Obama Takes Preemptive Swipe at U.S. Supreme Court

I warned you last week of the plan by President Obama and his "gangster government" allies to undermine the rule of law by unfairly attacking the integrity of the Supreme Court.  Sure enough, President Obama began an attack on the High Court this week that will go down in infamy in the histories of relations between the judicial and executive branches. 

On Monday, Obama, purposely I believe, attacked the Supreme Court with the following remarks during press conference: 

And I think it's important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care.  So there's not only an economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there's 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.

This is devious nonsense coming from Constitutional-Law-Professor-in-Chief. 

First, the president says striking down Obamacare would be unprecedented. Not even the liberal Los Angeles Times is buying that one:

...it's simply not true that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn such a law. Since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, the court has seen "judicial review" of laws as part of its responsibility, and over the years it has ruled many unconstitutional. That's entirely appropriate.

Furthermore, the implication of the remark was that the number of votes in favor of a bill was somehow relevant to its constitutionality. It's not. Otherwise, whichever party or point of view is in the majority would be free to tyrannize the minority.

(Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department is now arguing that the courts should throw out a federal marriage law passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton, was forced by an appellate panel to submit a letter affirming the role of the courts in our constitutional system. The Court evidently was taken aback by Obama's attack and wanted reassurance from the Justice Department that it wasn't seeking to overturn Marbury vs. Madison.)

Regarding Obama's comments about conservatives and "judicial activism," apparently Obama does not have a full understanding of the term. Conservatives are completely opposed to efforts by judges to legislate from the bench - that is, create new laws or rights to satisfy their policy whims, or to appear "empathic" to one group or another. (That's what Obama means when he asks the court to consider the "human element" of the decision, which he obviously prefers to the legal element.)   

Creating laws is the business of the legislative branch, and when it's done from the bench it is judicial activism pure and simple. However, most conservatives have no problem when judges strike down laws that violate the U.S. Constitution, especially a law that, if allowed, to stand, would obliterate any limits on the ability of the federal government to regulate our lives. (You can read our amicus curiaebrief filed with the court here.)

Finally, regarding the President's professed concerns about the power of this "unelected group of people," The Washington Examiner nailed it on the head: "Obama's attack on 'an unelected group of people' is pretty rich, considering that the only way his health care law plans to reduce health spending is by empowering 15 unelected bureaucrats to set wage and price controls for the entire health care industry." 

To say nothing of the numerous unelected czars the president has appointed who wield tremendous power but are not subject to a Senate vote, or congressional vetting and oversight.

Of course, conservatives understand that it is because judges are "unelected" that we must make sure that judges who are appointed to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, understand that the role is not to ignore the rule of law by legislating from the bench. 

That Obama would seek to intimidate the Supreme Court as it considers an important constitutional question is yet one more example of his contempt for the rule of law. He seems more concerned about the political will to power and less about preserving and protecting the U.S. Constitution, as his oath of office requires.

As Obama abuses his office, Judicial Watch is responding with an investigation into any efforts to intimidate the Supreme Court. We suspect there's more out there, and when we find it we will alert you.