# Prez: Supreme Court oveturning a law passed by Congress would be "uprecedented, extraordinary step." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771 "2012-04-04T02:32:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/61 "2012-04-04T20:55:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except I wouldn’t put it there, because it’s not an idea – it was a poorly phrased response to the situation, yes, but in fact no one believes the President was signaling his intention to do an Andrew Jackson and defy the Court. When your every word is recorded, you’re going to flub a few. That doesn’t call into question Obama’s knowledge of constitutional law. It means he spoke hastily, period. This bears repeating, several times. Regardless of whether you love the President or hate his guts with a passion, there is absolutely no way that a guy who was president of the Harvard Law Review (a position that usually leads to a clerkship with the Supreme Court) and who taught Con law at the University of Chicago Law Scool did not know the holding of the very first case discussed on the very first day of every Con law course in every law school in the country. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/62 "2012-04-04T21:02:22Z")
Pravnik, IMHO, it is exactly that that makes his statements so absurd. He must know what he is saying is not actually true, but there he is saying it. And it’s not just wrong in some detail–the whole tenor of his comments just grab the ball and run screaming in the wrong direction. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/63 "2012-04-04T21:11:43Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Regardless of whether you love the President or hate his guts with a passion, there is absolutely no way that a guy who was president of the Harvard Law Review (a position that usually leads to a clerkship with the Supreme Court) and who taught Con law at the University of Chicago Law Scool did not know the holding of the very first case discussed on the very first day of every Con law course in every law school in the country. It’s also taught in high school government classes around the country. Obama totally mangled his explanation, but the idea that he didn’t know about judicial review is goofy. Moreso the idea that he didn’t know about judicial review on Monday and was talking about the Lochner court on Wednesday. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/64 "2012-04-04T21:14:23Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Pravnik, IMHO, it is exactly that that makes his statements so absurd. He must know what he is saying is not actually true, but there he is saying it. And it’s not just wrong in some detail–the whole tenor of his comments just grab the ball and run screaming in the wrong direction. Okay, I can accept that. I tend to think the most likely explanation is that he was trying to make an on the fly comment that this would be a significantly different direction than Commerce Clause precedent has been going in the modern era and just mouthfarted, but I can see where someone might see an intent to mislead or misconstrue even if I don’t necessarily agree. I can’t get behind the assertion that he’s literally ignorant of the holding of _Marbury_, though, that would be like forgetting whether your pants go on your legs or your arms. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/65 "2012-04-04T21:40:49Z")
We are undone. Woe! How can Obama hope to compete with such intellectual dynamos as Romney, Santorum and Gingrinch, who’s every utterance are gems of prudence and thoughtfulness? ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/66 "2012-04-04T21:50:53Z")
I know this is going to blow this thread sky-high, so try to take a couple of deep breaths before posting in response. The power of federal courts (including SCOTUS, of course) to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional is **not in the Constitution**. True, it’s a power that has been assumed by the courts, and that is accepted as a proper duty they carry out. But it doesn’t come out of the Constitution. So people are right when they say this statement by the President doesn’t match how things work. But you can’t say it says anything about his knowledge of the Constitution itself. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/67 "2012-04-04T21:57:06Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > As such, to me that makes it more psychologically interesting. I don’t think Obama is actively opposed to judicial review. It’s that he seems never to have considered the possibility that judicial review is a thing that applies to _his_ actions. In his mind, I’m sure the whole thing _is_ unprecedented, because it’s never happened to _him_ before. > > His political, legislative and now constitutional philosophy seems to be summed up by, “but now you have _me_.” I’m suggesting that this reading says more about you (and Shodan, Rand Rover, Clothahump and Flickster – impressive thoughtmates) than Obama. It’s not that this reading cannot be inferred from the quote. It can. It’s that everything else we know about Obama is inconsistent with that understanding of his intent – including the context of the statement itself, his history, and his later explanation of what he meant. The only thing in support of that reading is partisan imputations of nefarious “psychology” or a plot to mislead the American people into forgetting that judicial review exists. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/68 "2012-04-04T22:02:15Z")
Or else he said something stupid and is being made fun of for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/69 "2012-04-04T22:03:11Z")
> [@Saltire](#): > > I know this is going to blow this thread sky-high, so try to take a couple of deep breaths before posting in response. > > The power of federal courts (including SCOTUS, of course) to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional is **not in the Constitution**. > > True, it’s a power that has been assumed by the courts, and that is accepted as a proper duty they carry out. But it doesn’t come out of the Constitution. What in your opinion is meant by CASES, as in Article 3 here: Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States… ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/70 "2012-04-04T22:06:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Or else he said something stupid and is being made fun of for it. > > Regards, > Shodan It certainly did come out stupid. But he’s not “being made fun of.” That suggests mocking for the miscommunication. Instead, he’s being ordered by GOP partisans to write apology letters; it’s being seriously declared that he doesn’t believe in judicial review; and he’s on the receiving end of whatever it is you do on this board, which is something pretty far from what Jon Stewart does. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/71 "2012-04-04T22:08:25Z")
