President Obama Warns Supreme Court

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.

Supreme CourtSomeone 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.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2048 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Harrison

    Excellent my article for tomorrow!

    Let’s not forget when Obama ripped into the Supreme Court for political advertising. This type of partisanship and bullying will, quite frankly, be the type of think that leads to the downfall of our nation if it happens too frequently.

    • LD Jackson

      Obama seems to think it is perfectly okay for him to do the bullying. I can not remember a President who so easily fell into that role.

      • John Carey

        The reason you can’t remember a President that has acted like this before Obama is because a President hasn’t been this arrogant since Andrew Jackson.

        • LD Jackson

          That is true. President Obama is about as arrogant as anyone I have seen in public office.

          • Harrison

            Well, people wanted a change from Bush, didn’t they?

            • LD Jackson

              I think they may have gotten more than they bargained for.

  • Charles Phipps

    Larry, he’d likely prefer we had no Supreme Court. At the present time, pending the outcome of the elections this November, the Supreme Court is the only government body capable of stopping the travesty known as Obamacare. With the possibility looming that the center piece of his administration will be thrown out with the trash, I am not surprised at all that he would say such things. The irony is that the vote has already taken place in the Supreme Court. It’s a done deal, whatever the decision. After opinions are written it’s my understanding a Justice does have the right to change his/her vote, but I wouldn’t imagine that happens all that often. The fate of Obamacare has already been decided and nothing President Obama says will change it.

    • LD Jackson

      I didn’t think of that, Charles. The vote has already been taken. I suspect it’s eating at him, trying to figure out which way it went.

      You are right about the role of the Supreme Court. They are the only thing standing in the way of Obamacare and the havoc it will wreak on our country and its economy.

  • Country Thinker

    Well, overturnimg Obamaar would be unprecedented. When was the last time it was before the courts?

    • LD Jackson

      That’s true enough, I suppose. He probably thinks they wouldn’t dare overturn his law.

  • Silverfiddle

    It’s the Chicago way…

    • LD Jackson

      And Obama wouldn’t have it any other way.

  • Steve Dennis

    Basically what Obama said was that no law passed by the Congress should ever be overturned by the Supreme Court, that’s the way I took what he said, and that shows a great lack of understanding or an intentional misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court’s job is. If the Congress is allowed to do whatever it wants and the SC is supposed to just rubber stamp it what are they even there for?

    • LD Jackson

      Like I said, with President Obama, why do we even need a Supreme Court?

  • Driftforge

    If the law is ‘a duly constituted’ then it won’t be overturned. But that is the judgement that is being made by the courts – whether the law is duly consituted.

    • LD Jackson

      I think that point escapes the current resident of the White House.

  • John Carey

    This is a man whose utter disdain for our constitutional system seeps from him. I believe he’s desperate because he knows it went bad for Obamacare. What we saw yesterday is why we need to take the keys to the White House away from him.

    • LD Jackson

      I suspect you are right. There is a rumor going around that the results of the votes already taken in the Supreme Court have been leaked to the White House. If that is the case, then it would explain his haste in going after the Justices.

  • Jim at Conservatives on Fire

    Obama would much prefer to be a dictator. He has said his life would be easier if we had a government like China. It’s hard to believe this man was allowed to teach constitutional law. He hasn’t a clue about the constitution or if he does, he has no respect for the document he took an oath to uphold and defend.

    • LD Jackson

      I agree, Jim. The attitude he has taken since moving into the White House has been one of “I know best”. You can see it clearly in the way he governs and how he likes to chastise the American people and the other two branches of our government.

  • Cameron D. MacKay

    As a Canadian, I have been under the understanding that America is an advanced democracy in which one of the pillars of that democracy is the unfettered independence of the Judiciary. Having followed American politics since the days of President Eisenhower, I cannot specifically recall such a blatant attempt to inject political intimidation into the judicial equation. Americans should be considering a class action against Obama for contempt of Court … unless of course they are prepared to abandon a Constitution and related documents which represent one of the finest constitutional frameworks yet devised by man.

    • LD Jackson

      Thanks for commenting on Political Realities, Cameron. I would tend to agree with you. I will be turning 50 years old this year and I can not recall a President using his bully pulpit in such a manner. I was encouraged by the news from the 5th Circuit Court. They have sent an order to the Department of Justice, asking them to reply by Thursday and clarify exactly what Obama meant. It is past time someone called the man’s bluff.

  • Pingback: President Obama and His Arrogance to the Sureme Court()