Our little dictator lobs one over the bow of the Supreme Court. **UPDATE: Now with proof of my genius from the Fifth Circuit**
Lest you forget, oral arguments concerning Obamacare were had last week in the Supreme Court. At stake: the individual mandate, and potentially the whole friggin’ law. Despite the assertions of the legal geniuses residing in their ivory tower law schools, the Supremes didn’t seem convinced that forcing every American to purchase a product constituted “regulation of economic activity.” In fact, at least five, and possibly six, of the Justices seemed skeptical about whether inactivity was the type of activity that could be regulated. After the hearings were completed, everyone proceeded to overreact.
The most over-the-top, and predictable, overreaction came from the president yesterday. In a speech delivered with the heads of Mexico and Canada(?), Barry proceeded to threaten the Supreme Court, just in case they were stupid enough to go against the family.
‘Ultimately, I am 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,’ Obama said.
I’m not sure overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented. The last time I looked, the Constitution considers the Supreme Court to be equal to Congress. Moreover, the job of the Court has, for a few centuries, been to review legislation passed by Congress for its constitutionality. In fact, the Supreme Court has overturned laws passed by Congress before. Thus, doing so here would not be “unprecedented.” Also, being that the Democrats had to bribe some of their own members in the Senate to get the thing passed in the first place, I’d hardly call Obamacare legislation “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” (not that the number of “yes” votes matters to a law’s constitutionality).
Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the ‘unelected’ Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.
I agree. Activist judges suck. But overturning Obamacare because the mandate is an unprecedented overreach of the federal government wouldn’t constitute “activism.” In other words, deciding that forcing an American citizen to buy something doesn’t constitute “regulating interstate commerce” isn’t exactly crazy. In fact, as I eluded to earlier, the only way the mandate could be upheld is if the Court decides “regulate” and “activity” actually mean the exact opposite. Don’t get me wrong…it wouldn’t shock me if the Court performed such a manipulation of the English language, but its choosing not to do so certainly wouldn’t constitute radical activism.
‘I think it’s important…to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,’ Obama said.
‘The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.
‘There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.’
In a courtroom, the foregoing is what’s called “irrelevant.” I’m sure my life would be much more enjoyable if Congress passed a law requiring me to buy a helicopter, and then provided me the money if I couldn’t afford it; but the satisfaction of laughing at the losers stuck in traffic while I sip champagne in my underwear doesn’t make it constitutional.
It should be noted that Barry’s rant against the Supreme Court is just another example of his dictatorial dreams. Who can forget the fits he still throws when Congress doesn’t give him what he wants? And just as he has done in response to Congress’s alleged “failure to act,” (giving unelected agencies like the EPA and FDA truly unprecedented power, for example), I’m predicting Barry tries to do something extreme if the Court overturns Obamacare. Packing the Courts, a la FDR? Something else? We’ll have to wait and see.
The Fifth Circuit today, while hearing a separate challenge to Obamacare, revealed that it reads this very blog as part of its preparation for important oral arguments.
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
Obviously a Fifth Circuit judge isn’t going to go on the record saying he or she relies upon a blog to provide pertinent legal background, but it’s obvious, right? Didn’t I already point out that the Supreme Court has stricken unconstitutional legislation before? Who else can provide this kind of legal research? The president himself isn’t even aware, and he used to be a law professor!
Obvious questions remain: Will the Justice Department respond? Will Eric Holder find the time between running guns to Mexico and racially profiling nuns (I made up the latter)? Will Barry write the letter himself, in purple crayon (the most diverse color)? WILL THIS BLOG FINALLY GET THE CREDIT IT DESERVES?