l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 by Rick aka Mr. Brutally Honest
Obama_supreme_courtThat and more from Allahpundit reacting to Obama's
challenge yesterday to the Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare:
The “strong majority” in Congress went 219-212 in the House, with 34
Democrats defecting. Not a single Republican in either chamber voted for it,
and as Ace notes, the public itself has been steadfastly opposed to the law
since day one. Against that backdrop, it’s an amazing show of balls by The
One to dress this up as the Court somehow thwarting the people’s will. But
even if O-Care really did have a “strong majority,” so what? The whole
point of judicial review is to make sure that congressional majorities,
strong or not, remain bound by their enumerated powers and the Bill of
Rights. You know what law really did have a “strong majority” in both
chambers? DOMA. Think there’ll be any tears shed on the left for
majoritarianism if Anthony Kennedy cashiers that one on a 5-4 vote?
Don’t take this too seriously, though. This is just Obama laying the
narrative groundwork for the benefit of all the non-lawyers watching at home
who don’t know enough to fact check him. He wants to plant the idea that
striking down the mandate would be the most unique, extraordinary,
sensational, unbelievable, unprecedented decision in Supreme Court history
evah so that, if it does happen, people will regard it as illegitimate and
that’ll hopefully rally them to turn out in the fall. It’s a stump speech,
in other words. Just a little more dishonest than usual.
And a little more dishonest than usual is a lot more dishonest to most.
Interestingly enough, Frank Weathers is remembering a related piece from a
year ago that ran in the WaPo:
The title alone speaks volumes: Supreme Court Justices aren’t political
hacks in robes, not that they’re perfect or anything.
An analysis by Supreme Court advocate Thomas Goldstein onSCOTUSblog
also chips away at the notion that justices rule in lockstep with their
political preferences and are constantly at each other’s throats. In the
2010 essay “Everything you read about the Supreme Court is wrong,” Mr.
Goldstein notes that 5-to-4 splits were rendered in less than 20 percent of
the cases during the court’s 2009 term — the most recent term for which
full statistics are available. During the ’09 term, “roughly half the
decisions were nine to zero.”
Justices are not devoid of points of view, and their “judicial
philosophies” help steer them to certain results. There will be cases in
which the justices appear to split along ideological lines, and the Wal-Mart
case may very well be one of them. Debate and disagreement over the merits
of a decision are understandable; not so painting justices as mere political
hacks camouflaged in judicial robes.
Are the American people gullible enough to buy Obama's overt
mischaracterizations (aka lies)? Will this strategy win over Americans in
November?
I'd like to think the answer is no.
I would. |
|
