Obama: I sure hope the Supreme Court doesn’t do something unprecedented by striking down ObamaCare

posted at 4:30 pm on April 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via the Examiner. In what way would it be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step,” as he claims here? They’ve struck down laws before for violating the Commerce Clause — not often, admittedly, but it’s happened in not one but two landmark cases over the last 20 years. If there’s anything novel about the ObamaCare case, it’s the idea of federal power to compel purchases, not the Court’s reaction to it. And what on earth does this mean?

“Ultimately I am 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 told reporters today while speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Obama reminded reporters that conservative commentators, have complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint,” that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

The “strong majority” in Congress went 219-212 in the House, with 34 Democrats defecting. Not a single Republican in either chamber voted for it, and as Ace notes, the public itself has been steadfastly opposed to the law since day one. Against that backdrop, it’s an amazing show of balls by The One to dress this up as the Court somehow thwarting the people’s will. But even if O-Care really did have a “strong majority,” so what? The whole point of judicial review is to make sure that congressional majorities, strong or not, remain bound by their enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights. You know what law really did have a “strong majority” in both chambers? DOMA. Think there’ll be any tears shed on the left for majoritarianism if Anthony Kennedy cashiers that one on a 5-4 vote?

Don’t take this too seriously, though. This is just Obama laying the narrative groundwork for the benefit of all the non-lawyers watching at home who don’t know enough to fact check him. He wants to plant the idea that striking down the mandate would be the most unique, extraordinary, sensational, unbelievable, unprecedented decision in Supreme Court history evah so that, if it does happen, people will regard it as illegitimate and that’ll hopefully rally them to turn out in the fall. It’s a stump speech, in other words. Just a little more dishonest than usual.

Update: Such is O’s respect for strong congressional majorities that his own DOJ won’t even defend DOMA in court anymore. Thanks to Dan McLaughlin for reminding me of that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Drudge just posted the 64k question. “Did he get a leak?”

dogsoldier on April 2, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Speaking of Leaks…

Rodger Dorn = Obama
Dorn’s Contract = ObozoCare
Lou Brown = SCOTUS

Make it so…..

BigWyo on April 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The Justices must be laughing their asses off at this clown….

PatriotRider on April 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM

No, there are a few of them that would probably like to hold his toilet paper and operate the controls on his biday.

legendtwo on April 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Right. And since we don’t teach civics or US government in school anymore, there’s a pretty good chance that a sizable number of people don’t know that the SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government.

Good thing we’re not Wisconsin or there would be a recall petition started.

BacaDog on April 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Barry views our government as this hierarchy:

Emperor Barry Hussein Soetoro>Czars>Democrat Senate

He recognizes nothing above himself.

wildcat72 on April 2, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Such an ignorant president the land never had.

He said the “justices are unelected”…yet, every one of them was named by an elected president, then passed by an elected senate.

And he is the supposed constitutional law professor.

Until I see his grades and his diplomas I don’t believe it.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2012 at 8:04 PM

My Link Fu needs work….

BigWyo on April 2, 2012 at 8:04 PM

But again, we’re at the point where those other Judges couldn’t have been that correct, because now 9 Judges are deciding, instead of 1 or 3.

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Let me just add, ELECTED judges, which is why we have an unelected “Supreme” court.

Koa on April 2, 2012 at 8:05 PM

“There’s no way I’d lie, cheat, and steal to get an unconstitutional law forced through congress against the will of the people. So if this law is struck down, there’s something seriously wrong with our system.

Re-elect me and I’ll personally see to it that silly things like the Supreme Court, due process, and congressional checks and balances can no longer impinge upon my flexibility.

My comrade Medvedev knows exactly what I’m talking about. *wink*”

Oxymoron on April 2, 2012 at 8:07 PM

If the supreme court strikes down Obamacare, then Romneycare by right should be struck down if not for it being a state law.

Danielvito on April 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Save Liberal4life’s posts that has to be one of the dumbest posts ever.

Do you understand why we have a Constitution? Can you define federalism?

There is a big difference between instituting such a law when it is state versus federal. The people of Massachusetts wanted the law and still do. It did not violate the Federal or State constitutions.

