Yesterday, during a hearing in a separate challenge to Obamacare by physician-owned hospitals, a three-judge panel issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to file a three-page minimum, single-spaced letter detailing the administration's position concerning federal courts' authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional. Attorney General Holder is said to be preparing a response from the DOJ.
Yeah. I'm certain he'll hop right on that -- after his Law Clerk finishes the research and first draft.
The thing about this kerfuffle that amuses me the most is the Young President's clumsy phraseology when trying to express his (incorrect) personal opinion about the federal judiciary's role in the balance of powers:
“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. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.A tad on the clumsy side, no? (Unelected group of people? Duly constituted and passed [pause] law? Egad.)
. . .
“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."
Yesterday, he walked it back. (Oh, no! What I really meant to say was):
“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, 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 a duly elected legislature.”It sounds to me like his handlers programmed and revved up his inner teleprompter. And, no, Mr. President. That's not the point you were making. That wasn't your point at all. It wasn't about the balance of powers; it was about the power.
And the "Professor" (Lecturer) of Constitutional Law using a phrase like "an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law?" Seriously?
That pesky ol' Marbury v. Madison case that established the Doctrine of Judicial Review. It's only been around since 1803. My undergraduate Business Law students were tested on that case. And remembered it.
But then, apparently the Young President didn't teach Marbury v. Madison, according to one of his former students (who now believes his credentials have been somewhat "tarnished" by the YP's gaffe). He taught Con Law III (3rd year) which focused on the Fourteenth Amendment. And his students studied many famous cases in which the Supreme Court overturned "duly constituted and passed" laws. Hmmm.
Keep stumblin', Mr. President. You're beginning to flash your true colors more and more. Even those star-struck myopic voters will soon pick up on that and show you the door come November.