Loading...
On Monday, the First Citizen of the country warned the Supreme Court that a rejection of his healthcare law would be an act of “judicial activism.” This is surprising, as President Barrack Obama has both social and political stakes riding on the case under consideration. This is also surprising as the fathers of the U.S. Constitution created the separation of powers, between an elected executive and selected judiciary to ensure the survival of democracy.
Obama’s moves in thrashing the judiciary and trying to subjugate the voice of the court has been consistent. Last year, his attitude at the State of the Union address prompted Justice Roberts to state later, “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.” Recognizing that anyone had the right to criticize the court, Roberts had said, “I have no problems with that … On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according the requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
At a news conference held with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, President Obama told the media “Ultimately, I am 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.”
But that was why the separation of powers was integrated into the structure of U.S.A. To provide the check and balance to protect the populace even when the majority of lawmakers go wrong and law enforcement infringes the rights of citizens.
Sending a strong signal at conservative judges, President Barrack Obama continued, “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have 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.”
Guy sounds pretty desperate, in that he is seeking shelter in conservative Republican logic against judicial activism, and is trying to restrict the powers and respect of the judiciary by pointing out their status as “an unelected group of people.” But the Constitution recognizes that fact all along – and the comments are surprising from a President who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Romney didn’t miss the opportunity, and Andrea Saul, a Romney Spokeswoman immediately released a response promising, “Even if the law is upheld, Governor Romney will begin the process of repealing it on Day One in office.” Referring to Obama’s use of the word ‘unprecedented’ in the anticipated decision of the Supreme Court, Romney’s statement said, “What was ‘unprecedented’ was the partisan process President Obama used to shove this unconstitutional bill through despite the overwhelming objections from Americans across the country.”
