Usurper-in-chief rails against “unelected” Supreme Court, demands “deference” to Congress

Michelle Malkin by Michelle Malkin on April 4th, 2012

This is article 24 of 60 in the topic US Supreme Court


Okay, got that out of my system. Yesterday, as you all know, President Obama went after the “unelected” justices of the Supreme Court. So much for the constitutional law lecturer’s appreciation of the separation of powers.

Today, during another of his regular press conference diatribes against everyone who stands in his way, the man who has circumvented Congress with dozens of czar appointments and scores of executive orders and administrative fiats, warned the court again — to show “deference” to Congress.

From the transcript:

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has. As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.

Somehow, I suspect the high court is not going to take to Obama’s finger-wagging very lightly.

At least one lower court is already leading a legal backlash


In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

, Deference, Diatribes, Dozens, executive, Executive Orders, Fiats, health, health care, Justice Department, law, Law Lecturer, lawyer, mandate, Mr. President, New Deal, Obama, power, Precedence, president, Separation Of Powers, strike, Supreme, Supreme Court, suspect, Thursday, Usurper, yesterday
Posted in Department of Justice, Healthcare, Obama, Supreme Court | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Usurper-in-chief rails against “unelected” Supreme Court, demands “deference” to Congress”

  1. fidlerten Says:

    What you failed to cover here is the unprecedented actions of this conservative-leaning court in the last few years, especially their ruling concerning Citizens United vs. FEC in which they said that corporations are people too.

    It concerns me greatly that we have five men who are not elected by the People overturning campaign finance law that has protected this country for years from the over-influence of Big Money into our political system. Our president has good cause to be concerned because these five men don’t seem to really care what is constitutional or what isn’t, instead they’re only interested in what big corporations want or don’t want.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has always been a reliable branch of government that has looked out for those without a voice over many decades. But that can’t be said anymore; now they’re just another arm of the super wealthy, ready to circumvent our democracy to enrich the rich and step over the poor.

    That health care bill passed by Obama and Congress is the last straw of hope for millions who have no health care and when those five men overturn it, it will end that hope. Obama is also very correct; the Affordable Care Act is very constitutional as it very much affects interstate commerce. To deny that it does is ridiculous because we well know that those who don’t have health insurance and yet burden down our system when they need medical care, cost everyone who does have health insurance and taxpayers.

    I don’t care for the insurance mandate either, it was a Republican idea after all until Obama took it up; that made it a non-Republican idea for that reason only. A better idea would be a single-payer system, but then; the big health insurance industry who has one of the most powerful lobbies in Congress wouldn’t like that; would they?

    I’m glad we have a president who isn’t afraid to speak truth to power, even a group of ideologically motivated Supreme court justices; you should be too.

  2. Nikki Says:

    While you are concerned about companies putting money into campaigns to influence elections, you say nothing about unions. Unions are basically the same entity as companies, yet the liberals are more than happy to accept union contributions and workers to influence campaigns. What about PAC’s? If the supreme court would rule against companies putting money into campaigns, then ALL groups should be banned from doing the same – including unions, PACs, non-profits, etc. The ONLY ones then that should be able to contribute are the people and only through direct donations themselves, not hidden behind the shield of union organizing.

    The constitution does NOT support the health care bill. There is nothing in the constitution that states the government has the power to control healthcare. The problem isn’t the government’s lack of control over the healthcare industry, the problem is the government passed too many controls and mandates over it! PEOPLE need to be responsible for their own healthcare choices, not the government. If someone does not believe in healthcare why should they be forced to buy healthcare insurance? You may think they can get a waiver, but that is only granted to certain groups, and only certain religious organizations. If I, for personal reasons, do not believe in healthcare I am stuck. Likewise, if someone is very wealthy and can pay cash for their health services why should they have to purchase something they don’t need?

    The burden of health care services only became a burden when the government decided that everyone was entitled to treatment, even if they could not pay, That was not always the case. So the government created the problem and is now trying to force upon the people an unconstitutional bill to solve the problem they created in the first place.

    If you truly understood the constitution and our founders principles then you would understand why government is the problem, not the solution. Those who want to uphold those principles are those speaking out against this president and the anti-American, unconstitutional policies he speaks of. He is not speaking for the American truth.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin