At a White House event yesterday, a reporter asked President Obama about the health care case at the Supreme Court, and he addressed the matter publicly for the first time since last week's arguments. If you missed it, here's the clip.
The comments were provocative, but hardly shocking. Obama noted that there's a broad legal consensus that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and the law is already making a positive difference in the lives of millions of Americans.
Specifically regarding the high court, the president added:
"Ultimately, I'm 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 I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've 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."
This has apparently sent some Republicans looking for the fainting couch. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) told Fox News Radio that Obama may have been "trying to intimidate the Supreme Court" with comments Smith feared may have been "threatening." Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), still trying to prove his hysterical bona fides to his party base, sounded a similar alarm, saying it's "unprecedented" for any president to try to "intimidate the Supreme Court."
Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) parroted the same talking points this morning -- it's almost as if a memo went out -- saying in reference to the president's comments, "It is threatening, it is intimidating."
Even for the right, this is all a bit silly.
There weren't even veiled threats in Obama's impromptu comments yesterday. Republicans are pretending to be outraged because, well, I think they enjoy living in a state of near-constant fake outrage.
If I had to guess, I'd say the GOP message is intended for fringe activists who are convinced Obama is trying to become all-powerful tyrant, hell bent on autocratic rule. This talk about the president "threatening" and "intimidating" the judiciary probably helps feed the fever swamp.
But that doesn't make any of this credible. As Greg Sargent explained, "If you really want to hear an 'attack' on the court, go check out F.D.R.'s 1937 address, in which he accused the Court of wanting to banish the nation to a 'No-Man's Land of final futility.' Or check out his Fireside Chat about his court-packing scheme, in which he warned that it was time to 'save the Constitution from the Court' and accused the courts of operating in 'direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution.'"
When Obama's rhetoric reaches this stage, I'll gladly take the GOP's press releases seriously.
Leave a Comment:
oh man...over on Mediaite there is a WAR on the blog about this issue. The GOPpers contend that although Republicans have railed against activist judges on the Supremes it's because they were ALWAYS upholding the Constitution. When the Dems do it they are trying to tear it down. Then they start making garbage up about WHY the Constitution was written. It is an incredible bit of crap...clearly, they are getting their talking points from Karl Rove.
Speaking of Rove, I seem to remember G W Bush saying far more threatening things- weekly.
For example: "You are with us, or you are against us."
Did Bush say this to the Supreme Court? Please provide a link. Thanks
The Supreme Court isn't special; it's just another branch of the government. So it doesn't matter if he said it to them or not.
It does matter if it was to the Supreme Court or not (and it was not). President Obama was essentially laying the ground work to make the case that one of the 3 branches of our government is no longer relevant. He said in essence, if the Court does not uphold his law then the Court is not legitimate. Take his side or no side.
No he did Rob. He wasn't arguing that the SCOTUS is irrelevant or that it not be relevant or that it not even be regulated. That is completely hyperbolic and dishonest.
Blah I meant to say "...or that it not even be regarded." Two conversations going on in my mind at the same time.
He stated that he thought it was highly specious that the court would overturn what it has already upheld and what legal precedent has already established to be true. Part of why he asserts this is because if you overturn a law you then leave openings for challenges on the basis of your ruling (this is the same when you uphold laws sometimes too). Often SCOTUS decisions can be predicted based on which end they see as becoming the least hectic down the road. POTUS then went on to remind conservatives that they (conservatives) who constantly complain about activist judges are encouraging that the SCOTUS overturn ACA which, as POTUS already asserted, has been based on years of legal precedent. This would, by definition, be activist judging which conservatives themselves constantly rail against. He was pointing out hypocrisy. Only in a clown factory does pointing out someone else's hypocrisy become a statement of indictment against another branch of government.
Whether it was wise politically for Obama to say what he did (I'm inclined to see it as unwise), you have to give Obama credit for having the guts that many Democrats lack.
You applaud the guts of something that is unwise? That's like saying "I don't think it was wise to rob the bank but at least they had the guts to do it while others did not."
Yes and no...
It is that, but it's also a matter of whether the thing he (or they) had the guts to do is of value. And I'd argue that standing up for more liberal principles has value, even if it's done poorly. (I do not agree with HLA on that point. I do think it was fine for Obama to be political and say what was on his mind.)
Pres Obama used Orrin Hatch's favorite line about unelected activist judges and now he objeccts!
Just goes to show the insincerelity of the GOPer's. When Obama adopts a GOP favorite idea, they reliably turn against it. We call this hypocricy and it is likely a good part of the reason politicians are held in such low esteem.
