Law professor: Impeach Supremes if they overturn Obamacare

posted at 4:30 pm on April 4, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Like conservatives, law professor David R. Dow thinks it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court vote on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate will likely fall along partisan lines — but his disappointment stems from his utter conviction that the individual mandate is constitutional.

He’s so convinced of it that he thinks any Supreme Court justice who votes to overturn Obamacare should be impeached. He cites Thomas Jefferson’s call to impeach Justice Samuel Chase as an historical reminder that impeachment is and should be an option for justices who undermine constitutional values. I agree with him that impeachment of justices is itself constitutional — but what constitutional principles, exactly, would the Supreme Court be undermining if they vote against Obamacare?

Dow’s argument that the individual mandate is constitutional is exactly what you would expect: If you are going to voluntarily do something (e.g. drive a car), the government can make you purchase a product (e.g. insurance) provided it has a good reason for doing so (e.g. making sure you can pay for any damage you do). This argument might make some sense if the activity for which Obamacare mandates insurance was something more than merely existing.

But Dow takes it a step further by arguing that the Constitution doesn’t just grant the federal government the power to regulate commerce, but that it also, in fact, grants the federal government the power to guarantee medical coverage for the poor and to implement a system to pay for it. He writes:

[C]ritics of the health-care law say the only reason the rest of us have to pay for medical services used by people who have no money is that laws require hospitals to treat people who come in for emergencies regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, the critics say, the only reason there is a social cost—the only reason the syllogism works—is because of the underlying laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor.

Unlike silly examples involving broccoli and cell phones, that so-called “bootstrap” argument is sound. But here the critics drop their ideological mask as surely as the court dropped it in the Gonzales ruling. Their argument can be restated thusly: if you repeal laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor, you eliminate the constitutional basis for mandatory insurance coverage.

You don’t have to pull the analytical thread of that reasoning very hard to see that it boils down to an argument for allowing the poor to die. And if the Supreme Court strikes down the health-care law, that is exactly the ideology it will have to embrace. It will be saying that Congress cannot guarantee medical coverage for the poor and then implement a system to pay for it. In other words, the only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it.

The last time the court went down this path, saner heads prevailed. Oliver Wendell Holmes’s view was historically and constitutionally correct, and the court finally acknowledged this in a pivotal 1937 case, West Coast Hotel v. Parish. In West Coast Hotel, the court ruled that the Constitution safeguards not just individual liberty but community interests as well; and in matters of economics, it is the legislature’s job to strike the appropriate balance between those two. If the Roberts Court overturns the Affordable Care Act, it will be mimicking the discredited court of 1935.

All of this completely ignores that ours is a federalist government, with the powers not expressly granted to the federal government reserved to the states. Nobody has ever argued that the institutional mandate is unconstitutional at the state level — noxious to freedom-loving Americans, perhaps, but not unconstitutional. Ann Coulter famously pointed that out in her eye-opening article, “Three Cheers for Romneycare!” So, Dow might be right that that the Constitution provides government with the power to guarantee medical coverage and to implement a system to pay for it — but that power would exist at the state level. Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate that as a power of the federal government — and the Constitution clearly reserves unenumerated powers to the states.

Just as Obama’s statement that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional was over the top, so, too, is Dow’s suggestion that the Supremes face impeachment if they overturn Obamacare. The nine Supreme Court justices are carefully considering an extremely weighty question and they all clearly take the responsibility seriously. It’s for us, at this point, not to issue premature accusations of judicial activism or calls for impeachment, but to let the Supreme Court justices do their job.


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

Such a non-story. If they wouldn’t dare convict Holder of murder or Rangle of graft, they couldn’t anywhere with this.

mustng66 on April 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Stealing ideas from Newt.

Pablo Honey on April 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Like conservatives, law professor David R. Dow thinks it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court vote on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate will likely fall along partisan lines

Really? This particular conservative doesn’t give a damn and a half about it. The Court’s been balkanized ever since the Bork hearings. Five votes is five votes, and no matter how much people whine about it, the Supreme Court and its subsidiaries are still going to be the third coequal branch of our government at the end of the day.

KingGold on April 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Sounds like Odumbo got the word his bill is going down!

rjoco1 on April 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Watching the self-appointed guardian-kings of everyone’s lives have panic attacks and random outbursts of DERP over this is awesome.

