Tuesday, April 3, 2012

SCOTUS History: Examining Obama's ignorance

Source: Politics Alabama
"But I have to say that this should earn Obama the Oscar for "Lying Through His Teeth With a Straight Face." Because it IS a lie, and Obama knew it when he said it. Not only is overturning laws a lot of what SCOTUS DOES, its what they are THERE for! How, then, could his statement even possibly be remotely accurate? It couldn't, and he knew it."

PresBo Ignorant Of SCOTUS History

I'm sure you've heard about this by now, but yesterday PresBo took some shots at the Supreme Court in advance of their ObamaCare ruling, and said the most remarkably ignorant thing. We'll look at the shots first.
According to PresBo, any ruling except upholding the law completely would be judicial activism of the worst kind. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-supreme-court-healthcare/2012/04/02/id/434583?s=al&promo_code=E93A-1
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have 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."
Where to begin? First, his comment about judicial activism could be read two ways. The first is that he has a feel for the Court's decision, and is warning them of what his campaign for reelection will look like. The second is that he is actually trying to influence their ultimate decision by applying public pressure.

Next, note his comments about "an unelected group of people." We're not talking about just some random group of people pulled in off the street, we're talking about the United States Supreme Court, comprised of men and women who were nominated by a sitting President and confirmed by Congress. How can he get away with this kind of crud?

Now let's examine Obama's ignorance.
"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."
Ummm... what?

If I recall correctly, PresBo graduated from Harvard Law and considers himself a Constitutional Scholar. How, then, could he possibly missed the fact that reviewing laws passed by "a democratically elected Congress" is what the Supreme Court DOES. They've been overturning such laws for over 200 years... the first such case being Marbury v Madison in 1803. Since then, SCOTUS has overturned more than 150 acts of Congress, and also overturned more than 1,100 state statutes and city ordinances.

Given those facts, how can Obama claim that overturning ObamaCare would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step"? Seems to me that the step, should SCOTUS take it, would be backed by ample precedent. So why did Obama make such a patently false statement? Politics.

If ObamaCare, his signature achievement and what he intended to be his legacy, is overturned, he will have to use that overturning in his campaign to get reelected. In other words, he was announcing his political strategy in such a way as to justify his future actions. I think this shows that Obama believes that complete overturn is a distinct possibility, and he's setting up a contingency plan to rescue his campaign.

But I have to say that this should earn Obama the Oscar for "Lying Through His Teeth With a Straight Face." Because it IS a lie, and Obama knew it when he said it. Not only is overturning laws a lot of what SCOTUS DOES, its what they are THERE for! How, then, could his statement even possibly be remotely accurate? It couldn't, and he knew it.

The Supreme Court isn't just a group of unelected people. And it is their job to correct Congress when they pass a law that exceeds their authority... even if they pass such a law with "a strong majority of votes." To imply otherwise is to denigrate the justices on the bench and to betray his own ignorance of how our country's government really works.

1 comment:

Findalis said...

Obama is trying to change the vote. Rumor has it that Sotomayor had dinner with an official of the Obama regime and spilled the beans on the vote. It wasn't in favor of the bill.

She is in hot water with the CJ to say the least. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the vote ends up 7-2 or 8-1. Guess which Justices will be in the minority then?