Alleged “constitutional scholar” President Obama (FYI, he was never a constitutional law professor, but rather a visiting lecturer — BIG difference there) has made some rather stupid remarks pertaining to the Supreme Court’s review of his health care reform law.
“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.”
Seriously? That is not unprecedented and happens all the time. It has been going on for over 200 years. Congress overreaches and the Court strikes it down. Plus, where does he get the idea the law was passed by a “strong majority”? First, no Republican voted for it. Second, it passed by the skin of its teeth in the Senate and was only finally passed using the parliamentary procedure of reconciliation. Third, the court exists to reign in the “tyranny of the majority.” Finally, if you are to consider his argument that it should be constitutional because it is popular, which is essentially what this boils down to, then one must also take into account the fact that Democrats who supported the legislation lost in numbers not seen in 80 years in the House.
Then he proceeded with this gem:
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.”
Again, the Supreme Court is unelected and designed as such by the Founding Fathers so as to insulate it from the changing whims of the electorate. Furthermore, his dolt of a Solicitor General in his bumbling remarks before the Court defending the law suggested that the Court essentially rewrite the law if they found parts of it to be constitutional — the very definition of judicial activism. Striking down a law on constitutional grounds is not activism. Furthermore, questions and comments during oral arguments by justices seemed to indicate they would practice restraint by completely invalidating the law and allowing Congress to do its job by rewriting any parts of it the Court found to be constitutional so that they could work as Congress intends, not as the Court thinks it should operate.
Obama was close when he was talking about aspects of this case being uncommon or unprecedented, but by pointing his finger at the Court, three fingers on his hand were pointing back directly at him:
“It’s not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court,” said Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman.
So, is Obama really that stupid? Apparently, yes. Yes he is.