Keep it up, Obots.

Good Lt on April 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

he is as much a law professor as Obama is a constitutional scholar, they can both memorize certain facts and cases and occasionally rattle them off in relation to a topic, that DOES not show wisdom or knowledge of any sort.

rob verdi on April 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

lefties call this being wonky

rob verdi on April 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Can’t Obama just declare martial law and appoint himself poofter in chief for all eternity?

tom daschle concerned on April 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

IF Obombacare is upheld, Obomba should be impeached for pounding the last nail into the coffin holding what used to be the “…land of the free”.

Meople on April 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

The ultimate in temper tantrums. Crikey.

Book on April 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

right on queue

gatorboy on April 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I think there are more appeals judges that need to be impeached first!!!! LOL

karenhasfreedom on April 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

America elected a law professor to office.

rubberneck on April 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Who’s going to impeach the SCOTUS?

The House of Representatives won’t.

So this guy is advocating for Obama to impeach them personally?

LOL

HondaV65 on April 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Who impeaches, the house? Ain’t gonna happen. The trial-in the senate? Ain’t gonna happen.

Little Boomer on April 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM

their tears are soooo delicious….

ted c on April 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM

He’s so convinced of it that he thinks any Supreme Court justice who votes to overturn Obamacare should be impeached. He cites Thomas Jefferson’s call to impeach Justice Samuel Chase

In the original article, this law professor cited Thomas Jefferson’s attempts to impeach Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase.

Given that Salmon P. Chase was governor of Ohio and then a member of Lincoln’s cabinet some thirty-plus years after Jefferson died, that would indeed be a remarkable achievement.

I’m sure the Daily Beast updated the story to cite the correct Chase (Google Cache, assemble!), but if Professor Dow can’t even get his historical figures right, why should we listen to anything else he has to say?

The rest of the article is crap, too, but I’ll let everyone else explain why.

MidniteRambler on April 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Well the Liberal Justices look like they’re completely ignoring their duties, perhaps what really meant to say was their complete one-sided partisanship in the matter is the real impeachable offense? Just sayin’ :P

Ukiah on April 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Nice Supreme Court you’ve got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

CurtZHP on April 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Voting in unison with other justices of the same political ideology is terrible! (as long as it’s not a liberal)

Scrappy on April 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM

David Dow is disappointed that the SC vote may be along party lines in declaring the mandate unconstitutional. Hey, get your head of of your a$$. those voting for the mandate are all the liberals and since when is Kennedy a party line justice. Deal with it!

rjoco1 on April 4, 2012 at 4:40 PM

but his disappointment stems from his utter conviction that the Federal Government has no limits outside a few select Constitutional amendments the individual mandate is constitutional.

Fixed it for you :P

Dawnsblood on April 4, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I find this frightening. The professional left is signaling to the SC justices that if this doesn’t go their way, they’re going to get the Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin treatment — their wives, their children, their homes — the left will try to destroy it all. I’m not sure all 5 conservatives on the court have the stomach for that. I really do not think Roberts does, and I am unsure about Kennedy. I want to believe this will piss them all off enough that they’ll move against Obama, but I really fear the opposite may be the case.

Rational Thought on April 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

How about impeaching Obama and make most Americans happy!!!!

lilium479 on April 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Empty threat but all this behavior indicates that they are scared.

And that’s beautiful.

As crr6 would say, count it.

CorporatePiggy on April 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Why don’t we hear about impeaching the justices that say the Obamacare is constitutional? Oh thats right, conservatives are the adults.

tommer74 on April 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Fortunately, the Justices can order SS protection for themselves.

Lanceman on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

It seems the WH has distributed talking points. The Left should just keep on this meme until they really get the Justices’ backs up.

There’s nothing like threatening people to get them to fall in line, but somehow I think this won’t work. I doubt if SCOTUS will look kindly upon the Chicago Way, and I doubt SCOTUS is easily intimidated.

INC on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

That there is a sore loser.

Jabberwock on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

MidniteRambler on April 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM

You’re serious? Salmon P. Chase? As in, the Chief Justice who presided over the Johnson impeachment?

Wow.

