It is indeed “hatin’,” not “hating,” as both CNN and ABC note, and that’s deliberate. His strategy in answering the GOP’s lawsuit in the court of public opinion is cynical and brilliant: He’s going to laugh the whole thing off as highfalutin nonsense, something the average joe shouldn’t spend two seconds thinking about. Obama the Harvard Law grad knows how significant the underlying separation-of-powers issues are and how weak his case is on the merits. So Obama the politician is going to reassure low-information voters who lack basic civics that the whole thing is basically a goof. That’s where the use of vernacular comes in — he’s as befuddled by this constitutional folderol as you are, America. It’s just “hatin’.” Needless to say, had George Bush responded to liberal worries about presidential signing statements by jovially accusing them of “hatin’,” the media would have dumped in its pants. MSNBC hosts would be demanding his resignation for treating matters of grave constitutional concern so dismissively and lefty bloggers would be wondering if Bush wasn’t showing symptoms of being a “dry drunk” in laughing off something this serious. As it is, hackery will prevail.

I’ve gotta say, pessimist though I am, I thought the public would be a harder sell on transitioning to a system of government by executive decree than telling them that the opposition’s just “hatin'” and don’t you worry your pretty heads about the details. Evidently it’s time to lower the bar of expectations once again. Here’s today’s clip followed by a blast from the past (2008) back when Obama thought checks and balances meant more than Congress “being mad.”