CW on April 2, 2012 at 8:07 PM

It simply boils down to Congress confronting a problem and solving it. For the Judicial to find fault with this they better have some high falutin ideas to back it up. Otherwise it’s extreme partisanism.

richardporter on April 2, 2012 at 6:55 PM

I guess I’d call the Constitution a “high falutin” idea, eh?

chewmeister on April 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Apparently the Obama administration Mole in the Supreme Court (Kagan) is feeding them the not too comforting news on the deliberations.

dirtseller on April 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM

WE’VE GOT A WINNAH!

Someone mail this guy his HA kewpie doll!

This is Barry’s attempt to strongarm Roberts.

I’ve been saying it since Thrush’s Politico piece from last Wednesday. It’s all about working over Roberts.

This is Barry’s veiled way of threatening to throw the court in with the rest of the baggage as to why they can’t stop the Occupiers from rioting.

Walker survives Recall – riot

Obamacare damaged – riot

Keystone – riot

Trayvon – riot

Buffet Rule – riot

Ryan’s Budget – riot

…and none of it will be due to his failure.

Some call it Alinsky tactics. I call it a tantrum.

You know why he’s scared about OCare being thrown out? Not because he doesn’t think he could galvanize the base for single-payer.

Because it plays right into Mitt’s original hit – 0′s in over his head.

That really is the lethal for Barry. Everything else we may believe about him as a wannabe 60′s radical, he can shrug, point, mock and say “See, they’re crazy”.

But when you argue he’s inexperienced, and have the ability to point to his landmark legislation and say “You spent two years on this while people were losing their jobs, homes and way of life. And it wasn’t even legal. And you’re background is constitutional law”.

Barry’s answer? Roberts hates me.

budfox on April 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Don’t you dare call his bluff!

Ukiah on April 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Scalia is a THUG on the bench.

Has he taken to wearing a hoodie on the bench now?

chewmeister on April 2, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Your bill was unprecedented. As to striking down bills that unconstitutional, the SC tends not to have to do that because the government is usually a little more restrained in it’s ambitions.

Your whole administration is out of control. That insane photo of Pelosi walking down the street with her Joker grin and the gavel more or less sums it up.

Karmashock on April 2, 2012 at 8:15 PM

It’s all in the sell

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 2, 2012 at 7:47 PM

You make my point.

this law is not anything unprecedented

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 2, 2012 at 7:47 PM

You’re making my point even further. This is SOP for the Left. Just say it. If you can’t argue the point, just turn logic on it’s head and say it 50,000 times 24/7/365. The media is the Left’s megaphone.

But, when faced with questions in an arena that requires rational argumentation, suddenly they are found without 357,000 20 second nonsensical sound bytes to hypnotize the audience for “selling” snake oil. And the Left has been weakened by this phenomenon, because they are rarely forced to argue their point all the way through. They are rarely held to account.

The Leftist media environment has bred incompetence into their minions, by being reliably there to personally attack their political adversaries and not forcing their own to defend their precarious positions.

several conservative judges have upheld it.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 2, 2012 at 7:47 PM

And others shot it down. But, that’s beside the point.

So what? That a so-called “conservative” judge upheld it, does not make it Constitutional.

In the SCOTUS, they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. They asked extremely pointed and important questions that simply do not have an answer that satisfies the requirement of a Constitutional premise.

That is NOT Verilli’s fault. It is the fault of that ridiculous Congress that got kicked out of office for this fiasco.

Saltysam on April 2, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Gee, I only went to a public university law school, but I recall there was something called the separation of powers. Don’t Harvard law-educated community organizers learn about checks and balances?

ugottabekiddingme on April 2, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Can we say: Look for backfire from the Supremes.

galtani on April 2, 2012 at 8:21 PM

The SC blew out most of FDR’s candles too … Seems whe they read the bill they found it was rotten.

tarpon on April 2, 2012 at 8:32 PM

an we say: Look for backfire from the Supremes.

galtani on April 2, 2012 at 8:21 PM

The petulance and arrogance of federal judges is legendary. Even more so than Barry’s.

wildcat72 on April 2, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Don’t Harvard law-educated community organizers learn about checks and balances?

ugottabekiddingme on April 2, 2012 at 8:20 PM

They do but it only applies to the commoners.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Passed by a strong majority? What alternate reality is he living in? As I recall, they had to use all kinds of shifty shenanigans to ram the bill through (reconciliation, anybody?) to avoid it being voted on with Scott Brown in the Senate, so even that argument is false.

