” declared Meese.
Intimidation seems like a valid interpretation of his motives. But I’m skeptical. I find it difficult to believe the Supreme Court would ultimately be intimidated. Members don’t answer to votes. The reason for a life appointment to the bench is to allow them to rule without concern for popularity. (CONTINUED P.2 LINK BELOW)