Judicial review under attack

King Barack’s loyalists are threatening one of the last roadblocks to the absolute right of POTUS. Earlier in his reign they were advising that He should ignore Congress and act as He pleased. Now they are trying to undermine the independence of the Supreme Court.

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

Obamacare Is On Trial. So Is the Supreme Court.

Before this week, the well-being of tens of millions of Americans was at stake in the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act.

Now something else is at stake, too: The legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Nobody knows how the justices will rule. And nobody can know, not even the justices themselves. On Friday morning, perhaps by the time you read this, they will meet privately to take their first vote. More often than not, this first vote determines the final verdict. But there are exceptions and Anthony Kennedy, on whose decision the outcome presumably depends, has a reputation for long deliberation and changes of heart—particularly in major cases like this one.

That’s good. With the result apparently in doubt—smart money still says the chances of the full law surviving are about 50-50—Kennedy should think long and hard about how he wants the Court to rule. So should Chief Justice John Roberts, who appeared more skeptical of the government’s case during oral arguments but nevertheless indicated that he, like Kennedy, understood the government’s premise—that health care was a special market, perhaps requiring special intervention.

If that concern is not enough to sway the chief justice, than perhaps his frequently professed concern for the court’s respectability will.

Even now, I have trouble wrapping my mind around what I saw in the courtroom this week and what a majority of the justices may be contemplating. Kennedy’s second question, the one that so unnerved supports of the law, was whether the government had “a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution.” But the heavy burden in this case is on the justices threatening to strike down health care reform. They have not met it.

Rarely in American history has the Court struck down laws in decisions that would have such quick, widespread impact. In the modern era, only two cases come to mind: Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Both were acts of ambitious, even audacious judicial activism. But, in two key repsects, they were different from a potential ruling against the Affordable Care Act.

Brown was a unanimous, nine-to-zero decision. Roe was a lopsided seven-to-two. These margins mattered: The justices knew that their decisions would be controversial, in part because they were overruling democratically elected majorities—in these cases, state legislators who’d passed laws enforcing segregation and prohibiting abortion. The justices’ authority in these cases derived, in part, from their moral authority. A closely divided bench would have made that impossible.

Virtually everybody agrees that a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act would be five to four—a bare majority. And it would be a bare partisan majority, with the five Republican appointees overruling the four Democratic appointees. The decision would appear nakedly partisan and utterly devoid of principle. Appearances would not be deceiving.

That’s an interesting idea – requiring super-majority or unanimous decisions before the Supreme Court can rule that something is unconstitutional. Cohn is not alone – the Obot meme of the weak seems to be that SCOTUS is risking its own legitimacy if it dares to declare Obamacare to be unconstitutional.

The Judiciary branch is supposed to be an independent and co-equal branch of government. For good or ill, many SCOTUS decisions through history have been nakedly political. Nonetheless, we consider SCOTUS to be the final arbiter and court of last resort. In the words of the late Justice Robert H. Jackson, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

The issue as to whether Obamacare is constitutional is not frivolous.

Marbury v. Madison (my emphasis):

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Those of you who stayed awake in civic class may recall that Marbury v. Madison is that case that established to concept of judicial review in American jurisprudence. There is a reason that federal judges and justices are appointed for life (subject to impeachment) – to remove them from the effects of politics. What King Obama and his minions are trying to do is apply political pressure to the court.

Back in 2000 I was stunned and dismayed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore. But at the same time I took pride in the way my country reacted. We peacefully but unhappily accepted the ruling and moved on. How many nations would have seen bloody riots or even civil war in the same situation?

The Supreme Court slowed down but did not stop the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement. Even now the Democrats are just one vote shy of a 5-4 majority. Do we really want to change a system that has worked so well for so long just for Obamacare?

This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Law and Constitution, Obamacare and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Judicial review under attack

  1. DeniseVB says:

    Yes, this pesky little “appointed for life” detail was to keep political influence out of their decisions.

