I have ceased to be amazed or surprised at anything President Obama says or does. His most recent foray into the world of the unbelievable came at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. One would think that would be an inappropriate time and place for the President of the United States to warn another branch of our government, but President Obama evidently doesn’t share that sentiment. If you will recall, this isn’t the first time he has chastised the Supreme Court. Remember the broadside volley he launched during his State of the Union address, with the justices sitting in the audience?
So what did the President have to say today? See for yourself, courtesy of Fox News.
There is not only an economic element to this, a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.
Ultimately, 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.
And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
Well, this is a good example and I’m pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t President Obama supposed to be an authority on the Constitution? Isn’t he supposed to be a fairly smart individual? If that is the case, then please explain to me how he can believe a ruling by the Supreme Court against the health care law and its individual mandate would be “unprecedented and extraordinary”? It certainly would not be the first time the Supreme Court ruled a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is not just an unelected body, it is one of three branches that make up the government of the United States of America. It is their job to be part of the checks and balances in that government. Just because President Obama may not agree with their ruling, doesn’t mean that they would be guilty of judicial activism if they strike down the mandate. Nor would it be an “unprecedented and extraordinary” step for them to take.
If anything is unprecedented and extraordinary, it would be the audacity of an American President to warn the Supreme Court on a ruling it hasn’t even delivered. Of course, this is President Obama we are talking about. By now, nothing he says or does should surprise us. After all, he is the President and he surely knows best. With him in the White House, I don’t even know why we even need a Supreme Court.