Tune in to On the Record at 10pm tonight... if we have time, I am going to discuss this.
Every law school -- yes, even Harvard Law School -- teaches the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. It was decided in 1803 (yes, 1803!). You read it your first year in law school.
The case stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court has the power to review statutes passed by Congress to determine if constitutional or not.
Here is what President Obama said today:
I would just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example.
And here's more from the Associated Press:
President Barack Obama says he remains confident that the health care law approved during his administration will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.Obama says: "It's constitutional."
Obama says the health care law was passed by a democratically elected Congress and that he does not think "unelected" members of the Supreme Court should overturn the legislation.
He said Monday the law touches upon economic, legal and human concerns, and he hopes "that's not forgotten in the political debate."
Last week, the health care law faced skepticism from conservative justices during three days of oral arguments, raising questions over whether the president's signature accomplishment will remain intact.
According to Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of the health care law (and any other law). So do not be disturbed by them reviewing the health care law. That IS their job.
What may disturb you is that not one member of Congress READ the bill before voting for it... and the president sure didn't read it before he SIGNED it.
But, to get to the president's point about 'unelected officials' -- AND WHAT IS SCANDALOUS -- is that after the 2,700 page law was signed by the president, it got sent to HHS for them to create rules to implement. Those who are writing these rules -- and there are thousands of rules expected -- are not only NOT elected, we don't ever learn their names. They are simply government employees at the HHS with ENORMOUS power over your lives and you have zero say about it. You can't vote them out of office -- they aren't elected and you don't know their names! Yes, THAT is scandalous because they have so much power over your life. Congress -- our elected officials -- should write the rules. They are answerable to us.
We have discussed this On the Record at 10pm many times....
Cross-posted from GretaWire.
Walt Rowen: Small Business Owners Say the Future Looks Bleak If Health Care Law Overturned
Nothing that Obama said contradicts this statement. He did not say that they should not review the law, he said that he believes they do not have a legal reason to overturn a duly constituted law. He is not disturbed by their review.
Greta's argument fails in every respect. She is arguing a different scenario and thinks no one is paying attention. Not surprising, and not persuasive.
With Obamacare, the nameless clerks will be government employees who can't be fired for poor performance and incompetence (picture healthcare being administered by the DMV). There will not be multiple avenues to elevate complaints when one one of these nameless clerks who can't be fired screws up.
Welcome to hp!
For BHO to publicly admonish them, shows that he fears his signature legislation is going down. And he would be correct.
Few would argue that Healthcare needs some reform, but this "law" is fatally wounded.
Have you read the entire ACA and can cite specific aspects of it that you object to? I seriously doubt it and I even more seriously doubt that the Supreme Court is going to do that either. Consequently, they will limit their ruling to whether Congress has the authority to require every American to protect themselves from a medical financial catastrophe which, should they fail to do, will fall on those Americans that do take on that responsibility and the federal government. The rest, they will leave to Congress and the appropriate federal agencies to have it succeed or fail on its own merits.
They don't have to rule on the entire bill just the mandate part is it constitutional for the government to force Americans to buy health insurance or be fined or taxed (is it a fine or is it a tax I guess it is a fine when the government doesnt want you to think it is a tax and a tax when they don't want you to think it is a fine) I have tried to read parts of it and it is like reading something from Mars!
What has been argued against in Judicial Activism previously is when the bench runs counter to the constitution or creates statutory constraints not passed by a legislative body.
What the Supreme Court is now doing is ruling on whether the Congress passed a law which itself is contrary to the constitution which is very much in its proper role.
Not to the CONSTITUTIONAL agenda.
This is the problem with Radical Republicans... they're so intent on saying they're right that they become SLOPPY.
Greta, time to hit the (law) books.
It would be nice if the President were to stick to HIS job and leave the experts to THEIRS.
Obama is saying that they are consciously ignoring the Constitution.
Obama used PAST tense: We've seen "judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint".
As opposed to being committed to applying the CONSTITUTION to their decisions (which is their job) they are applying their power to push a PERSONAL/ POLITICAL agenda (they are being activists for a cause EVEN IF THE CONSTITUTION OPPOSES THEIR VIEW.
Get it?
Do you understand that just because a judge can be wrong: He DOES NOT have the RIGHT to consciously judge wrongly?
Obama is saying that they are ABUSING the power entrusted to them.
That they are NOT doing their jobs...
That -to use your words- if they are experts that they should apply their expertize not their bias.
Is this too complex for you?
(I know that emotionally it's beyond you but ask a 10 year old to explain it.)
So while I don't like many of the regulations that are written, I'm not sure fanning paranoia is the best approach to improving the system.
It's bad enough as it is without making it appear legislation is all in the hands of unknown bureaucrats. We know it's actually in the hands of the wealthy backers of Congress and self-interested media.
The Supreme Court's conservative, Republican, Catholic wing practices judicial activism which it decries. They have officially changed democracy to oligarchic plutocracy with Citizens United.
Will they make health subject to affordability? The wealthy have no problems and the Court and Congress get tax payer funded health care.
Will they make health subject to affordability? The wealthy have no problems and the Court and Congress get tax payer funded health care." shows a total disconnect with reality. If you actually studied the Constitution, you would realize that Congress has NO power to mandate an individual citizen into purchasing or enganging in commerce of any kid for any reason. That power (10Th admendment) was given solely to the states. America's problem is the people who speak the party failed talking points (like you did) instead of learning about the issues and facts for themselves. The Constitution is a viable document that has no draw backs because it can be amended by the people, and the founders made it hard to amend so that no fringe group from the left nor the right could impose their will on the normal people and press their failed agendas. Your comments remind me that the ignorant are trying to run the country and will say whatever it takes to try and fool the masses into following their failed policies. Stop listening to party talking points and learn some facts. Those so called judges you despise know more about law than you do and they have more credibility than you on this topic so I think we are in better hands with them.