And what Hatch, Smith, and the rest of the GOP don't seem to understand is that Obama wasn't even making the statement as if it was his; he was actually just reminding people what the GOP says about activist judges. So Hatch et al are literally objecting to their own argument!
One person's "activist" judge is another person's "impartial" Judge. This is almost comical. It seems for a while now one side always brings up the "activist judges" mantra - the side that doesn't get the judgement in their favor. And of course the court is political since the judges are appointed by the President that is in power at the time. And of course, they will appoint someone who is sympathetic to their political views. A liberal judge will retire when a liberal President is in power and vice versa.
There really shouldn't be much of a surprise to this anymore.
Agreed, skip.
Remind me again of how many Republican Presidential candidates (*cough*Gingrich*cough*) have run against the Supreme Court?
Speaking of Gingrich, I seem to remember that a little while ago he said essentially that if he were President he'd have arrested judges who issued rulings he didn't like. I don't recall much in the way of outrage expressed by Republicans over what Gingrich said, yet even the most milquetoast comments from Obama are treated as though they were the greatest outrages ever. What is more absurd? Republican hypocrisy, or their puerile need to oppose everything Obama says and does?
More fake outrage. If certain members of the SC want to act politically--even during questioning on cases, as Scalia did last week--neither they nor the party they represent have a right to expect that people won't comment.
The conservative members of the court are crystal clear about their politics. They take stands on issues and candidates, participate in political rallies, and attend conservative conferences where they make their political stands known.
Those SC members are making a conscious choice. Here's a suggestion: if you want people to think that you're impartial and should be perceived as something other than just another politician who happens to wear a judicial robe--do your job. That means actually considering cases on their merit. Lose the in-your-face attitudes and at least give the appearance of impartiality.
So are you saying the liberal members are not crystal clear about their politics?
Here's a suggestion: if you want people to think that you're impartial and should be perceived as something other than just another politician who happens to wear a judicial robe--do your job
Why hasn't Justice Kagan recused herself from this case since she was very actively involved with the bill when it was being "constructed"?
The fact that she may have had input into it doesn't mean that she can't make a determination as to whether or not one or more elements of it are unconstitutional.
It's also true that, because Republican justices never recuse themselves when they have such conflicts, more liberal justices can't. It's like unilateral disarmament.
What, specifically, was her role in drafting the Act?
I ask because the usual complaint is that the Administration was not sufficiently involved, leaving all the work to Congress.
Yeah mpguy she MAY have had input:
In perhaps the most damaging email chain from January 2010, two weeks before Obamacare was passed by the Senate, Brian Hauck, the senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Tom Perelli wrote to Kagan's deputy Neal Katyal, saying that Perelli wanted "to put together a group to get thinking about how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending."
Katyal immediately replied, "Absolutely right on. Let's crush them. I'll speak to Elena and designate someone," and forwarded Hauck's email to Kagan with a note saying, "I am happy to do this if you are ok with it."
Within minutes Kagan responded, "You should do it." And Katyal, who went on to become acting solicitor general after Kagan was elevated to the Supreme Court, emailed Hauck saying, "Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG (Office of the Solicitor General) to be involved in this set of issues."
He told Hauck "I will handle this myself," along with an assistant "and will bring in Elena as needed."
Kagan has said that she first became aware that she was being considered as a potential Supreme Court justice on March 5, 2010. Seventeen days later the House of Representatives passed Obamacare and she sent an email to Justice Department adviser Laurence Tribe saying, "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."
I am not good at links :), but this is from an article in NewsMax (which I know is right wing and I do NOT read, but....)
I pretty much discount anything that's "reported" (if that's the right word; "fabricated" is usually more like it) in Newsmax. Not only wacko far right, but not much of a reputation for accuracy.
OK mpguy you can dismiss it if you want. Like I said I do not read NewsMax - well I glance at it along with left leaning sites as well as listening to BOTH left and right leaning radio shows (one side at work, the other in the car/at home) - so I can see both sides of an issue. And yes, both sides tend to shade the issue in their favor, but I do believe this piece more than I do not. Elena Kagen WAS the Solicitor General of the US before being appointed to the Supreme Court.
But by the same token Skip if Kagan has to recuse herself then so too would Thomas and Scalia because of questionable ties they have to lobbying firms that made money off attacking ACA. Both prior to the hearings had came out and publicly commented that they had already determined they did not agree w/ this position. Yet you did not mention that they should have to also recuse themselves (although to be fair I think your point was about impartiality of the left in addition to impartiality of the right). Impartiality and integrity are huge issues w/ the SCOTUS and that none of these judges recused themselves I think is frankly bad. BUT it would be wrong to call for Kagan's to rescind herself and not to call for everyone else who has similar questionable ties.
