Obama and the Supreme Court

[rogue06]

Speaking at a press conference after hosting the North American Leaders' Summit at the White House Obama this past Monday, Obama said something concerning the Supreme Court's reviewing the constitutionality of Obamacare that surprised nearly everyone:

"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."

"An unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress"? And he's supposed to have been a professor of constitutional law albeit part-time, as well as the editor of the Harvard Law Review (in which he apparently never wrote a law review article).

It is hardly unprecedented or extraordinary. Maybury v. Madison established the basis for the exercise of judicial review (the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution) in the United States back in 1803. So Obama is merely 209 years out-of-date.

According the Government Printing Office the Supreme Court declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional between 1789 and 2002 -- which works out to one nearly every 16 months. In fact, they've overturned over 1500 laws passed.

And according to one study the Supreme Court has struck down 53 federal statutes just between 1981 and 2005.

That somehow seems to me that such acts should actually be seen as “precedented” and that "overturning laws passed by democratically elected Congresses" if they're deemed unconstitutional is one of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court. It's part of the job description.

Further, how could Obama claim that it's "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" when during his own 2010 State of the Union Address he admonished the Supreme Court for striking down portions of the Taft-Hartley and McCain-Feingold laws? Who could forget how Obama looked down at the Supreme Court justices seated directly below him and faulted their Citizens United decision?

So he was darn well aware that overturning a law was anything but "an unprecedented, extraordinary step." I really have to wonder if Obama would have railed against the Supreme Court taking the "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning laws" that allowed racial discrimination when they decided in Brown v. Board of Education that such laws were unconstitutional?

"Strong majority"? Not exactly how I would characterize something that passed the House by just 219-212 and even then the House had to resort to legislative gimmickry to get the bill to Obama's desk for a signature. Even so, being "passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress" doesn't make it right. Rather Obama's remarks serve as an indication that he believes we are a country of majority rule, rather than the rule of law.

It should be noted that the budget proposal put forth by Paul Ryan, which Obama lambasted as "radical," was passed by a 228-191 majority. That's certainly a stronger majority than Obamacare passed by.


The White House has tried to walk-back the comments even while CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was declaring that Obama was right. Obama's Press Secretary told us that "the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand." So Obama was talking in some short of a “legal shorthand” that is only clearly understandable to law professors such as himself.

IOW, we dumb masses (say that one quickly) are just too stupid to understand what Obama was really saying, and we should all be so very ashamed. I guess

Obama is just so darn smart that his underlings and adoring liberal journalists are constantly having to interpret his profound proclamations for us less enlightened folk.

It finally reached a head on Thursday morning during a press briefing when longtime CBS reporter Bill Plante bluntly told White House Press Secretary Jay Carney that Obama’s Supreme Court comments on Monday were an “obvious misspoken moment,” and that Carney was “standing up there twisting yourself in knots because he made a mistake, and you can’t admit it.” Plante repeated himself after Carney accused him of righteous indignation.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to Obama (who he called one of his best students), seemed to understand this and said the president "obviously misspoke ... He didn't say what he meant." But that doesn't seem to be something that the Obama White House refuses to admit.



And I haven't even commented about his remark about "unelected judges" or "an unelected group of people."

[lao tzu]

For the record, this was an actual gaffe by Obama.

And, for the record, Rogue once again fails math when his political ideology is involved. Excluding the Senate from Congressional majorities may be convenient, but it's not honest, bro.

[rogue06]

For the record, this was an actual gaffe by Obama.

And, for the record, Rogue once again fails math when his political ideology is involved. Excluding the Senate from Congressional majorities may be convenient, but it's not honest, bro.

I agree it was a gaffe* -- one they are steadfastly refusing to acknowledge. As for the Senate... it only passed because of questionable political games that kept Scott Brown from being seated when he should have.





* that or Obama was informed by contacts in the Supreme Court that Obamacare would be overturned and he reacted in a knee-jerk manner foreshadowing his plans on attacking the court as partisan during his campaign for re-election.

[Xru]

I like Obama:)

[Littlejoe]

A vote of 280 for vs. 255 against, isn't a "very strong majority"...52% vs 48%... The House vote IIRC was 220 - 215...2 more than bare majority

[rogue06]

A vote of 280 for vs. 255 against, isn't a "very strong majority"...52% vs 48%... The House vote IIRC was 220 - 215...2 more than bare majority

219 to 212

[Ansgar Seraph]

Given the agreement that this was a poorly-worded or poorly-thought statement, what's the takeaway here?

Is it incorrect that the Supreme Court has deferred to the Legislature when it comes to determining proper regulation of economic commerce?

Is it incorrect that this legislation, if not passed by a strong majority of Congress was, at least, legitimately passed by a majority?

