Monday, April 2, 2012

Separation of Powers? President Obama takes on the Supreme Court...does that mean he is wanting a redo on Roe v. Wade and other similar decisions?


You would almost think Barack Obama was Andrew Jackson taking on John Marshall...
The overreaction by Barack Obama certainly undercuts the argument that he benefits from this...although Allahpundit is right that this is part of the spin response if Obamacare goes down.

Belmont Club:

The President told the Supreme Court that it would be frustrating Congressional will if it ruled against his Health Care plan. The President, who was once a law professor, advanced not a single legal argument to bolster his exhortation, saying instead that they would be a bunch of “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they went ahead and struck down his signature legislative achievement, the healthcare reform act. Obama was speaking at a trilateral event with the Prime Minister of Canada and President of Mexico.

Protein Wisdom:

The constant and steady perversion of language and meaning has finally brought us to the surreal endpoint where a president stands before the public and pretends that a Supreme Court ruling is illegitimate if it looks to the Constitution for guidance on checks to federal power.  And the truth is? That’s exactly what they think, too – provided it isn’t a Republican measure SCOTUS is disallowing, of course.  What good is anti-foundationalism, after all, if you can’t use it to your advantage?
God help us.

Allahpundit:
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?
Sister Toldjah:  How do you solve a problem like Obamacare?

Right now, we’re seeing what havoc  legislative arrogance can wreak. It’s time to put a stop to it before the harm is incurable. As Marco Rubio said, “If we don’t win this election in November — and we get four more years of Barack Obama — I don’t know what that means … But I know it ain’t good.”He was speaking of Obama, of course, but it applies as much to the progressive influence on Congress.
Prior EBL Posts:
Bob Shrum's predictions on Obamacare...
Obama Wan-Kenobi and Obamacare...
Lord of the Mandates...
Obamacare may be struck down...
Wickard and Obamacare...
The U.S. Economy and medical entitlements go together like the Titanic and a big giant iceberg...


Update:
Even Time thinks it is a bad idea...
Legal Insurrection notes Justices have long memories...
Riehl World View:  The Anti-Constitutionalist President
Democrat magical thinking on Obamacare...
Barack Obama's fantasy world...not much different than Althouse's
The shaky constitutional foundations of the Obama Administration's case...
Rush:  Obama puts out a bounty on the Supreme Court...
Jeff Goldstein:  Obama is a trained seal with a clown hat and a tutu...
Volokh on Obama's Lochner v. New York  comments (they don't train conlaw professors in Chicago like they used to do...)



No comments:

Post a Comment

I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.