This is April, third year of his presidency, right? Just by comparison, what was Bush doing in April of the third year of his presidency? Seems I dimly recall him doing something kinda stupid. It was something military, wasn’t it? I don’t mean his firm stance against human-animal hybrid research, that is deservedly recognized as the intellectual apex of his administration. No, this was something extra special not good. Did it rhyme with “crack whore”? Something… ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/72 "2012-04-04T22:13:57Z")
I think you’re off by a year, there… didn’t the war start in 2003, the second year of GWB’s first term? For a similar time-frame for Obama you’d have to look at spring 2011… can’t think of anything he accomplished in that time frame except authorizing a raid on some shack in Pakistan. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/73 "2012-04-04T22:15:17Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > What in your opinion is meant by CASES, as in Article 3 here: > > Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials > > The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States… Nothing in that language presages judicial review. The concept comes from the common law (though Parliamentary supremacy meant that judicial review no longer existed in England), and indeed most of Marshall’s opinion in Marbury appears to be based on common law doctrine rather than the language of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/74 "2012-04-04T22:17:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nothing in that language presages judicial review. The concept comes from the common law (though Parliamentary supremacy meant that judicial review no longer existed in England), and indeed most of Marshall’s opinion in Marbury appears to be based on common law doctrine rather than the language of the Constitution. What does CASES mean though if not judicial review? That is my direct question. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/75 "2012-04-04T22:25:59Z")
You know, whenever the liberals on this board mock or criticize a Republican and the conservatives come in with “well Clinton did…” or some such, they are rightly criticized for deflecting the issue and/or invoking a _tu quoque_. Might I suggest that the liberals doing the same thing in this thread take that to heart? At any rate, this was a dumb thing for Obama to say. I can’t imagine it having any positive effect on the temperament of the SCOTUS justices involved. He already scolded them once in public during one of his SotU speeches. He needs to stop this nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/76 "2012-04-04T22:26:05Z")
> [@Saltire](#): > > I know this is going to blow this thread sky-high, so try to take a couple of deep breaths before posting in response. > > The power of federal courts (including SCOTUS, of course) to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional is **not in the Constitution**. > > True, it’s a power that has been assumed by the courts, and that is accepted as a proper duty they carry out. But it doesn’t come out of the Constitution. > > So people are right when they say this statement by the President doesn’t match how things work. But you can’t say it says anything about his knowledge of the Constitution itself. Oh good, a chance to use my favorite SCOTUS quote (from Marbury v. Madison) : "It is a Constitution we are expounding, bitches! " ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/77 "2012-04-04T22:26:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I need **Shayna** to come explain why President Obama’s statement was legally, morally, socially, economically, and medically perfectly accurate. If anyone can do it, she can. I know you and Shayna have been locking horns lately, but to the best of my knowledge she hasn’t commented on this specific issue anywhere on the SDMB, so calling her out over this isn’t really proper. What Obama said was an indefensible gaffe which back in the day, if it had been made by Bush, would have prompted 24 Pit threads, 13 GD threads, 2,137 GQ thread hijacks, and ultimately led to 37 bannings, 2 Moderators going into hiding under assumed names and genders, and 1 Administrator retiring to a cabin in the woods to write a manifesto against technology. I think Obama is a good President and a smart person, placed in a really bad situation, but I just have the impression that he’s getting more and more rattled since the mid-year elections. And having been shut-out by a hostile House and a Conservative USSC, he’s seeing any chance of being remembered by the general public being as anything other than a “placeholder” President slipping away rapidly. At least we haven’t got to his term being described as “years of malaise…” ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/78 "2012-04-04T22:27:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You know, whenever the liberals on this board mock or criticize a Republican and the conservatives come in with “well Clinton did…” or some such, they are rightly criticized for deflecting the issue and/or invoking a _tu quoque_. Might I suggest that the liberals doing the same thing in this thread take that to heart? Amen. And gold luck tilting at that windmill. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/79 "2012-04-04T22:37:15Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > What does CASES mean though if not judicial review? That is my direct question. What it’s always meant: disputes brought before a court. Most federal cases are not determined on the basis of constitutional arguments; as you know, SCOTUS has long held that it will pass on constitutional arguments where it can resolve issues by other means. If the only defense to a violation is recourse to the Constitution, in a no-judicial-review universe SCOTUS would say, “tough, talk to the legislature.” > [@John\_Mace](#): > > You know, whenever the liberals on this board mock or criticize a Republican and the conservatives come in with “well Clinton did…” or some such, they are rightly criticized for deflecting the issue and/or invoking a _tu quoque_. Might I suggest that the liberals doing the same thing in this thread take that to heart? Yes. Shut up, libs. Our guy fucked up and there are a million other threads for pointing out unrelated fuckups. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/80 "2012-04-04T22:42:49Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > At least we haven’t got to his term being described as “years of malaise…” I don’t think that’s how it will be described, simply because it has already been used. Maybe “years of stagnation…”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771.md?page=5)