Are we to take the Limbaugh route and stipulate that Obama gave his speech because he's "feeling his oats" and is "a Chicago thug" or Hannity's route and declare that Obama is arrogantly ignorant of basic constitutional history?

By all means, we can expect Republicans to jump on this gaffe — the current crop of GOP candidates have undergone worse in recent months — but what are we to rationally conclude here, apart from Obama misspeaking? Without a clear understanding of just what this gaffe is, people may well jump the shark and embarrass themselves even more than Obama did, as was exampled by Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court in Texas.

. . . for what it's worth, I'm laying my money on 5-4 or 6-3 in the administration's favor.

—Sam

[seanD]

On the flip side, this may have been more than just a gaffe against Obama. The court will hopefully shoot the bill down just to spite him. If they don't, then it will look to the world like Obama intimidated them.

[Ansgar Seraph]

On the flip side, this may have been more than just a gaffe against Obama. The court will hopefully shoot the bill down just to spite him. If they don't, then it will look to the world like Obama intimidated them.

For some reason, that's not how I want the Supreme Court of my country to operate . . .

[Darth Executor]

but what are we to rationally conclude here, apart from Obama misspeaking?

That he is so incompetent he still thinks he can lie his behind off and not get caught.

[supton]

On the flip side, this may have been more than just a gaffe against Obama. The court will hopefully shoot the bill down just to spite him. If they don't, then it will look to the world like Obama intimidated them.

Or that he wants it to be knocked down. That way, he can complain how he got it passed--and it was squashed by those nasty conservatives. And then he doesn't have to do any work on making the bill better, which he would have had to deal with if it was allowed to live.

[seanD]

For some reason, that's not how I want the Supreme Court of my country to operate . . .

In a fantasy world, neither do I. But in reality, we know that’s how human beings operate. Regardless of one’s position of authority in government, we’re petty and prideful, with egos that can be easily bruised, and these inherent traits have a tendency to drive our actions, even if on a subconscious (or unconscious?) level. In fact, the higher position of authority one is in, the more likely they’re prone to these flaws. Being that Obama’s healthcare bill was an unconstitutional corporate fascist atrocity -- in this case of Obama’s “gaffe” -- I’ll hope for human nature to take its course.

Or that he wants it to be knocked down. That way, he can complain how he got it passed--and it was squashed by those nasty conservatives. And then he doesn't have to do any work on making the bill better, which he would have had to deal with if it was allowed to live.

A strategy like this puts a lot of emphasis on his intelligence and I’m surprised libertarians are giving him that much credit. I don’t think he’s that clever (of course, I’m assuming he does and says anything on his own… you could be right, in that others thought of this strategy for him). I think he actually lashed out at the judges, which was solely driven by his extreme narcissistic tendencies – “how dare these people defy my moment of glory” – type of thing.

[JimL]

In a fantasy world, neither do I. But in reality, we know that’s how human beings operate. Regardless of one’s position of authority in government, we’re petty and prideful, with egos that can be easily bruised, and these inherent traits have a tendency to drive our actions, even if on a subconscious (or unconscious?) level. In fact, the higher position of authority one is in, the more likely they’re prone to these flaws. Being that Obama’s healthcare bill was an unconstitutional corporate fascist atrocity -- in this case of Obama’s “gaffe” -- I’ll hope for human nature to take its course.






A strategy like this puts a lot of emphasis on his intelligence and I’m surprised libertarians are giving him that much credit. I don’t think he’s that clever (of course, I’m assuming he does and says anything on his own… you could be right, in that others thought of this strategy for him). I think he actually lashed out at the judges, which was solely driven by his extreme narcissistic tendencies – “how dare these people defy my moment of glory” – type of thing.

You are questioning Obama"s intelligence, really, a Harvard law grad, editor of the Harvard law review? You're not biased at all are you?? Obama did not suggest that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to deep six the ACA, he obviously knows they have the power to do so, just like they elected George W., he merely opined that he didn't believe that they would, that he believed they would use judicial restraint and defer on a close call to the legislature. Whats so surprising about that? What would you expect him to say? Ater all thats what he wants them to do.

[Darth Executor]

You are questioning Obama"s intelligence, really, a Harvard law grad, editor of the Harvard law review?

I loled.

[seanD]

You are questioning Obama"s intelligence, really, a Harvard law grad, editor of the Harvard law review? You're not biased at all are you?? Obama did not suggest that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to deep six the ACA, he obviously knows they have the power to do so, just like they elected George W., he merely opined that he didn't believe that they would, that he believed they would use judicial restraint and defer on a close call to the legislature. Whats so surprising about that? What would you expect him to say? Ater all thats what he wants them to do.

Why are you pointing out to me that he's not ignorant about the authority of the court? Didn't my view make that clear?