Obama doesn't understand the Constitution.
He doesn't understand the role of the Supreme Court.
Video.
Obama the allegedly Brilliant sounds like an absolute idiot.
L. Vincent Poupard explains the ridiculousness of Obama's remarks attacking the Supreme Court.
President Barack Obama has warned the Supreme Court about the possible overturning of the federal health care overhaul, according to Fox News. It is not unprecedented for a president to make comments about what the Supreme Court is debating, but his comments point to something unprecedented. As a political scientist, I cannot think of a time when a president made comments to make people think he has no idea how the Constitution works.
Among his comments, President Obama stated how he did not understand how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law passed by a majority of Congress. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and see if particular cases before the justices uphold the content and context of the document. His Oath of Office included the words, "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" so he better have an understanding of the document he is sworn to protect and defend. The "how" he does not understand is the "how" it works.
President Obama went on to say, "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." If the Supreme Court strikes down the health care law, it will not be an unprecedented move as the Supreme Court has struck down national laws since the court's inception. I worry about a president who does not understand the history of the court system.
The second part of the previous statement scares me as well. The president pointed out how the health care law was passed by a majority of elected officials. I believe it would be a good idea for the president to familiarize himself with the classic "How a Bill Becomes a Law."
Obama has to know that his remarks were BS, right?
He can't be that clueless. He has to know that this statement, "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," is the babbling of a buffoon.
I think Obama is trying to deceive the public. I think his comments are meant to undermine the Constitution. It's as if he's counting on the American public being stupid.
Anyone with an ounce of understanding of the Constitution knows that Obama's comments are foolish.
Obama has said so many stupid things as president. These remarks about the Supreme Court are beyond stupid. They're devious.
How can Obama "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if he doesn't understand it or chooses to ignore it?
________________
Read:
Obama Declares War on Supreme Court
President Obama demonizes Supreme Court for possibly disagreeing with him
On Monday President Obama challenged the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Referring to the Court's justices as an "unelected group of people," he said that for them to overturn "Obamacare" would constitute unacceptable "judicial activism."
The former professor of constitutional law apparently forgot that the Court first took what he called the "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" in Marbury v. Madison, the opinion that established the Court's power of judicial review.
Supreme Court justices are an "unelected group of people." No kidding, Obama. Does this disturb you?
"Judicial activism" is legislating from the bench, writing law, not interpreting it.
Unacceptable "judicial activism" by an "unelected group of people": Roe v. Wade.
4 comments:
God Save the King!
Personally, I feel, the guy who wrote this extended comment has no idea that SCJ's are appointed by the Executive with a 2/3rds majority vote by Congress, not elected! They are to review appeals, based on merit upon which they decide to hear in order to consider the legal merits and consider all sides of an argument, statute, law, ordinance for purposes of interpreting its relevance and effect on Constitutional Law am implied, stated or previously interpreted into common law. They are supposed to be impartial and not politically motivated, although during the Warren Court; it was obvious to many they tended to favor certain causes which put a crimp in civil liberties.
Obama made a serious mistake phrasing his comments so broadly. There was a time in American constitutional history when there were doubts about courts passing upon legislation's constitutionality, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opined in Eakin v. Raub from 1825. And it also true that Marbury v. Madison did not strictly speaking hold that courts have the power of judicial review, with the real holding being about jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the courts' power of judicial review for constitutionality has long since established and entrenched in American jurisprudence. That ship sailed long ago.
My mistake. It was Justice John Gibson's dissent in Eakin v. Raub that expressed those doubts.
Post a Comment