Why Obama Should Run Against the Supreme Court

(Published today in The Atlantic)

Just because its justices are not elected doesn't mean they're not political. It's time for some public accountability.

Recently, there has been considerable debate over whether President Obama should run against the Supreme Court as part of his reelection campaign. High-ranking Democratic Rep.James Clyburn has endorsed the idea, and Obama himself has seemed to test the waters with anticipatory criticism of a decision striking down his health-care law as unconstitutional.

But there's a strong case to be made that Obama should run against the Supreme Court however the health-care case turns out, and that his campaign should begin that effort today. He should run, specifically, against the five justices on the Court who span the spectrum from conservative to very conservative: Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

There are two prominent objections to running against the court. But a closer looks shows why they should carry less weight than they now do.

Read the rest at The Atlantic

 

Follow Marvin Ammori on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Marvin_Ammori

Comments

[FoundersFan]

03:42 PM on 04/07/2012

The vast majority of the American people ran against ObamaCare when it was debated, passed and today. The Supreme Court has the duty to apply the Constitution exactly as it was written not in the despicable, absurd extreme left-wing way it has been since the 1930s.

[myth1958]

02:27 PM on 04/07/2012

Marvin Ammori suggests battle between the federal branches as if 'standing up to' the Supremes was easy. Just look at the ugly reactions Obama engendered when he spoke confidently about how the justices ought to rule on his signature health care bill: one judge was in such a snit that he demanded the administration explain itself - and their understanding of the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution (three cheers to Attorney General Holder for writing a great response. The nerve!) BUt I think this line of political fighting is fraught with landmines: even if the court is hopeless, President Obama will look impudent if he speaks against them. Better to let surrogates go on the offensive, talking about how partisan their rulings have been - and how awful the results of recent rulings have been in their effect upon American politics, as in the Citizen's United fiasco. Congress can keep writing laws to narrow down the things the court can legitimately decide - and we, the people, can demand a constitutional amendment which will defeat the Citizen's United ruling by kicking corporations out of the population - and stop treating them as 'persons' under the law. Those kinds of actions are far better - and will yield greater results - than duking it out with the waywards justices in the public forum.

[scottellington]

01:01 PM on 04/07/2012

What if all the attack-ad monies unshackled by the court were diverted from proprietary media into the Public Broadcast System?

[B from B]

12:08 PM on 04/07/2012

There are 4 SCOTUS justices who are viewed as conservative (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts), and 4 who are viewed as liberal (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg), and 1 who is viewed as the 'swing vote' (Kennedy). There is some speculation that Roberts could actually vote to uphold HCAA's constitutionality. There is no speculation that any of the four liberal justices will do anything but vote in a bloc. If HCAA's constitutionality is upheld (with Kenney voting in the majority) the left will dismiss and downplay any claims of 'partisanship' in SCOTUS as to why HCAA was upheld. If, on the other hand, HCAA is deemd as unconstitutional (with Kennedy again voting in the majority), the left will claim that the SCOTUS is corrupt and partisan.
The SCOTUS has 4 liberal members, 4 conservative members, and 1 swing vote. With 9 justices (an odd number), how can such a philosophical makeup be deemed by anyone except those on the left fringe or right fringe that the SCOTUS' philosophical makeup is evenly balanced.
If the prez wants to 'battle' SCOTUS (a co-equal branch of gov't with the Executive and Legislative branches) on the grounds that it is 'partisan,' besides being an incorrect statement (as last week's events clearly have demonstrated), the prez will only be magnifying his partisanship to his great detriment.

[somebody9191]

11:39 AM on 04/07/2012

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have made their minds up before most cases are even heard. To a lesser extent, so have Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Anthony Kennedy is somewhat an enigma, but can usually be counted on siding with the right. While I do not discount the intelligence of these men, I do question their impartiality. Clarence Thomas on the other hand is the single most unqualified individual to ever sit on the bench and is a disgrace to the memory of Thurgood Marshall.

[doober]

11:19 AM on 04/07/2012

Consider this:

The Supreme Court watered down the Rico act so that the banks and Wallstreet cant be charged for fraud and racketeering

They allowed unlimited election spending thus allowing the wealthy and Corporations to Buy and take over our Democratic elections

It is scary to realize that the Supreme court has been corrupted and bribed by money

Rather than spreading Democracy to other countries it seems that they have spread their style of corrupt Government to us