    We learned that in high school civics fer crikesssakes. 😀

  2. driguana says:

    The SCOTUS IS a “political” body…no matter how you cut it. If the current composition was 5D to 4R, the current argument would be reveresed. Look, everything, everything is political these days. The big question, to me, is, “is there any other, fairer way to opeate?”. This may sound odd, but there is something inherently unfair about voting. The side with the most votes is going to win regardless of whether or not their position actually solves the problem. Put into the perspective of healthcare, this becomes very interesting. If we are trying to create a healthcare system that really works, Is Obamacare the way to do it? We didn’t start off this whole affair by saying, let’s create a great healthcare system. We started off with Obamacare, which again, in my opinion, does not solve our healthcare problems. And yet we will now have a federal case about it without actually solving the problems. Something ain’t right with the system all the way around! How can we get back to real problem solving? I suggest that it has everything to do with leadership and not poltiics.

    • 49erDweet says:

      “Political”, huh? And here I thought everything was based on sexuality. Does this mean I’ve been wasting all this time and effort?

  3. T says:

    A 5-4 ruling against will be “political”.
    A 5-4 ruling in favor will be “justice”.

  4. DeniseVB says:

    Nice little observation from Don Surber of the WV Daily Mail:


    a snip from Why didn’t the Democrats ask these questions?

    The Founding Fathers limited the central government for good reason.

    They knew that the central government, if left unchecked, would expand its powers infinitely, and freedom would be lost.

    That is why the Founding Fathers separated powers and installed checks and balances like the Supreme Court.

    Judging by their questions, the justices are ready, aiming, and maybe they will fire.

  5. Oswald says:


    Federal court strikes down parts of collective bargaining law

    First sentence:

    A federal judge on Friday upheld most of Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial collective bargaining law, but struck down key parts of it by ruling that the state cannot prevent public employee unions from collecting voluntary dues through payroll deductions and cannot require they recertify annually.

  6. Lola-at-Large says:

    Yep, you’re right, Myiq. The most egregious example is the headline I saw yesterday: Will Tea Party Justices Give Obama a Second Term?

    This is what they’re reduced to: short-hand, insider-based name calling. This shows exactly how poorly their arguments in favor of Obamacare are constructed, and the ultimate impotence of their arguments.

    What frustrates me most about the situation is that I know this is all planned to create a wall of rhetorical noise in the hopes of confusing or intimidating a judge or two in their favor, or swaying the public in the event of Obamacare’s failure. They couldn’t make it look like they could win in court, so now they’re evolving a strategy of rhetorical bullying. SOP for Obama and his henchmen.

    • myiq2xu says:

      What makes them think that striking down an unpopular law will turn the voters against SCOTUS?

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        They don’t think it will. That’s why they’re trying to manufacture it ahead of a ruling against them. I predict they will bundle it with abortion and contraception and argue SEE? If you don’t vote Democrat, we’re going back to the women in bondage and snake oil salesman medicine. SCOTUS! SCOTUS! SCOTUS!

        You watch….

      • votermom says:

        I think it might recruit more indies to the Tea Party side.

        After the Dems called them terrorists, the TP can say, actually, SCOTUS agrees that we are on the side of the constitution.

        This is assuming SCOTUS does strike down the mandate.
        I’m still worried that horse-heads-in-their-beds might swing them to uphold.

        • driguana says:

          yes, interesting….and as the summer brings on large amounts of social discord….quite a few minds are going to change about which side they really want to be on…I’m still concerned about things getting really out of control and threatening the November elections. I know in many peoples minds this is relegated to “conspiracy” nonsense but when you look carefully at everything that Obama is setting up regarding new FEMA employment, martial law etc….and now the SCOTUS….things could take a turn for the worse…and be fueled by discord. But, like you, I agree that it also has the potential of opening people’s eyes to what is really going on…

      • Lulu says:

        All true, but threats work on some people and not on others. There are some very ornery men on the SC, very, very ornery. They also have egos that would rival that of the POTUS but for reasons that he is unfamiliar with like decades of very hard work. After the president decided to deride and humiliate them to their faces at the SOTU they really don’t owe him anything that could be regarded as face-saving or respectful, and since this is degenerating into a sneer and smear before they even issue a decision why should they care what such a silly and amateurish administration and press think.