And this guy is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar? What the Supreme Court is doing, determining the constitutionality of a law, is one of its major functions, besides providing a check and balance to the President and Congress.

It sounds to me like our boy president is having a temper tantrum.

hachiban on April 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Such an ignorant president the land never had.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I disagree with you in this sense.

Barak Hussein Obama is not ignorant. He hates America and has made it his mission to make our nation just like the rest of the world. The anti-exceptionalism view. Every other President has been a patriot at heart. Obama is an internatoionalist who views it as his mission to take America down. This is not ignorance it is treason.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2012 at 8:39 PM

FDR bullied the Supreme Court and that tactic actually worked for him. After he threatened to expand the number from nine to fifteen, they were less confrontational and made decisions more in line with what he wanted.

Burke on April 2, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Breitbart’s Spirit Invades Hollywood:This weekend’s box-office shows that conservatism and capitalism are appealing to movie audiences! It also shows that nobody is buying what Dr. Obama is peddling.

Mutnodjmet on April 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

FDR bullied the Supreme Court and that tactic actually worked for him. After he threatened to expand the number from nine to fifteen, they were less confrontational and made decisions more in line with what he wanted.

Burke on April 2, 2012 at 8:41 PM

IIRC, the court-packing bill failed in Congress, and a vacancy on the court allowed him to appoint someone more “progressive” than the man who was there before?

Wethal on April 2, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Just had the most delicous of daydreams…

The *only* thing that would make staking the heart of this stupid bill…even more than imagining the look on Obama’s face when the official word come to him at the White house…would be for Mr. “Constitutional Law Professor” having the stones to go up in front of SCOTUS himself and argue the case…

…and lose. On C-SPAN.

Lemme tell ya, that would be so sweet, I couldn’t even take it in all at once…little bites, little bites.

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 8:54 PM

FDR bullied the Supreme Court and that tactic actually worked for him. After he threatened to expand the number from nine to fifteen, they were less confrontational and made decisions more in line with what he wanted.

Burke on April 2, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Obama is no FDR, even though he thinks he is better. “Don’t Call My Bluff Barry” has no clue. If he thinks his approval ratings are low now, just wait til after attacking the High Court. Besides, FDR didn’t try to pack the court til after he got reelected, not before. He had a little more flexibility afterwards.

txmomof6 on April 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I think Bader-Meinhoff Ginsburg will retire after this election. Her health is deteriorating and I think she held on for this case.

If Obamacare is struck down, she’ll retire immediately.

ardenenoch on April 2, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Which makes me wonder… If she retires before the election, will President Downgrade be able to get her replacement installed before he leaves office? What are the laws/rules on that?

Hypothetically, if she were to retire next week – (after writing her minority dissent on Obamacare), would the GOP be able to stall the confirmation process of her Obama-appointed replacement until after January 2013? Would a subsequent president/Senate be bound by a process that was started, but not completed?

I really worry about what this guy is going to do on his way out.

Harbingeing on April 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM

This doesn’t benefit him. It makes him look petty. It DEFINITELY is UNPRESIDENTIAL to rail at the Supreme Court as he has.
wildcat72 on April 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Appearing unpresidential never seems to be one of Obama’s concerns. But I believe Allah P. is right that Obama will now portray this (potential) decision as highly improper. He wants to agitate.

lynncgb on April 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Months and months of the public screaming no, no, no to our deaf Congress only to appear in front of our Supreme Court and when asked simple questions that had the defending lawyers stuttering. Why were these same questions not asked by our deaf Congress during the process of pushing the Law through Congress? The war is on against the Court but why is the Congress so innocent letting politics sway their thinking and falling like a house of cards by simple questions. The brilliance of the Judges gives me courage for the future.

mixplix on April 2, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I really worry about what this guy is going to do on his way out.

Harbingeing on April 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM

We have the votes to stall…

right2bright on April 2, 2012 at 9:02 PM

He wants to agitate.

lynncgb on April 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Most definitely.

