|
WaPo calls Obumble's Attack on the Supremes "Unsettling"
 Obama's assault on "an unelected group of people" stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning "a duly constituted and passed law." But the president went too far in asserting that it "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the court to overturn "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." That's what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to "a group of unelected people" precisely to insulate them from public opinion. And just in case you think this might be an Obamanaut -- I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. In fact, he's stolen a page from the despicable conservative play book -- Worse, the president's critique, and in particular the reference to "unelected" judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench. Right. Only Progressives get to legislate from the bench. Posted by: Bobby 2012-04-03 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=342138 |