Editor’s Note – President Obama, himself a constitutional question or anomaly according to a large portion of the country, took the Supreme Court to task yesterday over its deliberations regarding his Obama Care Law. Remember, Obama is an avowed “Constitutional Scholar.”
He fired away at the court decrying that they were un-elected. He also stated that the law passed with an overwhelming majority, in itself a mis-leading statement at best. (See the video of that speech here.)
The old adage, “the first story out wins” a phrase adapted by Ilana Freedman of Gerard Direct back in 2006, seems to be the number one play in Obama’s bag of tricks. He figures, and likely rightfully so, that he can say anything he wants, true, mis-leading, or fabricated from his ‘bully pulpit’, because the general public that supports him will run with it. That includes the “lame stream media.”
Then Jay Carney will get to the mic and bail him out, or stammer as he did tonight when questioned by Brett Baier of Fox News about Obama’s mis-statements.
His attacks yesterday on the Supreme Court were walked-back today (Read here), but the fact of the matter is, he is not winning the argument over his signature law. Rumors spread since yesterday tell that a message was sent to this ‘constitutional scholar’ from Associate Justice Sotomayor, that the initial pre-vote at SCOTUS went bad for him. What happened, he lashes out at the court.
Well, it does not end there.
The following story came out late today from an Appeals Court today demanding an explanatory letter from Eric Holder explaining the President’s comments that the court cannot overturn laws for constitutionality issues. Law establish in Marbury v. Madison from 1803.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
When one cannot argue the facts, argue the law. When one cannot argue the law, argue the facts. When one can neither argue the law, nor the facts, attack the court. In this case, he is attacking, and then obfuscating by drumming up emotion over what is a matter of law. That is how he regards the Constitution and the rule-of-law.
Following from CBS with update just filed:
By Jan Crawford
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”
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.
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.
Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”
I’ve reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.
UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit’s order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out “that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence.”
Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be “unprecedented” in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress’ power to regulate an economic issue like health care.
“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this,” Mr. Obama said.
“Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has,” he said.
And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.