If he loses in November he wants to portray himself as having been treated by a largely racist electorate as the son he never had was.

Veiled threats of the consequences of an Obama defeat in November are being given a test drive, along with the mantra that much of the opposition to Obama is rooted in racism.

farsighted on April 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Clearly, Obama’s a buffoon of the commedia dell’arte with a pimps mentality.

DevilsPrinciple on April 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM

If there was a leak, and I wouldn’t be surprised, it came from Kagan. The only reason she’s on the court is because of this case.

BTW, any justice that uses the term ‘boatload’ during proceedings should be shunned, on principle alone.

Doe anyone know if the court have a process for reprimanding it’s members?

Jabez01 on April 2, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Barak Hussein Obama is not ignorant. He hates America …

Until President Genius releases his grades, I’m going to say you’re both right.

slug on April 2, 2012 at 9:28 PM

“Ultimately I am 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,”

Unprecedented? Mr Constitutional Scholar, pray tell, whatever happened to FDR’s AAA & NRA?

As Jon Meacham wrote:

“But here is a pretty good rule of thumb for Democratic Presidents: if it didn’t work for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four terms and a World War, it probably won’t work for you either.

In one of the rare political debacles of his long life, FDR overreached after his landslide win against Alf Landon in 1936. (Roosevelt carried every state, save for Maine and Vermont.) A largely conservative Supreme Court had already struck down key parts of New Deal legislation, and there was the threat of more anti-Roosevelt decisions to come. And so FDR proposed a plan that would have enabled him to appoint additional justices in an attempt to shift the court’s political orientation. The effort failed, miserably.”

So, PLEASE, take on the Supreme Court. Low-life, thuggish behaviour is just your style and watching you go out in disgraceful defeat will be gravy for some of us.

Resist We Much on April 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Obama suggests the Supreme Court would be an activist court if it voted down his sweeping program known as ObamaCare
Obama is dead wrong.
When the Supreme Court votes against the ObamaCare Bill, they will be Voting for and Reaffirming, the Constitution of The United States!
If they were being political, they’d be voting against Obama and FOR the American People.
I am praying the Supreme Court Votes For Upholding OUR Constitution.

Delsa on April 2, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Don’t take this too seriously, though.

No, TAKE this seriously. Very seriously. Quit giving this line-stepper passes. Anything that doesn’t tow his line he attacks and slanders, including the American people. It’s way past time for him to be “checked”, and a USSC rejection of the whole bill is just the thing to do.

Saltyron on April 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Disclaimer: Living in NH I really don’t have a Dog in this Fight, as Dear Leader gave our State a Waiver.

But of course I’d would love to see it get smacked down. If the Justices actually based their Votes on the Constitutional and Legal merits of the case, they would shut the whole thing down 9-0.

Of course that will never happen. So I look forward to reading the bizarre “rationales” the 4 Leftist SCOTUS Justices issue in this case. Those alone should be fodder for many an anti-O’bama campaign ad.

Del Dolemonte on April 2, 2012 at 9:56 PM

And it’s only April.

Teehee.

I can’t wait to see the full scale five alarm hissy fit in June.

bitsy on April 2, 2012 at 10:06 PM

“Ultimately I am 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….“judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.”

Reporting from Washington

President Obama’s reaction to the Proposition 8 decision was much like the president’s stance on gay marriage — somewhat unclear.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the White House wouldn’t be commenting on the court’s rejection of California’s same-sex marriage ban (“a law that was passed by a strong majority” of Californians), saying that the administration doesn’t weigh in on ongoing litigation.

…except when the POTUS wants to say, “That’s a nice family you’ve got there. It’d be a pity if something were to happen to it.”

Resist We Much on April 2, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Does anyone think that this regime wouldn’t attempt to get their hands on the vote tally before the final decision is issued? Everything they do is a political calculation. They need to know the score at all times.

The good news in all of this is that if the vote tally were 5-4 the wrong way, Hussein wouldn’t have made this statement. At the very minimum, it could be that Kennedy was wavering and he was trying to give him…some advice. But, between the oral arguments and this, all signs point to the court striking it down, hopefully in total.