Fair enough Mouzer. To be honest I did not know about their ties to the lobbying firms (there's just so much in the political realm to keep track of :-)). And if they did have said ties as well as predetermined opinions on the case, they should ALSO recuse themselves.
I do think it will be a rare occasion for the SCOTUS to be totally impartial, especially on a lot of the charged issues floating out there. I guess it goes with the terrritory. I would hope that if I were appointed that I would judge impartially regardless of my past/present political beliefs. But I am sure that is very difficult.
Well to be fair impartiality isn't necessarily a universal term. When I say impartial I mean the court shouldn't be ruling on whether or not they agree w/ the Republican position or the Democratic position. So perhaps what I really should've said is non-partisan rulings. Technically speaking if the court were truly impartial then we'd probably never have passed Roe vs. Wade or banned slavery or Loving vs. Virginia. It's a little difficult to imagine that if the only preference you give yourself is that of previous court rulings and that of the US Constitution (since the US Constitution is in and of itself a simplistic document that doesn't even remotely address all ends). However I don't believe that when the court makes these decisions- whether they can be called "activist" or not- that those choices should be made solely on the basis of what one political philosophy believes or what one political party believes. It should be made on a combination of legal precedent, the US Constitution (always and foremost), and what is best for our country considering those 2 other contentions.
And yes there's so much politicking in our world today. I suppose we just have to collectively groan as to that reality ;-)
I find it laughable that President Obama thinks he can tell the SCOTUS what to do. The whole reason that we have 3 branches of government is to keep each of them in balance.
For the President to say that the overturning of any law is unprecedented is also laughable. The SCOTUS has on many occasions found legislation to be unconstitutional.
He acts as if the SCOTUS has never reversed a law. The congress passed the family act less than 10 years ago, yet President Obama and his administration has stated that they don't recognize its validity because its not constitutional. He didn't take it to the SCOTUS, it was passed by congress, and yet he feel he has the right to over power the other two branches of the gov. Sound like he want to be all powerful and he is the only one that knows what is best for us. just like not letting us drill for oil in the US and wanting to remove tax breaks for big oil, and with the other hand subsidizing Brazilian oil and telling them we will be their best clients.
Hello? Do you know how the government WORKS???? Congress passes LAWS. IF someone brings a suit against a particular law then it works it way thru the courts until it eventually hits the Supremes. Then THEY decide whether to hear the case. If no one brings a case (sues or whatever) it doesn't GO to the Supreme Court. Republicans have been whining about the Court for YEARS. The President was asked a QUESTION. He answered it. You may not agree with what he said but his RIGHT to say it is unquestionable. Separation of Powers does not mean you can't disagree.
When I read the first part of the quoted portion of your comment, I immediately thought of Rick Santorum. When I read the second part, I realized you aren't aware that domestic oil drilling is higher now than it was during the G W Bush years. But I'm sure that's just an inconvenient truth for you to ignore. And give us even just one valid reason why big oil needs tax breaks.
I read the above quote. He was expressing confidence in the court, and then addressing conservative commentators. He was "telling the court what to do" where, exactly?
Nor, BTW, did I hear him propose an "second amendment solution." THAT would be "intimidating and threatening."
If Repubs don't want their statements used against them, they shouldn't utter them.
And when I read the above, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you didn't know that all the increase is on private lands...lands that Obama and his Department of Unicorn Farts & Glitter don't control. Production in all aspects (Reconnaisance, Drilling, Production) on federal lands, is down. Hope this helps update your information.
Why is it, you right wingers, can't just make a point? You always have to insult slander and call names. It really takes away any credibility you may have. But then it also shows how disrespectful of the American people and our President you are.
Sorry this is for MIKE just above you. Drilling in the GULF is 'private'...I'll give YOU the benefit of the doubt...
And production on private lands versus that of public lands is important because....?
Chem- the POTUS did not say that it is unprecedented for SCOTUS to overturn currently standing law. What POTUS stated was that it would be unprecedented for SOCTUS to overturn this law given the legal precedent (which SCOTUS has upheld) in previous cases. You do understand the difference here, yes?
Disagree is one thing. Saying another branch of government is not "legitimate" because it disagrees with you is something different.
It is important. A lack of willingness on the part of the government can signal the market, producers, speculators, etc. that the government is not inclined to produce more oil or increase production. If you were a foreign oil producing country was cutting back or limiting production on what it had control over, wouldn't that make you look differently on the future?
He did not say this Rob.
The government does not produce oil. All oil production in the United States is privatized. The only difference here is about the lands on which it is accessed.
