Obama Warns/Lectures Supreme Court on Healthcare Law

April 3, 2012

Our Dear Leader, The Great Lecturer (Image: breitbart.com)

President Obama yesterday not only lectured the Supreme Court about his healthcare law’s Constitutionality, he even warned them against a “wrong” decision.

Showing he is still unable to control the ego that left the stratosphere years ago, King Obama let it be known the displeasure he would feel if the High Court would dare to make the “wrong” decision.

“With respect to health care, I’m actually — continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.  And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.”………” As I said, we are confident that this will be over — that this will be upheld.  I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld.”

Really, “precedent” Mr. President?  Do you really believe the American public is that stupid or is it just that you’re really that arrogant?

Would you please inform Corner readers and the public as a whole just WHERE in the entire history of this nation that the federal government forced citizens to enter into a private contract for no other reason than being alive?

Dear Leader continued:  (when he gets on a roll, he REALLY gets on a roll)

“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’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — 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 that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”

The contradictions would be laughable if they hadn’t been said with such audacity.

Call it cynicism, call it arrogance, call it re-election posturing, call it anything you like, but for such words to come out of the mouth of a President of the United States of America should cause every citizen of either side of the political aisle to take pause.

First he declares the law should be upheld in “accordance with precedent” (for which there is none) and in the next breath warns that should the Court dare to overturn it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” akin to the liberal “judicial activism” that conservatives for years have attacked.

Earth to Obama: There IS NO precedent for what you, Pelosi, Reid and your “activist Congress” shoved down the throats of the American people against their will.

That “strong majority” was an entirely Democrat majority interested in nothing but its own devices. (Common sense additions such as tort reform and ability to purchase across state lines were rejected and any attempt to have a meaningful debate on the subject was either ignored our openly mocked.)

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was anything BUT duly and honorably constituted.   It was rather “dubiously concocted” through back door coercion, kickbacks and out right lies. (Bart Stupak is feeling pretty stupid right now.)

But the President’s sudden worry “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” is what the Corner finds most troubling.

Dear Leader makes so much of himself being a “Constitutional Law Professor” yet somehow he missed the part about the Justices being “unelected” by design?

And just in case he slept through any other classes in law school, the Corner reminds him that Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade were also decided by an “unelected group”.

Many “duly constituted and passed” laws were overturned in those two decisions, should we now put those laws back on the books?

The truth is, this country was founded as and has remained for over two centuries, a nation of laws.  Some good, some not so good, some outright terrible, but laws none the less.  And  since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, that “unelected group” (otherwise known as The Supreme Court of the United States) has been recognized as the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of those laws.

Some of those decisions the left agrees with, some the right agrees with, some have stood for centuries, some fell when a successive “unelected group” reviewed and overturned their own predecessors, but all were decisions that our entire legal system honored.

Yet now comes along one Barrack Hussein Obama, self appointed King and Leader of all things left and we’re supposed to just throw it all out because he says so?

A few points of clarification Mr. President:

Your “rules” may work in Chicago, where laws are only as strong as the corruption behind them, but the Corner has no doubt you’ll find them “radically” lacking in your attempt to intimidate the Justices.

Obfuscating the truth and distracting an ignorant public with falsehoods and misdirection may have gotten you elected to the Oval Office but it will not get you a seat at the conference table. A conference that when convened will most certainly pay more attention to the writings of Madison and Jefferson than the likes of Alinsky and Ayers.

While the dwainbwains and Kool-Aide slurpers are still squarely behind you Mr. President, the Corner and the rest of America would prefer the words of James Madison, “father” of that Constitution you so openly mock. The man who stood up on the floor of Congress on June 8, 1789 and espoused upon his proposed Bill of Rights and the necessity of an independent judiciary:

“……If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Beside this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty…….”

Madison saw “independent tribunals of justice” guarding our individual rights and an “impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive”.

Obama sees our individual rights and the “unelected group” as nothing but a hindrance to his desired “fundamental transformation” of this nation.

Madison stood against the accumulation of power by the federal government, Obama stands for it.

One was a man of the highest moral character and a true American patriot, the other is a power hungry, self-serving, opportunist.

One has the immortal thanks of a grateful nation; the other is a mortal threat to the same.

Let’s hope there’s enough in that “unelected group” that knows the difference.

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to Obama Warns/Lectures Supreme Court on Healthcare Law

  1. alrightalready on April 3, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    What is wrong with the President? He insults the Supreme Court in a State of Union Address. Now he insults the Supreme Court by “lecturing” them before the entire nation and two foreign leaders. How much more contempt can the President show?

    Not only does the President “lecture” the Supreme Court but he includes LIES in his lecture since, I must assume, he apparently believes the Constitution does not support his insane Affordable Care Act. People do not lie for no reason unless they have a mental problem. Of course that is a possibility since the President cannot see the where a liberal, pandering governing philosophy has brought Greece, with Spain, Portugal, Italy, and who knows what others right behind. It is truly unbelievable.

