The president has publicly challenged the Supreme Court of the United States, admonishing the legitimacy of the Court if the justices rule the wrong way on the health care legislation.
The president said Monday the Supreme Court, made up of who he called ‘unelected individuals’, should not overturn laws passed by Congress, a group of duly elected representatives. He said to do so would be “unprecedented’and ‘judicial activism’.
“Ultimately the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extra ordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of Democrat elected Congress,” said President Obama Monday. The president said its unprecedented for the Courts to strike down an act of Congress, passed under the Commerce Clause trying to regulate economic activity and that it hasn’t happened in over eight years.
Yet the Supreme Court of the United State’s role in the constitutionality of an act of Congress has been established since Marbury vs. Madison. The president must have forgeton that there is separation of powers, it is afterall the judiciary a co-equal branch of government and the fact of the matter is, it was a bad week for them at the Supreme Court last week, and the president’s statements have just made it worse.
Democrats are attacking the court as the issue, rather than addressing the constitutionality of the statute, a calculated move; the problem is its backfiring, much like their arguments last week at the Supreme Court
The president’s statements have aggravated a lot of federal judges and it’s certainly within legal circles has been a constant commentary, prompting the 5th Circuit court in Texas to take the Department of Justice to task. The fifth circuit appellate court in Texas has ordered the Justice Department to explain the comments President Obama made regarding the nations highest court.
“Does the department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more unconstitutional infirmities,” Justice Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit asked Attorney Dana Kaersvang of the Justice Department.The Department of Justice is representing the president’s position.
“I am referring to statements by the president in the past few days, to the effect—I am sure you’ve heard about them—that it is some how inappropriate for what he termed ‘unelected’ judges to strike acts of Congress – he was referring of course to Obamacare to what he termed ‘a broad consensus in the majorities of both house of Congress,” said Justice Smith. “That has troubled a number of people who have read it as some how a challenge to the federal courts, or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept judicial review and that is not a small matter.
Justice Smith then asked Kaersvang to produce, by noon on Thursday, a letter stating the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice is in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating in detail the reference of the President’s statements the authority of the federal courts in terms of judicial review.
President brought this upon himself by publicly chastising the Supreme Court of the United State’s role in the constitutionality of an act of Congress, established since Marbury vs. Madison.
A legitimate question has been raised by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The fact of the matter is that is not judicial activism, that is what the role of the courts are, separation of powers.
We go on dangerous ground when we start attacking and try to gin up public sentiment against the high court, referring to them as unelected. It would be unprecedented and It is important for the president to make sure the public has trust in that body.
The Supreme Court has no reason to be the least intimidated by the president, they have a lifetime appointment. But the president doesn't have a lifetime appointment, in fact his job is up for reconsideration in November. Either the president was trying to scare the Supreme Court to vote a different way, intimidate them, or maybe he didn't know that they do have the authority to determine whether the statute is constitutional or not, maybe he didn't know.
Isn’t the president an expert of constitutional law, he should certainly know about this at the highest level. Supreme Court Justices have life time appointments because we don’t want them to be influenced by the public’s will or pressure from outside forces. We want to give them the independence that they need to issue rulings that can be respected and trusted by the American people