The system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government is essential to maintaining our system of government.
Of course, for some, the concept doesn’t quite sink in.
When commenting on the Supreme Court’s pending ruling on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama seemingly questioned the ability of the court to rule parts of the law unconstitutional.
According to an April 9 Washington Post article, on April 2, the president said, “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.”
After U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith ordered the Department of Justice to write a justification for the comments, Obama and his administration backtracked and clarified the comments, saying he was referring to large-scale economic laws, arguing the Supreme Court has not done so since the early 20th century.
Regardless of clarification, the comments suggest a lack of understanding of judicial review. And, despite the president’s math, passage by a margin of seven votes does not constitute a “strong majority.”
Most middle school students could tell us the process of judicial review started with Marbury v. Madison in 1789. Since then, the court has ruled more than 150 acts of Congress unconstitutional, according to a Government Printing Office document.
Though he hasn’t admitted his mistake, Obama must know he was wrong to call such a hypothetical ruling “unprecedented.” He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and he ought to know better.
Obamacare is at risk, and the president knows it. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. presented such a bumbling defense of the individual mandate that he was awarded the “Worst Week in Washington” by the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza. The “Worst Week in Washington” is a tribute to the person or organization that suffered the most embarrassing week in politics. According to Cillizza, some liberal justices had to step in to clarify Verrilli’s defense.
It seems the president is trying to mask his fear that his largest legislative victory may be unconstitutional through attacking the court.
Why else would the president belittle the highest court in the nation as “an unelected group of people?” Obama, facing a tough re-election campaign, is attempting to present the court as a group of out-of-touch elitists, standing in the way of his grand progress.
Thankfully, most Americans are smart enough not to buy into this sort of manipulation.
The comments present a strategic blunder by the president. With his law on the line, he should have spoken in support of the law and respected the court’s authority. Instead, he questioned the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to carry out judicial review.
Perhaps the president would have benefited from a divided Congress instead of a Democrat supermajority in the first two years of his presidency. He might have realized earlier he can’t always get what he wants.
The Supreme Court has the power to take away what he wants; like an unruly teenager, he questioned the court’s authority and pressed his limits. It’s never smart to question an institution that could make or break a president’s re-election.
Obama hurt his case for Obamacare, and his comments will make for excellent fodder against him in the general election.