KingGold on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

rob verdi on April 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

You are incorrect. President Obama has not displayed any ability to do this. At least not correctly.

exlibris on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

with the powers not expressly granted to the federal government reserved to the states.

Please include the people with this little bit of text. Here is the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people

this is a point of contention for a lot of us out here in the hinterlands. There are some things which government simply does not have the right to take away from us, be it a federal or state over reach. By only mentioning the states, our founders would have implied that if the states themselves failed to act on something, like free health insurance for everybody, then the Federal Government would be free to assert its authority by default. As a single person, the Constitution also grants me that liberty on an individual basis as well.

Flyovercountry on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Constitutional values? I don’t think his idea of that and mine are similar. Probably why courts should stick to what’s actually written in the Constitution rather than just ruling based on what they want while calling it “Constitutional values”.

forest on April 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM

David Dow is legendary for trying to get people on death row of the hook. fact- 99% of the time he fails. I like our chances that this law is toast. He has a very poor track record.

Bensonofben on April 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Can’t Obama just declare martial law and appoint himself poofter in chief for all eternity?

tom daschle concerned on April 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

LOL!!!

Been down under I presume.

Gunlock Bill on April 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Hilarious, from NRO:

Jonah, this is rich. The author of the piece — one David R. Dow — is listed as both a professor of law and of history. Which is what makes this goof especially hilarious:

Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

Salmon P. Chase, at various times governor of Ohio, senator, and treasury secretary before becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was but a twinkle in old Ithamar Chase’s eyes in 1805. He wouldn’t grace the world with his presence until 1808.

The justice Professor Dow is looking for is Samuel Chase. Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk this one up to his copy editors?

BTW, David Dow used to be head of the Texas Defender Service, and is a staunch anti-death-penalty advocate. I guess all those cert. denials by SCOTUS have finally gotten to him.

Erich66 on April 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

exlibris,
you have a point

rob verdi on April 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Gosh, does any liberal believe in the rule of law anymore? Don’t they realize that it could go the other way if they aren’t in power? For being so superior in intelligence, they sure are dumb.

search4truth on April 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Oops Tommer… during Gingrich’s 15 minutes of fame he was proposing the exact same thing. He too was chastised- except by the silent left.

Bensonofben on April 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM

The liberal head explosions are beginning to make the 4th of July look like a cap gun duel.

antipc on April 4, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Flyovercountry on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

It’s unfortunate that we have to cover that “or to the people” part in the comments just about every time there’s a post about Enumerated Powers and/or the 10th Amendment.

forest on April 4, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Another law professor, hmmm…..

d1carter on April 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Erich66 on April 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Interesting fact about Chase (the wrong one):

He was the figure depicted on the long-defunct $10,000 bill.

KingGold on April 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

As crr6 would say, count it.

CorporatePiggy on April 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

I really do miss the curdog.

Lanceman on April 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

They’re free to try.

The impeachment attempt against Clinton was equally stupid.

But go for it!

profitsbeard on April 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM

America elected a law professor to office.

rubberneck on April 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

No, they elected a community organizer who gave a few lectures at law schools and then started to refer to himself as a professor.

He was never really a professor.

UltimateBob on April 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Send law professor David R. Dow to Widener Law School

J_Crater on April 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Pablo Honey on April 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Really? Newt said that judges should be impeached for basing their decisions on what the Constitution says?

Could you provide us with a quote?

rvastar on April 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM

As pointed out on Instapundit, this law professor calling for the impeachment of the Supreme Court if they overturn Obamacare is also the author of America’s Prophets: How Judicial Activism Makes America Great. Apparently he didn’t take his irony pills this morning.

JS on April 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM

This is a repeat from Instapundit but the irony MUST be communicated widely. Prof. David R. Dow is the author of the book…..wait for it…

America’s Prophets: How Judicial Activism Makes America Great

Just more of the typical leftist attitude that only their ideas have validity.

mrveritas on April 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Erich66 on April 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Good to see I wasn’t the only one who caught that error by Professor Dow.

Salmon P. Chase, Samuel Chase-what’s a few letters and sixty years?

MidniteRambler on April 4, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Sounds like DOJ sent the wrong guy to argue for ObamaCare to the Supremes.

