In the wake of White House’s defense of Obamacare before the Supreme Court, it’s hard not to conclude that a scary percentage of Democrats are willing to tear the country apart if it serves their political purposes. I’m not predisposed to leveling such serious charges, but the president’s broadside on the Supreme Court, coupled with those by his surrogates on the airwaves, leaves me no choice. Politico reports:
President Barack Obama has joined a growing number of Democratic lawmakers, left-leaning commentators and progressive activists who are warning the Supreme Court on the health care law: Don’t you dare overturn it.
Obama made an unusual pre-emptive strike Monday that previews the Democratic strategy if the high court nixes all or major parts of his signature domestic achievement. His volley, coming less than a week after the oral arguments wrapped up and while the justices are still deliberating, injects a high-level dose of politics into the most anticipated ruling since the court settled the 2000 presidential race.
His message was simple: The Roberts Court is on trial.
“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,” Obama said at a news conference. “Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.
First of all, he’s wrong. Conservatives have never complained about judges overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.” Conservatives are against judges making law through their rulings, or approving of laws that are unconstitutional. The job of the justice is to uphold the constitution, and striking down law that violates the constitution is not ideological. President Obama’s analysis of the situation is 180 degrees from reality.
This guy was a constitutional lawyer? How is that even possible? According to his logic, any law that is “duly passed” is constitutional. It’s nonsensical reasoning and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the government can force you to engage in commerce so that they can then control it. An individual mandate is anathema to limited government, and for a sitting president to suggest that the highest court in the land would invalidate such a monstrosity for petty political purposes is disgusting and dangerous. Justice Kennedy stated that an individual mandate would fundamentally alter the relationship between the federal government and the citizenry, and he was right. But according to Barack Obama, such an observation resorts to judicial activism. Perhaps this is why:
[Obama] urged the court to consider the “human element,” saying that “people’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care.” Millions of young adults and senior citizens have already benefited from the law, and millions more will gain access to health insurance when it takes effect completely in 2014, Obama said.
Again, the president appeals to emotion, knowing full well that the “human element” he speaks of is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the individual mandate. If the government passed a law tomorrow that it could randomly confiscate the wealth of anyone it wanted, so that it could then turn around and give it to the homeless, there would still be a “human element,” there would still be millions of lives affected—and it would still be unconstitutional.
It is not unheard of for a Supreme Court justice to change his mind on a case after deliberation. This little stunt of Obama’s could backfire on him badly. His reckless rhetoric could change a 5-4 vote to 6-3. I’m still interested in seeing how Sotomayor votes, since she asked a few rather pointed questions that suggested that she would be open to siding against the mandate.
President Barack Obama and Democrats are playing with serious fire when they portray the court as nothing more than a bunch of political hacks with lifetime appointments. There are at least five of them who try and figure out what the original intent of the Founding Fathers is that’s embedded in the constitution. There are four others who tend to find that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
Confused? Let Mark Levin explain:
Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know what emanations from penumbras are. Young lawyers across America had to pull out their dictionaries when reading [Griswold v. Connecticut] for the first time. A penumbra is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot — and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay — it also means “an emission.”
In order to get the outcome they want when a piece of legislation directly violates the constitution, liberals are forced to find “penumbras from emanations.” They must twist themselves into intellectual pretzels, as Donnald Verrilli attempted to do during his time in front of the Court.
The president miscalculated what the Supreme Court’s response to Obamacare would be, and I think he has miscalculated what the American people’s response will be to his current rhetoric. The president has lit a match, not even realizing that he’s also doused himself in gasoline. It will be interesting to see whether he chooses to blow that match out or inadvertently immolate himself.