Monday, April 2, 2012

Obama disses the Judicial branch

The U.S. Supreme Court has completed its hearings on Obamacare last week. "We the people" will find out about the results in June, but the judges already know which side is in the majority.

The hearing exposed Obamacare as an example of unlimited and unconstitutional power-grab by the executive branch of government. The swing vote --  justice Kennedy -- appears to have swung against that law, when the government lawyer failed to provide a limit to this interpretation of the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The clause, which allows the Fed to control trade between states and with other countries, has been used by the administration to justify this intrusion. Your heathcare impacts interstate commerce, get it? By that measure any human activity impacts interstate commerce, so where's the limit? The administration failed to provide one.

We the people are so over this ... Constitution.
Obama charged that the "unelected"Supreme Court could not and should not take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law, saying:
Ultimately, I am 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.
Obama has taken an unprecedented step of warning the U.S. Supreme Court not to overturn his law. Not only that, he's charging the Justices with ... not being elected. That is the precisely the means for ensuring impartiality of justices chosen by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution. Surely a constitutional lawyer like Obama is aware of this fact. Obama's bemoaning the Constitution as a potential impediment to his designs is understandable. It's one thing to think it, and another to actually say this foolishness.

My liberal friends used to tell me that "Obama is the smartest person in the room", regardless of other occupants. Really? He seems really obtuse to me. Does he not realize how consistent the narrative of the overreach of his administration has been?

Given Obama's ridiculous outburst, some believe that Obama has been tipped off on the decision by the Supreme Court on health law. It should not matter. It appears that some of Obama's advisers think that running against the U.S. Supreme Court is a winning strategy for reelection. After all he's already running against the unpopular Congress. What a great narrative for Obama's reelection: "Although last three and a half years have stunk, you should vote t o reelect me, because the problems were the fault of the other two branches of government."

According to Obama's revisionist history his signature healthcare law was passed by a strong majority in Congress?! This is news. I thought it was the reluctance of congress that required the Cornhusker kickback and the Alabama purchase for the passage of Obamacare. The same type of sweetener was required for other items on Obama's ideological agenda.
Obama's agenda required some incentives.
Obama also noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example. Determination of Constitutionality is a form of "judicial activism". According to Obama's logic the Court should be a mere rubber stamp since its function of verifying the constitutionality of laws is merely perfunctory.

Obama desperately wants his presidency to be historically consequential. It is - as an example of everything that is wrong with liberal ideology, and the threat its autocratic approach poses to our Constitution.

No comments:

Post a Comment