Bitter Clinger on April 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Like conservatives, law professor David R. Dow thinks it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court vote on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate will likely fall along partisan lines

Sure… as if “boatloads of money” herself Kagan (busy carrying buckets of water for OCare) a) should have NOT recused herself and b) was not going to vote any other way.

The hissy fits really are unbecoming… but such a trademark of Libs.

VietVet_Dave on April 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Hey, Mr. Dow:

I want a 3-page, single-spaced, explanation of why “deem and pass” allows Congress to violate the constitutional mandate that “Congress proposes; the Senate disposes,” is constitutional.

Have it on my desk by noon tomorrow, or you’re disbarred.

Idiot.

cane_loader on April 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

It seems the WH has distributed talking points. The Left should just keep on this meme until they really get the Justices’ backs up.

There’s nothing like threatening people to get them to fall in line, but somehow I think this won’t work. I doubt if SCOTUS will look kindly upon the Chicago Way, and I doubt SCOTUS is easily intimidated.

INC on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Shush!

If Obambi and his followers keep this up, we might just end up with a 7-2 decision to overturn all of Obamacare and a 9-0 decision on the individual mandate.

Key rule of living: When the bad guys are busy digging their hole deeper, DON’T interrupt them.

PolAgnostic on April 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM

This argument might make some sense if the activity for which Obamacare mandates insurance was something more than merely existing.

In Obama’s America your existence is a privilege not a right.

DamnCat on April 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Good to see I wasn’t the only one who caught that error by Professor Dow.

Salmon P. Chase, Samuel Chase-what’s a few letters and sixty years?

MidniteRambler on April 4, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Well either Washington or Lincoln appointed the Justice in question, but as you note, it’s just a minor detail.

Erich66 on April 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Dow is a doofus. Seriously, he was an embarrassment to the bar long before he wrote this silly piece.

Blake on April 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

What is douchebag David R. Dow address so we can tweet it out?

jukin3 on April 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Impeach Obama if he wins … Not upholding his oath.

tarpon on April 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM

The hissy fits really are unbecoming… but such a trademark of Libs.

VietVet_Dave on April 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

& spoiled children

Idiom: All spoiled children grow up to be liberals.

and then they reproduce

PolAgnostic on April 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Dow’s argument that the individual mandate is constitutional is exactly what you would expect: If you are going to voluntarily do something (e.g. drive a car), the government can make you purchase a product (e.g. insurance) provided it has a good reason for doing so (e.g. making sure you can pay for any damage you do).

The federal government does not mandate auto insurance in any case, so even if the argument had merit, it would not be applicable.

Vashta.Nerada on April 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Too quote Justice Holmes in this way seems to show a correlation to 1927 Buck v. Bell. Forced sterilization was also a community interest. Feel free to read his opinion in said case; you may come to your own conclusions.

John Kettlewell on April 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I don’t really see where an individual mandate is constitutional even at the state level unless the state collects a tax and then pays for the health care with the money for the individual.

Rocks on April 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

memorize certain facts and cases and occasionally rattle them off in relation to a topic, that DOES not show wisdom or knowledge of any sort.

rob verdi on April 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

The majority of people who claim they are competent & smart.

Badger40 on April 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I had a law prof require us to read a “semi-autobiographical” novel authored by this twit last semester. It was like a John Grisholm novel . . . if John Grisholm was a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic douche who thought of himself as part rock star, part freedom fighter in a sea of iniquity. It was that unbearable.

JDF123 on April 4, 2012 at 5:03 PM

If you are going to voluntarily do something (e.g. drive a car), the government can make you purchase a product (e.g. insurance) provided it has a good reason for doing so (e.g. making sure you can pay for any damage you do).

Not exactly.

In California, at least, there are several ways to legally drive a car without buying car insurance.

It’s just that for most people, buying insurance makes the most sense of the options.

malclave on April 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM

He cites Thomas Jefferson’s call to impeach Justice Samuel Chase as an historical reminder that impeachment is and should be an option for justices who undermine constitutional values.

When I read it early this morning, the “genius” referred to Justice Salmon Chase.

The dude is seriously misinformed like the man he is seeking to excuse.

The idea that it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to overturn a law passed by Congress is just ludicrous. The Court has overturned the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Income Tax Act of 1894, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, portions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, parts of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, to name a few.

