“Significant departure” is right. It’d be Lochner all over again.
Prez: Supreme Court oveturning a law passed by Congress would be "uprecedented, extraordinary step."
It’s bad, bizarre phrasing since everyone who passed, say, the 9th grade will tell you the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws that it determines are unconstitutional. I’m not offended that the president gave his opinion on a Supreme Court case.
And with that laugh, I can start my day with a smile.
You guys need this so very badly, it would be mean spirited to deny it to you. Freak freely!
OK, I’m a fan of Obama, too, but the most charitable thing I can say about this statement was that it was very clumsily phrased in a way which lends itself quite easily to an absurd interpretation. If anyone’s still trying to keep the “Stupid Democratic Idea of the Day” thread alive in the Pit, this would be a good candidate for it.
Anyone he ever flunked from his Constitutional law classes deserves an apology and a refund.
Regards,
Shodan
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.
Killjoy was here.
OK, this made me laugh. Good one.
Yeah, I do not know what President Obama was thinking on this one. Not one of his brighter moves. Even though, as BigT pointed out upthread, Gingrich advocated basically ignoring the Supreme Court. I know the president is brighter than him.
I can’t find the remarks you’re referring to, but regardless I’m not giving him a pass on this one. It’s not as though he said it off the cuff at a Denny’s or something.
While the underlying basis of what he said may be valid (see pravnik’s post), there is no excuse for phrasing it so badly in a prepared speech.
Good thing he wasn’t born in Kenya - he’d never have passed the citizenship test.
I suspect the odds on his scoring a big post-Presidential win on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader? just went long.
Regards,
Shodan
In your dreams.
Let us just relax a bit here. The parsing of a political figure’s rhetoric when the figure has an ax to grind is seldom useful. The fact remains that much of the business of the US Supreme Court is political and that is all the more apparent in the present controversy. That the President chose to use the bully pulpit to put a little pressure on the one or two or three Justices who may be subject to persuasion ought to come as no surprise. Nor should it be a surprise when the figure resorts to hyperbole in an effort to make a point.
With regard to the Obamacare case, we have to recognize that ever since the Great Depression there has been a tendency to recognize that Congress has wide powers under the Commerce Clause and that there is a tendency for the Judiciary to defer to the Legislative. Three members of the Court appear to be inclined to move away from that approach. Three members look to be inclined to adhere to it. That leaves three Justices who can be persuaded. We will see how it works out. In any event the Republic will survive. Nonetheless, at its root it is still politics.
Given the latest hissy fit from a single judge on the 5th Circuit, I can’t help but reflect on the hysterics that followed the Supreme Court’s decision on the Texas sodomy statute and the Iowa Court’s same-sex marriage decision. Judicial review and unprecedented my ass, it is mostly power politics.
I have become more cynical in my old age but I just can’t keep up.
“Ah, but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now…”
The Byrds, Sweetheart of the Rodeo
The evidence suggests otherwise.
Newt Gangrene has the advantage, he says things, and a few years later says the exact opposite. So he has to be right about half the time.
Let’s get real. Obama hasn’t suggested that a moon colony has a pathway to statehood.
I think it would be useful to place President Obama’s remarks in the context of things that have been said about the Court in the not-too-distant past.
For instance, St. Ronald of Reagan, while running for President in 1980, called a Supreme Court decision on abortion “an abuse of power as bad as the transgression of Watergate and the bribery on Capitol Hill.”
Yeah, Ronaldus Magnus said the Supreme Court was acting on a par with felons.
Once in office, Reagan’s AG joined the fun:
The point is that politicians have been sharply criticizing the Supreme Court and lesser courts for a long time. (I’m old enough to remember the “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper stickers.) The only thing new now is the pearl-clutching at the very idea that a President might have the nerve to tell the Supreme Court which way he thinks is the right way to decide a case.
And unlike some have attempted in the recent past, Obama isn’t attempting to, say, strip the Supreme Court (or the Federal judiciary as a whole) of jurisdiction over this or any other law.
Covering Dylan of course.
The Rude Pundit maee some interesting comments on April 4, RTFirefly. 