Our US Supreme Court just finished hearing an unprecedented 3 days of arguments for and against Obamacare last week. The jurists have probably already taken a preliminary vote and are now working on their written position statements. Many pundits, after hearing how the hearings went, are predicting that the court will overturn the president's individual mandate, and possibly the entire law.
So President Obama came out for a photo op and was asked about the court's pending decision. Did he really say?
"And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
"The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it."
So President Obama came out for a photo op and was asked about the court's pending decision. Did he really say?
"And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
He calls the 9 justices of the Supreme Court "an unelected group of people' , and suggests that if they find his favorite law unconstitutional, by comparing its mandates with the allowances granted the federal government in the constitution (if they do their prescribed job), then he would call that 'judicial activism'.
Ironically, his justice department is trying to use the courts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, and Arizona's immigration statute.
Senator Richard Blumenthal came out separately to state that:
"The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it."
Is he suggesting that if the left (the smart people) don't like the court's ruling, then they don't have to abide by its decision? After all, they don't have any armies!
No. We submit to the court's rulings even when they lead to the loss of millions of innocent lives, just because we live (or die) by the rule of law in this country.
I got nothing, Mike. No politics for this ole gal.
ReplyDeleteBut, it is well written.
I'll take that Jo! Thanks! But I wish you had left some pizza.
Delete