It wouldn’t matter if a bill passed the House and Senate unanimously and had 100% support of Americans. If a law is unconstitutional, the Court must strike it down.

If you don’t like the Constitution, then amend it, Mr Dow, and by all means, please stop it with the temper tantrums. We can’t help it that you and your ilk have dismissed out of hand our constitutionally-based and legally-reasoned arguments for the last 2+ years and saw your case implode last week in a train, then plane, wreck.

If you want to pick up your toys and go home, fine, but DO NOT impugn the Court, who, I might add, has yet to rule.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM

And whose head will explode first when the Supremes give us a 6-3 decision to overturn Obamacare?

HoosierStateofMind on April 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM

It is sad a sap like this is allowed to teach law. That is no conservative. His failure to understand the concept of limited government is shocking. The commerce clause was never intended to regulate what you can or must buy. It was intended to insure trade between and among the various States.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on April 4, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Maybe we should impeach every politician who voted for it.
The left is constantly setting the example that it’s ok to destroy people you disagree with. So, fair’s fair.

Our freedom’s have nave been in more jeopardy. Two things. Just two things are holding back the hordes. Talk radio and the internet. When that goes, it’ll be every man for himself, I guess.

Seriously.. the stuff they are doing and saying now.. imagine what they would do and say if they fully controlled the flow of information.

JellyToast on April 4, 2012 at 5:13 PM

David Dow is just presenting another reason that a vote for Obama and commiting suicide is on the same level. If Obama appoints another liberal bobble-headed doll on the Supreme Court, then the American way of life becomes ancient history.

volsense on April 4, 2012 at 5:13 PM

The Communists are running around like Monarchists with their heads cut off. Lefty Losers think this is Cuba or something. This is America, freaks. If you don’t like it, leave.

EMD on April 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM

but what constitutional principles, exactly, would the Supreme Court be undermining if they vote against Obamacare?

Simple, this falls under the “give me liberty, or give me free s^^t” amendment.

southsideironworks on April 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Like conservatives, law professor David R. Dow thinks it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court vote on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate will likely fall along partisan lines

Only half the court is voting on partisan political grounds. Half of the court looks at the law and compares it to what the constitution says. The other half despises the constitution. If we want to impeach someone, let’s impeach the justice (Suter if memory serves) who cited European law instead of the Constitution, when the Constitution is the “law of the land” of the US. We started this nation to get away from those nuts.

jeffn21 on April 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Dow’s argument that the individual mandate is constitutional is exactly what you would expect: If you are going to voluntarily do something (e.g. drive a car), the government can make you purchase a product (e.g. insurance) provided it has a good reason for doing so (e.g. making sure you can pay for any damage you do).

Dow’s argument goes beyond that. In your example he would be saying that the federal government can make you buy the car insurance. And you would have to further modify your example to make car insurance like health insurance, (pardon the pun) ‘non-transportable’ from state to state.

Knott Buyinit on April 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Dow’s argument goes beyond that. In your example he would be saying that the federal government can make you buy the car insurance. And you would have to further modify your example to make car insurance like health insurance, (pardon the pun) ‘non-transportable’ from state to state.

Knott Buyinit on April 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM

And, carry $100,000 worth of collision.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2012 at 5:19 PM

oh yeah clearly they’ve committed another dred scott if they overturn…

because health care slavery to the state and /or federal government is so different from being owned body and soul by just one individual and is justified by the right to health care clearly stated in the Bill of Rights.

“Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional…………………………158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional………………………………..935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional………………………………222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws…………………..224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional…………….1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws…………………………224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments……………………………………….1,539″

mittens on April 4, 2012 at 5:20 PM

It seems the WH has distributed talking points. The Left should just keep on this meme until they really get the Justices’ backs up.

There’s nothing like threatening people to get them to fall in line, but somehow I think this won’t work. I doubt if SCOTUS will look kindly upon the Chicago Way, and I doubt SCOTUS is easily intimidated.

INC on April 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

This. ^^^ And I’d like to see the most scathing, controlled-rage-driven, burning-Obamacare-to-the-ground opinion written striking it all down.