        Obama set this up and what goes around comes around. Lets be clear, Obama does crappy half ass work like this bill so it may have to be a total gut job. 2010 congressional elections are further being shown to be his downfall since he could not be bothered to share campaign money, his precious time, or any legislation that Democrats could run on. So poor legislation, overwhelmingly loosing the 2010 elections guaranteeing no healthcare fixes by a Republican house, and incompetent legal theory within total group-think shows that Obama is not the universe’s grand master of eleventy dimensional chess. He can’t even play Chinese checkers.

        • myiq2xu says:

          For a constitutional scholar Obama is woefully ignorant of the constitution.

          Ideally, each Supreme Court justice should rule based on what they think the constitution says. But technically they can rule any way they damn well please.

        • WMCB says:

          Yup, Sometimes I think we give them too much credit. Devious is not the same thing as smart. The problem with devious is that it can be initially very effective, because people are prone to give the benefit of the doubt, and thus get blindsided. But as time wears on, and deviousness is revealed, it becomes harder and harder to pull off – because people get suspicious.

          Obama is not that smart, and has no grand machiavellian plan. He and his frat-boy cohorts are fairly banal, actually – not deep thinkers. What we are witnessing, folks, is a national preference cascade. The media is desperately trying to keep the illusion going, but you can’t really stop a preference cascade once it gets underway.

        • Lulu says:

          “national preference cascade” is not something I had considered. I do think that the opposition and questioners about constitutionality and how ill considered most of the bill was were shamed or shouted into silence with the press. The 70% of the public who had objections or questioned when, how or why have found out this week through the Supreme Court arguments that their concerns, opposition or questions were valid irregardless of how many times they were told to sit down and shut up. It is a validation that they were right to question it all. Of course they did this same tactic in the 2008 primaries and elections as well as the stimulus bills. So maybe this is the down slope of Obama’s preference cascade.

        • driguana says:

          I suspect you are being sarcastic in calling Obama a “constitutional scholar” but it belies the fact that so many people actually believe that….who knows what he actually taught at the University of Chicago but he clearly does not have a deep grasp of the constitution…come to think of it, he doesn’t have a deep grasp of much of anything…

      • DandyTiger says:

        I believe you’re assuming they have a brain.

  7. gram cracker says:

    Great post myiq! I was stunned that Ginsberg in affect was recommending that the SC perform line item veto on Obamacare in order to “salvage” the parts of the law not affected by the funding provided by the mandate.

    I appreciated Justice Scalia’s response, “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”

    Talk about judicial activism. An increase in the interpretive power of that magnitude is potentially comparable to what happened in the Supreme court during the Marshall Court era. We already have the Executive branch using signing statements to grab power. Does Congress really want to lose more and more power to the Executive and Judicial branches?

    Congress needs to get out the Etch A Sketch and start over. If the entire law is thrown out I believe Repubs will have to work with Dems to pass the parts of health care legislation that are popular. If they prevail in the 2012 elections and overreach like the Dems did in 2009 they will probably get their arse handed to them in 2014.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Ironically, Scalia indicated that single payer would pass constitutional muster.

      According to Obamanation single payer wasn’t doable but Obamacare was.

      • jjmtacoma says:

        The owners did not want it, that is the reason it wasn’t feasible.

        • Lulu says:

          Gotta keep them campaign dollars rolling in from insurance companies, big pharma, hospital associations etc. My goodness U of Chicago hosp might have to take back the poor that Michelle had bussed to other hospitals and clinics with an icky single payer.

        • threewickets says:

          Basically that’s what Obama’s been doing for his entire presidency – bailing out banks, state budgets, insurance companies, car companies, energy companies, etc since the financial meltdown. And doing it mainly by channeling Federal Reserve deposits and expanding balance sheet to compensate for the massively deleveraing private sector. That’s what both Repub and Dem owners wanted and needed in 2008 – the election of a bailout president. Obots and the kabuki media have been actors in the whole play…unwitting actors for the most part. Cohn and pretty much everyone at the now OFA run TNR are perfect examples of that.