  2. anson burlingame on April 4, 2012 at 8:21 am


    This is PURE POLITICS. And politics should NEVER be considered in a LEGAL judicial review, period.

    First, it is clear to me at least that the President is running scared on ACA. I would bet a LOT that the WH was told of the results of the preliminary vote by Justices following oral arguments. My bet is the vote was at least 5-4 to deem the mandate unconstitutional and now majority and minority opinions are being written and circulated within the Court before a final vote is taken, probably in June.

    To me that is an egregious violation of SCOTUS ethics and procedures. The time for public discussion on ACA is OVER, as far as the court is concerned. If I was the Chief Justice I would conduct an internal investigation to find out who leaked the information and come down HARD on the leaker.

    My bet is that it was Kagan, a Justice with huge vested interest in this case. She may have done it through a clerk, etc and not herself as well.

    Ican think of NO other reason why the President would try to publicily lecture SCOTUS at this point in the review of the case.

    He is trying hard to inject politics into judicial review, a constitutional and LEGAL process.


  3. Herb Van Fleet on April 4, 2012 at 3:34 pm


    I’ve said here and elsewhere that I thought the ACA would be thrown out by the Supremes on at least two grounds. First, many provisions of the ACA pose a threat to contract law, whereby the insurers and the insured are directed by government fiat to change the terms of said contracts. If allowed to stand, this would be unprecedented and put all contracts at risk for being voided if they didn’t fit the government’s continually changing idea of what social policy should be. Contracts would therefore cease to be binding and our market economy, domestically and internationally, will simply collapse into chaos.

    Second, the “individual mandate” portion, with its “penalty” for not buying something, is not only a gross abuse of the infamous Commerce Clause, but effectively makes criminals out of those who can least afford to buy health insurance in the first place. The word “absurd” comes to mind.

    I don’t know what the hell Obama was thinking when he signed this damn bill. He sure left his legal training and his constitutional scholarship in the crapper. I certainly agree with this post and all the above comments on that point.

    But this particular case begs another issue. I see the role of SCOTUS as provided for in the Constitution, and as subsequently interpreted by the Court itself, as a material weakness in the organic law of the nation. It began with Marbury v. Madison where John Marshall established the idea of judicial review, thereby making the Court the most powerful branch of government. And judicial review, as all know, begets judicial activism.

    A possible remedy for this dilemma, IMO, is to require that the Justices must agree on a decision/opinion by not less than 3/4ths of the entire Court. Currently, that’s 7 out of 9 justices. The 3/4ths requirement comes from the constitution itself since any amendments require approval of 3/4th majority of the states. And since the Court often makes decisions that effectively amend the constitution (think Citizens United) there should be a higher standard for their rulings than a simple majority. This would also help de-politicize the court. I would also suggest that If they fail to get the 3/4th majority, then they can either (1) let the lower court decision stand or (2) send the matter to Congress for consideration.

    Thanks for letting me vent.


    • Geoff Caldwell on April 4, 2012 at 8:27 pm

      Herb, Herb, Herb,
      You, others and venting of all sorts are ALWAYS welcome here. It may get testy, it might even get nasty from time to time but the Corner is of the first of the American freedoms: Free Speech.
      Good to see you again and thanks for dropping by.
      You’re not the only one right now wondering “what the hell was he thinking” when he signed the bill.
      Some say he just thought it “better than nothing”, others (like myself) think he knew exactly what he was doing as when you get into the bowels of the bill and all that it entails it truly is the first step to a single payer, government control of healthcare.
      And your comment on the effect of contract law is absolutely spot on. I just don’t see how the Court can uphold this bill without throwing out over a century of precedence and going against our most very basic of basic founding principles. (Although the administration somehow managed to kick the bondholders to the curb in the GM restructuring without a blink of an eye so who knows)
      Your “super” majority to overturn is intriguing but I don’t know if in this day and age we will ever again see a “de-politicing” of anything judiciary. For example, I’m sure as the sun comes up in the East that if the Supreme Court today were made of Kagan clones, this column and this discussion would not even be happening because Obama would have felt no need to lecture the court as he would know they would vote for what HE wanted in policy.
      For over three decades SCOTUS swung to the left, now that it’s center to right the left screams bloody murder every time they hand down a decision the left doesn’t agree with. Obama has even gone so far to claim that overturning Obamacare would be “judicial activism”? It couldn’t be further from the truth but it DOES play well to the base and from now till the election that’s all we’re going to hear. We are going to hear the most uncivil, most divisive rhetoric anyone alive has ever heard in a political campaign.
      The civil war was fought over slavery, this election is about the very survival of the professional left and liberalism as they want to impose it. Nothing will be spared in their attempt to give Obama the second term he needs to complete the agenda started in 08. Yes I know that sounds “hyperbolic” but when you look at what’s been started and what the executive branch agencies have been able to implement outside of the legislative branch it truly is frightening for anyone believing in governmental restraint over individual liberties.
      But I’ve digressed far and vented much to much.
      So thank you for letting ME vent, and feel free to stop on by the Corner anytime.


October 2021
« Jul