Title taken from this story. Debate over the merits of the SCOTUS decision aside, what does the President think he can do by “turning up the heat?”
Al Haig to Richard Nixon*: “It’s the Supreme Court, sir. You don’t get around it.”
(*at least in the movie version.)
By repeatedly assailing the Supreme Court’s decision, at best, is this making Obama look like a bit of a yapping chihuahua? At worst, does it reflect some fundamental misunderstanding of SCOTUS vs. POTUS?
Obama? Misunderstand the SCOTUS vs. POTUS thing? I doubt it. What do you mean by “repeatedly assailing the Court’s decision?” Has he done this more than once? I wouldn’t be shocked, though, to see a push for another, stricter law to come through Congress or even a push for an Amendment. I sure hope so, once this health care thing is settled one way or the other.
He’s talking about a legislative correction to the decison, not just criticizing it. He can certainly try to put “heat” on Congress to change the law.
Well, to judge by the article, Obama means to propose legislation which will replace the invalidated law, trying some new statutory scheme which the Court hasn’t (yet) ruled unconstitutional.
Obama made Harvard Law Review, so I figure he knows the relative roles of POTUS and SCOTUS, and can probably analyze the legal issues well enough to recognize the likeliest approach for drafting a new law that will pass constitutional muster.
He was also a professor of Constitutional Law for 12 years. He knows the roles of the branches of government.
There’s a pretty big risk in this for him, because I think there’s probably a desire on his part to engage in a little lawyering on this. This stuff should be right in Obama’s Wheelhouse. If there was one thing is was extremely well qualified for, it was for his dealings with the Supreme Court.
So I think that brings a certain temptation to make this a focus. But a President can’t spend the majority of his time building a case against the Supreme Court or working on legislative manoevering. Not when the economy is cratering and there are two wars going on. It will not play well in the public if he spends too much time on this, regardless of the merits of his position.
That’s kind of the sense I had and what I was getting at: Obama may have an unrivalled academic understanding of the Supreme Court and constitutional law, but his political sense seems to be a bit off-kilter. I’m not sure if we’ve had the spectacle of a president actively fighting the Supreme Court at least since FDR, and the public perception of such a fight might not go well for Obama.
I really don’ think there’s much indication that Obama will fight the SCOTUS in the sense you seem to be implying. The Court said the law was unconstitutional, so Obama said he’ll try and get Congress to pass a version of the bill that will satisfy them. That’s not fighting the Court, it’s obeying them.
Out of curiousity, has McCain said what he thought of the Courts decision? The bill that was struck down was his baby, after all, but IIRC he more or less disowned it during the '08 election. What’s his take now.
As much as I think the recent ruling is garbage, and absolutely detrimental to all American citizens:
WTF can he do? He’s the President. Other than appoint justices (and AFAIK no positions will be open for at least a few years) I don’t think he can do anything.
I would love, love, love dearly to [HUG DEARLY AND GIVE A POLITE AND RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENT] to the five justices who went down this clown road. But I don’t see that there’s anything the President can do.
He’s not fighting the Supreme Court.
Yo, Congress! You guys need to pass some laws so that corporations can’t spend money supporting your re-election efforts!
McCain/Feingold was very unpopular among Republicans, and I don’t see them supporting Obama in this effort.
Justice Stevens will likely retire by the fall. He has only hired one clerk for the next term as opposed to his usual four.
The SCOTUS ruled that Lilly Ledbetter didn’t qualify for back pay because of an expired statute, so the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act of 2009 was passed to address that problem.
So that is an example, the SCOTUS rules and congress responds by changing the rules.
Campaign speech from corporations might be more allowed now, but different laws can be passed to require shareholder approval, more transparency about which corporations are funding what, and things like that.
So there are other avenues that can and likely will be taken to increase transparency and hamstring corporate ability to advertise.
Though you could hardly replace Stevens with anyone MORE favorable to controls on political spending.
Well, it passed a GOP led Congress 59-41 just a few years ago, so its not totally inconceivable a weaker version would pass. Plus there’s at least some value of making the Repubs oppose it, since standing up for corporations right to give you money doesn’t really look very good, even if they manage to defeat the bill.
But that’s why I was curious what McCain’s current take on the subject was, since the first bill was his baby, and he could probably bring a few more Republicans on board and make passing a new bill a more or less sure thing, but he was last seen trying to run away from it, so who knows.
That where the “heat” lies. It’s in trying to bring public opinion to bear on Congress. The more the public understands what a commodity democracy is, and how many elected officials are corporate property, the more uncomfortable things are going to be for them.
Of course, the standard response will be to decry any critique of the literal coopting of elections as being anti-capitalist/anti-American.
That’s not really a good example because the SCOTUS was interpreting a law in that case, not ruling on the constitutionality of the law.
Congress can change the Constitution.
They CAN, but not unilaterally, and with only 27 amendments in over 200 years, they rarely do.
If it can be done 27 times, it can be done 28 times. All they need is public will. Maybe Obama can generate it, maybe not, but it’s worth a try.