PatriotGal2257 on April 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

From the University of Houston website:

David R. Dow is the Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center and the Rorschach Visiting Professor of History at Rice University. He teaches and writes in the areas of contract law, constitutional law and theory, and death penalty law. As a death penalty lawyer, Dow has represented more than one hundred death row inmates in their state and federal appeals. In March 2000, Dow started the Texas Innocence Network, an organization that uses UH law students to investigate claims of actual innocence brought by Texas prisoners. Dow has been Of Counsel to the law firm of Smyser Kaplan & Veselka since the firm was founded in 1995.

Dow’s work has appeared in both scholarly journals and popular publications. A full list is available on his c.v. His most recent books are Executed on a Technicality; America’s Prophets: How Judicial Activism Makes America Great; and, most recently, The Autobiography of an Execution.

mydh12 on April 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Well, well; we finally found the answer to that famous trivia question:

Q: “Who said, ‘I’m from the goverment and I’m here to help!”?

A: David Dow.

/borrowed pwnage from R.W. Reagan

cane_loader on April 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM

The liberals on the court who goose-step with Marxists and give interviews disparaging our Constitution need to be impeached.

GardenGnome on April 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Who impeaches, the house? Ain’t gonna happen. The trial-in the senate? Ain’t gonna happen.

Little Boomer on April 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM

This. And, after the 5th Circuit Court gets the completed homework assignment from the DOJ tomorrow which will state that the WH does, in fact, believe the Court has the power to overturn laws, this whole impeachment thingy will lose its teeth and go away. This is just Part III of the ‘Gin up the base’ strategy: War on women, then Trayvon, and now Impeach Conservative Justices. Meh. This Obama character is something else…

joejm65 on April 4, 2012 at 5:30 PM

David R. Dow is the Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center and the Rorschach Visiting Professor of History at Rice. His most recent book is a memoir, The Autobiography of an Execution.

Mickey Mouse Law School U?

This guy is teaching at one of the schools currently requiring students to pay through the nose for three years so that they can have the privilege of sitting for a bar exam and then immediately going into the burger-flipping industry.

BuckeyeSam on April 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Why are liberals so intellectually lazy? Seriously. They sit around patting themselves on the back at how educated they are, and then THIS is the sort of drivel they come up with. It’s sad… really, really sad.

Murf76 on April 4, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Unlike silly examples involving broccoli and cell phones, that so-called “bootstrap” argument is sound. But here the critics drop their ideological mask as surely as the court dropped it in the Gonzales ruling. Their argument can be restated thusly: if you repeal laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor, you eliminate the constitutional basis for mandatory insurance coverage.

I can buy Dow’s argument to this extent BUT that completely eradicates the necessity for the law. The solution is simple. Require those who have no healthcare to sign up for Medicaid and add an addendum for temporary healthcare for the poor, indigent, working poor, etc.and taxpayers can fund it. Otherwise, it’s up to the states. The problem with this solutionfor liberals is that it’s too inconvenient and possiblty slow in implemnetation. Jefferson wrote of the neccessity of of a duality in shared powers between the states and the federal government under Amendment 10, Article 1, section 8. An argument Dow conveniently and wrongfully ignores as it has it’s basis in the Constitution as Tina noted. Alienating the rights of many for the rights of the few is NOT an enunerated power of the Federal government. Period.

“So, Dow might be right that that the Constitution provides government with the power to guarantee medical coverage and to implement a system to pay for it — but that power would exist at the state level. Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate that as a power of the federal government — and the Constitution clearly reserves unenumerated powers to the states.”

posted at 4:30 pm on April 4, 2012 by Tina Korbe

DevilsPrinciple on April 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Stock in (David) Dow set to plummet! The Obammunist has at least two, possibly as many as four, moles on the SCOTUS. They’ve obviously leaked inside information to their Beloved Leader Comrade. The news must have been good (for us, not for him), because he and his little minions have been in full panic mode ever since. I looove the smell of Marxist Regressive desperation!!!

Benedict Nelson on April 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Tina,
It seems to me that the better argument for impeachment of Federal Justices would be to attack their violation of the oath of office on grounds of enumerated powers decisions.

As we know from 1998: breaking an oath is a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ in this Country. Any Judge on the 9th Circuit, or the 4 Socialists on SCOTUS is ripe for an impeachment Trial.

