Obama's slap: History slaps back
Hell hath no fury like a federal judiciary publicly threatened by a "constitutional scholar" president who knows not the Constitution, not scholarship and certainly not history.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith in Houston has given President Barack Obama's Justice Department until today to file a three-page, single-spaced brief documenting Attorney General Eric Holder's recognition of "the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."
The order came in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of yet another ObamaCare mandate. The Supreme Court last week heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the law's "individual mandate."
Those arguments didn't go well for the administration. Which prompted the president to openly question the legitimacy of the judiciary while engaging in revisionist history: "I am confident 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."
Never mind that ObamaCare passed with a quite slim majority, the Supreme Court has done the supposedly "unprecedented" at least 53 times between 1981 and 2005 alone. And the practice of judicial review dates to 1803.
In a spate of ignorant political grandstanding, Obama slapped the judiciary. With the law and history on its side, the judiciary slapped back. The American people should follow suit on Nov. 6.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.