Obama Threatens Supreme Court

If you think President Obama is perhaps a misguided but well-meaning liberal who thinks he is doing the right thing, then you would be wrong. He is like most leftists who are more interested in power than their social agenda because they need power to implement their radical goals. Eventually power becomes the goal rather than their agenda. History has repeated this lesson to us many times, but often we can’t see it in our own lives, in our own country.

Power corrupts, as Lord Acton said and our politicians are no different. It takes a certain kind of person to want to become president and the attractant is power. Mr. Obama is no different. George Bush was no different. Mitt Romney is no different. They say and do what it takes to get elected. Then they love the warm glow that vast power and admiration confers upon them. They have achieved a certain immortality by being enshrined in history.

President Obama yesterday threatened the Supreme Court, something presidents should not do. Imagine Justice Scalia getting on TV and saying that he hoped the Administration would not pursue centralized health care planning. (Actually, I think I can imagine him saying that.) After all, the Court is a distinct branch of government, theoretically of equal power. The separation of powers doctrine, Articles I, II, and III guarantee this.  At least that is how it was envisioned in the US Constitution. 

Here is what the President said:

“For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said at a news conference. The health-care case is a good example of just that, he said. “And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Let me translate what he meant by that:

We want to do what we want to do. We don’t care if it’s constitutional or not. You right wing strict constructionist fanatics have been complaining about the fact the Court has long allowed us to ignore the Constitution. If the Court goes against us with Obamacare, I’m going to pack the Court with so many liberal “living constitutionalist” that we’ll never have to worry about the Constitution again.

When uttered by the President of the United States of America, it is a threat.

This is the second time Mr. Obama has disrespected the Third Branch of government. In his 2010 State of the Union speech he scolded the Court for its ruling in Citizens United (repealing restrictions on corporate election spending because it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech). The Justices were sitting in front row seats. You could see some of the Justices actually seethe—Alito was seen to mouth the words “not true” during Obama’s harangue. In 2011 Alito, Scalia, and Thomas refused to attend the speech. Chief Justice Roberts attended but had expressed his displeasure at being targeted in a political setting (“To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.”) Bad blood.

President Obama could be the most dangerous president since Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the president who wanted a centrally planned economy (National Industrial Recovery Act, 1933) and threatened to pack the Court with six more Justices. If Mr. Obama is re-elected, we could expect the Court to change drastically and support a left wing agenda. We can expect more Sotomayors, Kagans, and Ginsburgs to be appointed if any Justice retires or dies during his Administration. Obamacare is the worst piece of legislation in many, many years. It will further bankrupt us, cause increased taxes, and promote economic decline. One can only imagine what more harm he could do to us.

EmailPrintFriendlyShare

14 comments to Obama Threatens Supreme Court

  • Bertrand Kolecza

    Wonder what about Brazil. Today president Roussef announced a stimuls pack to brazilian industry, which is almost zero in innovation and creativity. Our currency is well valued towards the dollar, because the federal (central) government needs cash and pays high interest for it, valuing even more our currency. And there are the high taxes, contributing too to brazilian industrial products final price be so high and non competitive. Brazil is a sort of fascist, you may call nazist, country, with our Constitution being ripped off by our supreme court and government (federal and state ones) trying to improve certain areas of activity, with money levied from all of us. And so goes the abuse. Still, you still have a strong tradition of individualism, almost zero in Brazil. Best regards and wishes to The Daily Capitalist. (I´m a journalist and shop owner)

  • Borg Warner

    Stick to financial analysis. Your political views are ponderous and ill-conceived. Offending Supreme Court justices? Oh my, never! Such wise wizards of jurisprudence.

    • Matt

      I love comments like this. It may as well be:

      “You have offended my sensibilities, sir. Write what I wish.”

      • DAWN

        SO IT MUST BE A REPUBLICAN THING TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF PEOPLE AND CALL IT FACT.

        • You don’t need all caps to make your point here, Dawn. But thank you for your comment. I am not a “Republican” BTW. And admittedly I think Obama is bad for the country. But the truth is no sitting president has ever commented on a case before it has been handed down. Of course as a former law professor he knows that. I see it as a threat to the Court. You may differ. JH

  • Hans

    By a 5 to 4 vote, the High Supreme NAZI Court has just approve any and all strip searches by your local jailer…

    Justice Kennedy, flip to the right…

  • WILLIAM

    I DONT THINK HE EVER PASSED THE BAR EXAME, AND DONT FORGET THERE WAS AND ARAB WHO GAVE THE COLLEGE TWENTY MILLION DOLLORS TO GET HIM IN SCHOOL. HE NEVER FILED A BREIF IN LAW SCHOOL OR TO ANY COURT ???

  • [...] Here’s Obama’s statement that might cause the Supreme Court Justices to wonder when they’ll be thrown into the truck of a car, or die suddenly, with inconclusive autopsy results, as Andrew Breitbart did. “For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said at a news conference. The health-care case is a good example of just that, he said. “And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.” [...]

  • [...] Obama basically threatened the Supreme Court over their Obamacare decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to challenge him.   [...]

  • Anonymous

    Obama sucks.

  • Joseph

    It’s cute how you left this out: “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. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”
    Typical.

    • No, that was the point of the argument. Obama turns the argument on its head. Strict constructionists favor striking down unconstitional laws and that isn’t the “judicial activism” they refer to. What they are referring to is interpreting the Constitution in any way an Administration wishes in order to further social policy. The effect of judicial activism is to gut the Constitution because it can mean whatever the Court majority wants it to be. Thank you for your comment.

  • Thunderfoot

    Let’s downsize the Federal government, starting with the Supreme court.