President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "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," he declared.
Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.
April 2, 2012, Wall St. Journal
Astonishing ignorance of the law.
Or a Banana Republic Dictator's view of politics.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "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," he declared.
Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.
April 2, 2012, Wall St. Journal
Astonishing ignorance of the law.
Or a Banana Republic Dictator's view of politics.
I choose what's behind door #2 Monte
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party
I dunno. Pissing off people who are about to rule on the constitutionality of your signature achievement seems like a good idea to me.
My guess is that there is wailing and gnashing of teeth among Dem Senators facing reelection bids in competitive districts over the POTUS' handling of this issue.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
"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," he declared.
Palin-esque doofus statement.
And, no, it's not what all politicians do. This is the President trying to pressure the Supreme Court by commenting on a matter that is under current deliberation.
The right thing to do is to withhold comment on issues before the bench, but this guy sometimes confuses his title with "King" or "El Jefe."
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
