History Revisionism – Obama Slams Supreme Court – Says ObamaCare Passed With “Strong Majority”

Obama took a shot at the conservatives on the Court, today,in comments about the deliberations over ObamaCare.

“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 at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

“Strong majority?” How stupid does this President think we are? Does he think we all suffer from mass amnesia? Alzheimer’s?

video via Weasel Zippers

The bitter battle that finally led to Obamacare’s slim passage, only two years ago,  included countless promises that couldn’t be kept, back-room deals, kick-backs, parliamentary tricks and a transparently dishonest executive order that promised pro-life Dems that ObamaCare wouldn’t cover abortions. (Whatever happened to that E/O?)

The heavy handed/rammed down our throats passage of the unpopular bill represented a major betrayal to the majority of Americans who opposed  it, and the Democrats were punished severely that Fall with a shellacking of epic proportions.

That’s what the President considers passing with “a strong majority”.

The constitutional scholar also had “stern words” for the conservatives on the court.

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have 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,” Obama said.

“Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.

But of course, slapping down an unconstitutional law is not what what one would call “judicial activism”. It’s called our checks and balances at work with one branch correcting the abusive  overreach of the other two branches.

See also:

Doug Ross: I find it curious that a self-professed Constitutional scholar doesn’t know that the Supreme Court has struck down more than 1,300 laws since the founding of the Republic

The Right Scoop: Mark Levin methodically rips apart Obama’s SCOTUS intimidation statement

Legal Insurrection: Hey Obama, know what else those unelected judges have?

Yid With Lid: Obama Attempts to Intimidate the Supreme Court Via “Street Bully” Tactics

America’s Right: An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional Scholar

I understand that, ideologically, your signature piece of health care legislation is the perfect progressive fix.  I understand how it works.  I understand how it slowly but surely interferes with insurers’ ability to assess risk and thus slowly but surely facilitates an increase in premium costs, therefore driving more and more people to clamor for a government fix. It’s a brilliant political maneuver.

But it’s also unconstitutional.

And when the Justices of the United States Supreme Court tell you as much mere weeks before November’s election, it will not be because they are “unelected,” nor will it be because they somehow don’t understand the legislation.  The law simply runs afoul of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and no amount of “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” will change that.

Wave the white flag, Mr. President.  Or, preferably, you can continue to make a fool of yourself.  In my Trial Advocacy class at Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let it happen.

Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure ain’t Harvard.  Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and smiling.

Good luck with your re-election.

CDN: President Obama’s Petty Tirade May Signal Beginning of the End for Obamacare

Richard Fernandez, Belmont Club: Nice Court You Have There, It Would Be A Shame If Something Happened To It

WHD: Obama Attempts to Intimidate the Supreme Court


10 thoughts on “History Revisionism – Obama Slams Supreme Court – Says ObamaCare Passed With “Strong Majority”

  1. I find it quite amusing that BO is warning SCOTUS about judicial legislation, pot-kettle? Majority???? If that were so, yes, it would be judicial legislation. But true to form, SCOTUS is in a position to actually do it’s job for once, in spite of his recent attempts at stacking the court.


  2. Sounds like somebody’s worried

    But SCOTUS is just enforcing the Constitutional law of the land as laid down by the Founding Fathers

    All of this exists primarily to protect the country from power-drunk radicals like yourself, Barry- no wonder you’re bummed-out lol


  3. Pingback: Jon Stewart Remembers the President’s “Ultimate, Last Push” on Obamacare « GoodOleWoody's Blog

  4. Pingback: Ex Parte Obama « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  5. Pingback: Obama’s Regulator Czar, Cass Sunstein defines “Judicial Activism” « YourDaddy's Politics

  6. It’s too bad it wasn’t written into the Constitution that one branch couldn’t threaten another. His sorry backside would be toast even now!

    Where does that sorry excuse for a sentient being get off threatening the court like that? It sounds like he’s gotten word (illegally, of course) that maybe one or two of “his” justices are wavering, and his thinly veiled threats are meant to keep them in line.

    I’m no constitutional lawyer (not even a lawyer!), but I’ll guarantee you I know more about what the Constitution actually says than he does. It’s not surprising to me, though, because he has such poor command of the English language to begin with, an older version of English (early American, quite similar at the time to the language actually spoken in England). I would dare say he probably wouldn’t have been able to pass my high school English class.

    The maggots inserted into this piece of legislation are already festering, producing more flies, more rot, more maggots.


  7. It sounds like he’s gotten word (illegally, of course) that maybe one or two of “his” justices are wavering, and his thinly veiled threats are meant to keep them in line.

    I was thinking the same thing. (His mole is probably Kagan).
    He’s probably trying to give them an excuse not to vote with the “judicial activists”.


  8. Pingback: Chairman Obama Double Dog Dares Supreme Court To Defy His Divine Will - Waznmentobe

  9. Heck, the only reason we’re having this discussion is that the Republicans pushed through civil rights legislation in spite of the kicking and screaming of such notable Democrats as Robert (the Hood) Byrd, making law that was outside the decorum of traditional legislation.

    Difference is, those laws were found to have been within the framework of what is allowed, even demanded by the Constitution. But moonbats have trouble differentiating between what is demanded and what is specifically exempted (10th Amendment) without torturing the language beyond recognition.


  10. Pingback: Obama Backtracks From Attack on ‘Non-Elected’, ‘Judicial Activists’ on Supreme Court Over ObamaCare « The Foxhole

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s