The Count on April 2, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I think we should quickly get a list of anyone who took Jr. Professor Obama’s Constitutional Law class and send them a copy of this schoolhouse rock video, “Three Ring Circus

Or maybe I was just taught wrong and the Supreme Court’s real job is just to be a rubber stamp for all legislation that passes the House? Guess I better go back and study civics.. Apparently I’m wrong… I’m not now and never have been a Constitutional law professor…

mikewalsh on April 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Against that backdrop, it’s an amazing show of balls by The One to dress this up as the Court somehow thwarting the people’s will.

I like your use of “balls” here Allah. Quite good.

fullogas on April 2, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Obama reminded reporters that conservative commentators, have complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint,” that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Obama saying the above is equal to Mafia legbreakers, arsonists & extortionists telling a restaurant owner – “Hey, Supreme Court Justices. Ya gotta nice Supreme Court here. Ya wouldn’t want anything to happen to it, wouldja?”

Why doesn’t Obama just finally pull the gloves all the way off and get it over with, declare martial law and declare all of us his slaves? Every time he blurts out something like this as if he had “Fasscist Tourette’s Syndrome”, it’s clear that he’s just itching to declare himself President For Life.

What’s next, Obama reviving the Tontons Macoute?

CatchAll on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 AM

So, 219-212 (50.81%) is a strong enough majority to be valid, but the Supreme Court voting 5-4 (55.56%) to strike it down isn’t a strong enough majority to be valid. Why will liberals never learn math?

Theophile on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 AM

But when you argue he’s inexperienced, and have the ability to point to his landmark legislation and say “You spent two years on this while people were losing their jobs, homes and way of life. And it wasn’t even legal. And you’re background is constitutional law”.

Barry’s answer? Roberts hates me.

budfox on April 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Exactly. Obama is a fool leading fools.

Theophile on April 3, 2012 at 1:38 AM

They should back off before they damage his self esteem. Have they no concern for his feelings?

Kenosha Kid on April 3, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Efu Obama!

I just can’t overstate this.

Let me be clear!

Efu Obama!

Sherman1864 on April 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM

What’s unprecedented is Obamacare and its egregious assault on individual liberty. If passed, it will erode and undermine our Constitution, rendering our rights and individual freedoms as relatively limited and subject to the whims of a temporary government.

What ever happened to a government of the people?

If anything, the Court should fear the wrath of our people who are the owners of this government. They have spoken out against this Constitutional assault with a unified voice which is rare these days.

Irrespective of our individual political differences, diluting our freedoms via an overtly political, one party solution is not the way to fix health care. Nor is it our history of resolving conflicts in our society.

It’s about time we rid ourselves of every person in this government that believed this was a wise decision. Only then can we start over and resolve our issues in a meaningful way- together.

Marcus Traianus on April 3, 2012 at 8:20 AM

“Ultimately I am 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 told reporters.
—————————
o Yes, a Democratic Party Super-Majority Congress did pass the ACA, ramming it down the throats of a majority of Americans who opposed it. It is amazing how Obama ATTEMPTS to paint the Supreme Court overturning the ACA as thwarting the will of the people when the fact is the majority of Americans have been against this bill since before it was ever passed! Obama pointing out the fact that Democrats in Congress, and not one GOP rep, voted to pass the ACA does not change the fact that it is still UN-Constitutional.

easyt65 on April 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM

It seems to me that preemptively lecturing the Supreme Court about what is and what is not “precedented” is not a wise strategy. The court is already disengaged from Obama’s SOTU addresses due to their politicization and the Citizens United lecture they got.

Obama’s presumption on this case might only serve to alienate some of the liberals on the court who, despite fealty to the Liberal agenda, at least respect the court’s prerogatives.

SAMinVA on April 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Obama reminded reporters that conservative commentators, have complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint,” that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
—————–
o Judicial activism is when a court does not abide by the Constitution but instead goes with what THEY believe should be the law…which is exactly what Obama and Democrats did to pass the ACA to begin with. You would think a self-professed Constitutional expert and Professor who taught classes on the Constitution would know such basic information. Obama also makes the disrespectful comment of how the Supreme Court is an ‘UNELECTED group of people, as if they were somehow inferior to the positions of he and his fellow Democrats in Congress. The fact is the Supreme Court represents the 3rd and very much equal if not more powerful branch of the Government that is part of the system of ‘checks and balances’ designed to ensure the other 2 branches of government do not overstep THEIR bounds.

