- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
By Joseph Curl
Of course President Obama knows that the Supreme Courts chief function is to decide, disinterestedly, whether a law adheres to the U.S. Constitution. He was, after all, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago and is to hear the liberal intelligentsia tell it the smartest man since Albert Einstein.
And of course Mr. Obama knows full well that the high court has done just that since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the court asserted its authority of judicial review spelled out by the Founding Fathers under Article III of the Constitution.
So everyone needs to take pause when The One says something like he did this week about his precious health care mandate: Ultimately, Im 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 Id just remind conservative commentators that for years what weve 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 Im pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.
Now, Mr. Obama certainly knows that the words that flowed from his rhetorical lips were completely false. Striking a law of Congress is not unprecedented, and not even particularly extraordinary: The courts struck down more than 150 federal laws since its inception, not to mention overturning hundreds of state and local laws.
So why on Earth would he say it? Why would he lecture the top jurists in the land unelected, as they are, and appointed for life to remove them from petty politics that the law has a human element that he hopes is not forgotten in this political debate? Why, for Heavens sake, would he declare that the justices should understand his health-care law doesnt work unless every American is forced to buy coverage, whether its constitutional or not?
Simple. His provably false remarks werent aimed at Supreme Court justices, but rather at uninformed Americans, especially liberals (is there any other kind?). The most divisive president in history is setting up yet another straw man for his re-election campaign, one that fits directly into his strategy to divide and conquer.
Read More:
CURL: Divide and conquer: Obama knows exactly what he's saying - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®
Of course President Obama knows that the Supreme Courts chief function is to decide, disinterestedly, whether a law adheres to the U.S. Constitution. He was, after all, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago and is to hear the liberal intelligentsia tell it the smartest man since Albert Einstein.
And of course Mr. Obama knows full well that the high court has done just that since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the court asserted its authority of judicial review spelled out by the Founding Fathers under Article III of the Constitution.
So everyone needs to take pause when The One says something like he did this week about his precious health care mandate: Ultimately, Im 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 Id just remind conservative commentators that for years what weve 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 Im pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.
Now, Mr. Obama certainly knows that the words that flowed from his rhetorical lips were completely false. Striking a law of Congress is not unprecedented, and not even particularly extraordinary: The courts struck down more than 150 federal laws since its inception, not to mention overturning hundreds of state and local laws.
So why on Earth would he say it? Why would he lecture the top jurists in the land unelected, as they are, and appointed for life to remove them from petty politics that the law has a human element that he hopes is not forgotten in this political debate? Why, for Heavens sake, would he declare that the justices should understand his health-care law doesnt work unless every American is forced to buy coverage, whether its constitutional or not?
Simple. His provably false remarks werent aimed at Supreme Court justices, but rather at uninformed Americans, especially liberals (is there any other kind?). The most divisive president in history is setting up yet another straw man for his re-election campaign, one that fits directly into his strategy to divide and conquer.
Read More:
CURL: Divide and conquer: Obama knows exactly what he's saying - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®