If you want to see California Moderates and Independents band w/Conservatives, you couldn’t pick a better issue. Liberals think they have a winner here. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again just look at California…as late as 2008 majority voted to define marriage as 1 man & 1 woman. Its not as Blue as people think and Californians would gladly impeach 9th Circuit or SCOTUS judges, they just need leadership.

Afterseven on April 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

You don’t have to pull the analytical thread of that reasoning very hard to see that it boils down to an argument for allowing the poor to die. And if the Supreme Court strikes down the health-care law, that is exactly the ideology it will have to embrace.

Oh please..

Law Professor? seriously?…

how about screaming leftwing hysteric?

This these sentences remove any doubt this is about principle, it’s about a raw use of dishonesty to retaliate against political opponents. It’s about threats to get your way.. “pack the court”?.. how about just threaten to pillory and disgrace, humiliate those Justices who don’t toe the left wing party line..

This is a prime example as why liberals aren’t serious thinkers. It’s a tantrum by a pampered law professor who high in his ivory tower, looks down on the ants below and proclaims his verdict on their humanity..

He can whine like a crybaby all he wants, nobody is going to move to impeach them, in a GOP House, and he damn well knows it. Ain’t going to happen..

and if they try..

two can play..

How’s an impeachment hearing for Holder sound?.. the Obama head of the DEA, the FBI and Home;land Security.. Lets throw a wide net, and reel in all their crooks and thugs..

Then professor, tell us about how happy you are to make impeachment for political disagreements an actual position. The only difference would be, Holder and company ARE dirty.

Hope you have a really nice house in Crazy Town..

mark81150 on April 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM

As Dow is a major opponent of the death penalty and spends a lot of time working for people on death row, I wonder if he’s given any thought as to how the rationing boards will approach approving for care for people on death row. If we have to cut costs, wouldn’t that be a good place to start? Do you think Dow even glanced at the bill before writing his commentary? Do you think he even realizes it includes rationing boards?

talkingpoints on April 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM

LOLZ!! I Wonder if Dow knows that the last person to make the utterly specious and unconstitutional argument that judges should be impeached for their opinions was…. Tom DeLay.

That’s right “Professor” Dow. You and Tom DeLay are (anti) intellectual bedfellows.

Oops, I probably open myself to the charge of gay bashing by using that last word.

My bad.

I denounce myself.

fulldroolcup on April 4, 2012 at 5:36 PM

How exactly does Dow plan to get a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate to go along?

myiq2xu on April 4, 2012 at 5:36 PM

…impeachment is and should be an option mandatory for justices anyone who undermine constitutional values. (quoted from original article)

Come on down Team Obama!
Get in line all you Czars!
Harry, Nancy, bring all your minions!
We have ‘pink slips’ for all of you leaches.
(wipe that smile off your face Harry, you can’t wear this pink slip like your other underwear)

jarhead0311 on April 4, 2012 at 5:37 PM

The court hasn’t even ruled yet and everybody knows what the outcome is already.

Kini on April 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM

I really do not think Roberts does, and I am unsure about Kennedy. I want to believe this will piss them all off enough that they’ll move against Obama, but I really fear the opposite may be the case.

Rational Thought on April 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Trying to go scorched earth on the courts is a very, very stupid idea.

dogsoldier on April 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Oh, my…

… the caterwauling, the gnashing of teeth, the squealing of stuck pigs, the unhingedness, the vapors, the hysterics, the wild crazed eyes, the threats, the thuggery, the liberal ooze, the incomprehension.

It’s amazing what happens when their ideology based legislation is finally exposed to the light of day outside their echo chambers of the media and closed doors…

… and there is a possibility that they will be told:

NO! You can’t do what you want… It is unconstitutional.”

Seven Percent Solution on April 4, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Sounds like Dow wears a Brown Shirt, jodhpurs and jack boots.

Surprised he’s for “impeachment” – sounds like he’s ready to pronounce them guilty.

GarandFan on April 4, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Man, these lefties are really getting all wee-wee’d up over those Obamacare arguments.

How does this guy, who apparently isn’t all that familiar with the history of the Supreme Court, and can’t separate his opinion from reality, wind up indoctrinating law school students? Because the faculties of the law schools of this country are littered with dumbbells just like this one. He fits right in.

No wonder the legal profession is in the terrible state it is in.

novaculus on April 4, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2