If there was indeed a leak within the Supreme Court to the White House on how voting on ACA will potentially go it is obviously Keagan, the Liberal Judge who actually helped the White House write the legal defense for ACA. Keagan did not have the honor/integrity to remove herself from this case due to a blatant conflict of interest in order to try to help the White House ensure it is not overturned. Keagan, after all, owes her spot on the bench to the man whose very Presidential Legacy may rest on ‘Obamacare’.

easyt65 on April 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Obama sought/wants to plant the idea that striking down the mandate would be the most unique, extraordinary, sensational, unbelievable, unprecedented decision in Supreme Court history EVER so that, if it does happen, people will regard it as illegitimate and that’ll hopefully rally them to turn out in the fall. The fact is that President Obama has violated the US Constitution no less than 12 times in the last 3 1/2 years, an unbelievable, unprecedented accomplishment for a President of the US. The Fact is that it is the Supreme Court’s job to prevent such violations of the Constitution, and the fact is the MAJORITY of Americans wants the ACA law struck down by the Supreme Court.

The only question is, at a point when the 2012 election campaign is in full swing, will the Supreme Court focus on the Constitutionality of the ACA alone or will they allow pressure and politics to rule their actions, not wanting to negatively affect an election by overturning the sitting President’s keystone piece of legislation, and decide not to overturn the bill. If the soul basis on ruling the Constitutionality of the ACA is the US Constitution, the Supreme Court will fulfill its role as one third of the checks-and-balances system of government and will overturn the ACA. If the Supreme Court Judges had the integrity and honor to separate themselves from partisan politics, the vote would be unanimous; however, no one expects more than a split decision vote.

easyt65 on April 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I love the smell of flop sweat in the morning.

JeremiahJohnson on April 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Such an ignorant president the land never had.

He said the “justices are unelected”…yet, every one of them was named by an elected president, then passed by an elected senate.

And he is the supposed constitutional law professor.

Until I see his grades and his diplomas I don’t believe it.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I not only agree – I will bet anything this fraud never took the BAR and/or “passed the bar” in a back, dark room.

His faux “professor” tripe, combined with the basic ingnorance of the Constitution and his sub 100 IQ – no way in hell Obama passed it.

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

He’s following Clyburn’s advice. Good Lord, what a dumbass.

NapaConservative on April 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

LOL …. agree wholeheartedly

centryt on April 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Were I a Justice who had not made up my mind on which way to rule on ACA, Obama just gave me all the motivation I need to vote his prized healthcare legislation UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. I would not think it wise to launch a personal attack and disrespect the Supreme Court in such a way before they have rendered their decision…but no one has made a convicing argument yet that Obama is any way ‘wise’.

easyt65 on April 3, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Which makes me wonder… If she retires before the election, will President Downgrade be able to get her replacement installed before he leaves office? What are the laws/rules on that?

Hypothetically, if she were to retire next week – (after writing her minority dissent on Obamacare), would the GOP be able to stall the confirmation process of her Obama-appointed replacement until after January 2013? Would a subsequent president/Senate be bound by a process that was started, but not completed?

I really worry about what this guy is going to do on his way out.

Harbingeing on April 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM

If Ginsburg were to retire at the end of the term, Obama could nominate anyone he wants, and Reid could schedule hearings in the Judiciary Committee.

However, the GOP has ample votes to filibuster any floor action on the confirmation of a new justice.

It would be ugly politics on both sides, but would probably hurt the Dems more than the GOP, as it would focus attention on Obama’s plans for a 2nd term and the type of appointees he would nominate.

That said, assuming Obama would backfill Ginsburg with another female nominee, it could play well in his anti-woman demagoguery campaign, so I put nothing past this Chicago crowd.

matthew8787 on April 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

This was Obama’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” moment. I haven’t seen a President so blatantly and condescendingly distort the truth and mislead the American people since that day.

This is why civics and American history are being replaced by environmental studies and diversity training in public schools…so that when a President twists facts about the constitution and separation of powers into something half-truths and outright lies, no one has been taught to know otherwise.

otisframpton on April 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4