If that foreign government was the controller of the oil industry, yes. The US government does not control the oil industry. We have what's known as a free market. We regulate the industry, but we do not control the industry.
Beyond this, again, it would be irrelevant whether or not the government controlled the production if the private sector was making up for it. There would be no reason for speculators to assume that production or resources would go down if the private sector was assuming that role.
"If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it,"
Said Newt Gingrich and cheered by the Republican crowd....
IOKIYAR
Perhaps if the Conservative Justices of the Supreme Court do not want their opinions to be seen as Political, than they should not use Republican Party's talking points.
Or attend their weekend get togethers or take their money for pet projects or go duck hunting with their leaders.
They probably get their stuff from ALEC...
If the Supreme Court is not biased, no problem. If it is, publicity is a fair public response. The President did not threaten, and if opining publicly threatens SCOTUS the easy answer is to be above reproach.
Republican hysteria is more reflective of their authoritarian ridgity than it is of how our nation's democracy works. Instead of taking the President's comments in political stride, the Republicans, upon hearing anything coming from Pres. Obama's mouth, believe the duly elected POTUS is an insurgent trying to take away our blessed freedoms - they are so wrong, deluded and dangerous to our freedom loving fellow citizens!
But, the one right President Obama could never take away from our Republican brethren is their continued Constitutional right to be as stupid as they've shown themselves to be as of late! -Kevo
They were apoplectic on Mourning Joe this am . A constitutional law professor said what!!!
Well How about Clarence Thomas' wife and his participation in the Tea party activities .
Any pretense that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts or any of them check their politics at the chamber door is a crock .
They vote their beliefs , not the law.
I know it, you know it and the American people know it. (thanks Bob Dole)
That is why the politics of the nominees are scrutinized so closely.
There....fixed that for you
You forgot Alito who votes his 'feelings' as in hurt hurt hurt by that big meanie, the President!
Umm President Obama was a constitutional law professor Mike. WTF are you talking about?
He's talking about the false 'fact' on the right that Obama was never a professor. The stupid on that side is thick enough to cut through with a machete, and I'd very much like to sometimes.
He wasn't. He was an Instructor....CCheck w/UC.
The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire alla USA as It begins before us. This 3-ring circus of an election campaign is convincing many how American democracy is not the answer for anyone but Americans. Only Americans cannot take life seriously while insisting others do. Once a fetus becomes a person and has the wrong sex and skin color, then that is when their woes begin in the US of A. An expression will surface again from the 1950s "THE UGLY AMERICAN (S)". I for one hope the present President chooses not to run and just let all of you come to terms with your inaneness.
Aren't these the same morons who orchestrated a Day of National Outrage 'N' Stuff over Judicial Activism a few years back, during which they literally threatened violence to judges who didn't see things their way?
Why do the remarks of a fool like Orin Hatch have to be in my newspaper cluttering up my beautiful mind, any way?
While legislating nationwide against Roe v Wade the GOP have the gall to suggest questioning SCOTUS is anti-freedom. Expletive deleted.
Kudos to the GOP for retaining the ability to howl themselves blue for their hugboxes over yet another of President Obama's bland predictable official statements - in this case, his feeings about the mandate case.
What I hear is that the precedents in commerce law are overwhelmingly pro-mandate, so I think a decision that overturns a mandate in relation to the ACA is going to make this USSC bench look like a bit of a joke.
On the other hand, it seems to me Obama's being somewhat stump-speechy with an aghast tone at overturning "duly constituted and passed law" - that's exactly what the Court is there for. Uphold nontoxic laws/strike down toxic laws.
The trend toward a pro-corporatist hybrid of Originalism is bizarre but predictable - the epic drought of constitutional amendments bespeaks a government that has long ago stopped looking (or moving) forward, & such a transgenerational catch-as-catch-can political culture will infect its judiciary as surely as it will its military or its civil service.
Another gallows-humor result like Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission is the last thing America needs right now.
Yet another example of IOKIYAR! This election seems to be FULL of such IOKIYAR moments. Memory refresher or for those who recently joined: IOKIYAR stands for IT'S OKAY IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN! It's okay to fake outrage, to create fear, to make sound bite comments. It's. OKAY. IF. YOU. ARE. A. REPUBLICAN!
This is just more grasping-at-straws for something that was fairly mundane and predictible. It doesn't matter what Obama says or does the GOP has to make him the villian so they can press on with a ridiculous rhetoric and agendas.
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans wanted to impeach Earl Warren, not to mention most of their 68 years of bitching about "activist judges" that they've been doing ever since Brown.