  8. yttik says:

    I tend to agree with almost all Supreme Court rulings and even the reasoning behind some of the dissenting opinions. Even somebody like Scalia, when he struck down anonymity for people signing petitions to ban gay marriage, was pretty cool. If the SC was as political as people like to claim, he wouldn’t have put the thought into his opinion and actually ruled in a way that was contradictory to what the right wanted. He was pretty darn funny too, talking about how people have a right to free speech, to participate in politics…but being a coward who wants to hide behind anonymity is not a protected right in the US.

    I wish people would actually read some of the rulings, study the SC, discuss the actual legal issues involved. We’ve devolved into talking points and allegations of bias and politics, and we refer to our SC as conservative justices or liberals, when in fact it’s really quite a bit more complex then that.

  9. WMCB says:

    I note that in Cohn’s article, he says little to address the constitutionality of the law, or WHY the supremes would be so egregiously in error to strike the law down. He doesn’t counter the issues of limited power that the justices have raised.

    No, he appears to merely say that because we need healthcare, and Congress passed it, and it’s a big fucking deal, they should uphold.

    And BTW, the very reasoning Cohn uses as to why a narrow court decision of 5-4 would be bad applies also to Obamacare itself! Never in the history of this country has a huge, sweeping piece of legislation that permanently alters the daily lives of every single American in intimate ways been passed on an ENTIRELY PARTISAN basis over the furious objections of the majority of the country.

    So let me rewrite the end of his piece for him:

    The Congress’ authority in these cases derived, in part, from their moral authority. A closely divided Congress made that impossible.
    Virtually everybody agrees that the vote to pass the Affordable Care Act was a bare majority, achieved by bypassing reconciliation, shutting out the Senate and normal debate . And it was a bare partisan majority, with the Democrats overruling the Republican Congresspersons by arm-twisting and intimidation of its own members. The decision would appear nakedly partisan and utterly devoid of principle. Appearances would not be deceiving.

    Cohn wishes to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to rely on “technically within their power” for the manner in which the law was passed by Congress – no moral authority needed. We tortured the system til we had a bare majority, and we passed it, so too fuckin’ bad. But he wants to say that SCOTUS cannot strike it down without having, in addition to a bare majority, also a nebulous “moral authority”.

    • WMCB says:

      The more I think about that, the more Cohn’s hypocrisy burns me up. It’s ok to take over 1/6 of the economy with a sweeping piece of legislation almost everyone hates, because Congress had the technical authority to do so, so we should all shut up and accept it.

      But SCOTUS operating within their technical authority to strike it down would be a huge moral failing, and while legal, would be egregiously outside the spirit of their charter and responsibility to the people.

      Fuck you, Cohn, and your moving goalposts with you. You weren’t concerned about “moral authority” when we were Cornhusker kick backing and Louisiana purchasing and bypassing the Senate and passing things in the dead of night on fucking Christmas Eve, now were you?

      • myiq2xu says:

        In law school they teach you the letter of the law and the theory behind it.

        The instructors (and courts) don’t care whether you approve or not.

        • WMCB says:

          Yup. I just can’t get over the hypocrisy of insisting that SCOTUS, besides legality, has an additional “moral authority” bar to clear, whereas the Congress that passed the law has no such burden.

        • myiq2xu says:

          I’ve seen judges say that they didn’t like it but they law gave them no choice in what way they had to rule.

        • WMCB says:

          Several of the justices in the Citizens United case said just that. They weren’t just gleefully handing the power to “buy elections” over to independent groups and corporations. They expressed grave concerns about the influence of money on our process. They just couldn’t find a constitutional way to say that political speech via a film or ad was okay for some groups of citizens and incorporated entities, but not for others. They fully admitted that the decision was going to have some crap consequences, and suggested Congress write better laws to solve it. Congress may have to completely revamp our election process from the ground up to do so.

