Obama Warns The Supreme Court Against Judicial Activism
Dear President Obama,
Repeat after me: "I will not comment on a case pending before the Supreme Court." That's what a president is supposed to say. A WSJ story today quotes James Simon, a professor at New York Law School: “I can’t think of a president anticipating a court decision as Mr. Obama has done and basically arguing in favor” of his side. Even the court-packing FDR “usually waited until they handed down a decision” before fulminating against the court, according to Mr. Simon.
But no. The President couldn't resist. "I'm confident," he told the press yesterday, "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."
Unprecedented? As the WSJ points out, the idea of judicial review has been around since Marbury v. Madison. When Congress oversteps its constitutional bounds, it's the job of the Court to correct it.
Strong majority? It passed the House by 7 votes (219-212) despite a large Democratic majority (back then), and just squeeked by the pre-Scott Brown Senate with 60 votes.
Obama went on to say that a decision against ObamaCare would be an example of an "unelected" court engaging in "judicial activism." An odd sentiment from a man who, just two months ago, issued a statement praising Roe v. Wade, a decision that struck down -- oh, just about 50 state laws; most of which, I'll wager, passed by more than 7 votes. But there was no talk of "judicial activism" in January; rather, Roe v. Wade was great because it helps our daughters "fulfill their dreams."