Interesting juxtaposition of stories here. Mississippi Repubs are working bills they must KNOW are unconstitutional, whereas the Prez is saying "I support this law because I believe it's constitutional." That crazy power-hungry Obama!
Mooooo!!!! Just more madcow B.S.
Big business, and actually some others are the masters at “jury tampering.” For example, when an Electric Company desires a Rate Hike, they may bribe the Media to say nothing against it by purchasing millions of dollars of Advertising time. I often see filings of Briefs in the State and federal Courts followed by a sudden urge for the Plaintiff or Defendant to start advertising something, just it seems to be sure the Media outlet takes the money and shuts up or says nice things about the ad purchaser. Wasn’t there a report of an Enron Person who got involved in his religious house or worship locally and area wide, and was also found not guilty? The same is common for a myriad of issues, including products that are out of favor for a good reason or one that is absolutely improperly presented. As an example, a car company was reported to threaten major networks, no ads unless you stop talking about recalls. The Silence was immediate so the ads were placed. Another industry, the bottled water industry does not advertise as much. Yet safety reports that can be verified show 0% of Lead (Pb), Silver (Ag), which binds to Brain Protein and never leaves the body, or industrial metal manufacturing pollutants or insecticides or herbicides or other things the municipal sources never even test for, are present. Further, the small pure water bottles contain no BPA from the manufacturer I researched. Yet, they do not spend a lot of Ad Revenue, so they are not supported as having a safer product for children and others who want to know exactly what is in the water. The new Lead reduction Act in the United States does not even take effect until 2014. In the United States that means the current Low Lead, except California and Massachusetts, only recently, means 8 pounds of lead to every 92 pounds of other materials to form the alloy. Tap water at the source is analyzed and also in most places contains Aluminum as in the old tale that Aluminum was found in the brains of Alzheimer’s sufferers, yet the Bottled Water Manufacturer I researchd has 0% Aluminum. But they do not tamper with the “Jury Pool” because they spend little in major media advertising. Oil Companies do spend a lot, so when the Bureau of Land Management grants drilling permits which allow sea animals to be killed incidental to the drilling or exploration, little is said in the Media because Ad Revenue must not be lost. Please keep this very short list of examples in mind when evaluating if President Obama does or does not have a right to express an opinion if his intent is to calm down people who may be terrified about having the Affordable Care Act destroyed. For those who want it destroyed, there is a lot of money going into those funds. Arguing in front of the Supreme Court and all the action to get it there is many millions of dollars. The Supreme Court has very intelligent Justices. I read a lot of their decisions and listen to most of the oral arguments and read the thousands of pages of Briefs they receive each Term. No one is perfect, but they will make a decision based on something other than what Mr. President Obama says. They are incredible people and most, personally quite engaging. Let the system work, and we can return to this subject afterwards and have some fun debating the role of Media, Advertising Revenue and its influence on Editorial direction and so forth.
If you want people to read your posts, make them readable. That's one hell of a paragraph.
Brewer got in the President's face with her finger and then said she was intimidated by him.
The President expresses confidence in the Supreme Court and R's in Congress say he is trying to intimidate.
New Republican Talking Point: "Obama is intimidating."
don't let the myth of the 'scary black man' go to waste...they've drug up everything ELSE from 2008. I saw on Fox the other day they were debating 'bill ayers' again...oh and then saying the brouhaha over Jeremiah Wright was nothing...they didn't question anything...it's those crazy liberals doing it.
I suspect that the GOP has regressed so far that they may resort to claiming that Obama lusts after white women. And why not? It's not as if they have any shame.
Hello boyz...Here is your real problem...
The GOP once again "doth 'OBJECT' too much"!
Ya'll have "objected" yourselves right into the center ring of your own pathetic circus!
Have fun trying to sell all those forged tickets to anyone except those fascist billionaires you love dancing with for a dime a pop!
I would like the next Dem president to appoint Obama to the SCOTUS. It would irritate the hell out of the conservatives. And it would make for an interesting confirmation process.
A_Dude, [#1.2]
No, Bush already knew that they were with him. Remember the 2000 election....bought and paid for!!! Does anyone remember that on election night when it was stated that Florida may have gone to Gore...W said (before mama/papa shushed him) ....."But, my brother told me". I have wonder for years where the tape/video of that moment in history is being stored.
Joy,
Are we going back 12 years still? I suppose you think he stole the 2004 election too. Well if all that is true, why, why did the evil Republicans let Obama win? I mean if they can steal one or two other Presidential elections, why would they let 2008 slip? I guess in your mind IF the Republicans win the Oval office this year it will have to be because it was rigged. ANY Republican win in a close race it seems, is suspect in some peoples mind. This is the left's version of the "birthers" ....the "frauders".