          I HATE many of the consequences of the CU decision. But I fully understand why SCOTUS made it. Not a popular stance among most of my peers, but oh well.

          • myiq2xu says:

            Unlike RalphB and other pinheads I took the time to read the CU decision before forming an opinion. It’s really not as bad as it’s made out to be.

        • WMCB says:

          Myiq, I constantly hear wailing that CU was all about big campaign contributions, and SCOTUS said “Woohoo! Sky’s the limit!” People are very misinformed.

          It wasn’t about that. It was about banning a documentary movie prior to an election. The fact that the movie was a piece of shit hit piece, and the group that made it are execrable assholes, doesn’t matter to the facts of the case. Whether one agrees with the ruling or not, it was indeed a case about free speech.

    • WMCB says:

      I saw that earlier. Whittle is a mostly-Libertarian, and I don’t agree with him on a lot of stuff. But this thing is worth the watch for his sheer disgust at Obama, and the vehemence with which he lays into him.

      Whittle is well known for NOT being emotional. Ever. All his presentations are always very low-key, polite, explanatory, just laying out the reasons for his ideology and beliefs (like them or not.) So the buzz about this piece is as much about Whittle getting emotionally engaged as anything.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Laying into Geithner, Pelosi, Reid and Holder…….priceless 😀 What’s not to agree on ? Though I always wish these rants would lay into the spineless GOP too. Isn’t it obvious they’re rolling over for Obama so if they take back the WH, they can get away with the same sh*t ?

        I wonder if Whittle is a former liberal ? Like Stossel ? They both seem to strike a nerve with me. Oh dear, maybe I’m a libertarian ? But I still come out to the left of Ghandi when I take the ideology test 😉

        • WMCB says:

          You’re likely more a “classical” liberal than a progressive type. Classical liberals, IMO, are more like libertarians than not on most issues, with a caveat that there is a place for more govt as a reasonable and efficient mechanism to relieve suffering. Most classical liberals are not Big Govt uber-central-planning statists, far from it. They just think that absolute individual freedom and individual responsibility needs to be tempered judiciously when there is overwhelming societal need. That doesn’t mean they abandon their love for individual freedoms, and become whole cloth collectivists.

          *shrug* Some may feel differently, but I’ve always viewed my Liberalism as basically libertarian, but with reasonable accommodation made for collective and societal good. I think many progressives are the flip of that – the primary concern is the collective, and any individual rights and responsibilities get accommodated as needed, if possible. That’s my take, anyway. It’s a difference of emphasis and priority.

        • DeniseVB says:

          Thanks wmcb, probably why this Stossel essay resonated with me….


          It begins:

          I used to be a Kennedy-style “liberal.” Then I wised up. Now I’m a libertarian.

          But what does that mean?

          When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

          We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they’re for limited government, but they’re pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support “nation-building.”

          And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government — they say — to make life kinder for people.

          By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone — in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don’t hurt anybody else.

          It continues to address what about the poor people ?

  10. Kim says:

    I live in NC, and this week I’ve received 2 mailings from the DNC about the health care law. (I’m registered unaffiliated, BTW.) The first was a letter extolling the virtues of the law with a slick insert of a lady saying “Thanks to America’s new health care law, my heart checkups are covered and I get the treatments I need to stay alive.”

    The second mailing was a slick fake newspaper called “American Health Care Report” which talked about pre-existing conditions, unfair insurance cancellation, etc and how the law will fix all those problems. The whole back page was taken up with a photo of baby Barack with his mother and a rehash of Obama’s “I care about health care reform because of what happened to my mother” story.

    I’m wondering why they’re sending these propaganda pieces out now, after the whole thing has gone to the SCOTUS? What am I supposed to do, call Scalia and Thomas and demand they vote to uphold? Why didn’t I get a mailing like this back when the law was being debated in Congress? Weird.

    Are they just trying to ratchet up the emotion before a potential Court strikedown so we’ll all run out into the streets demanding that caring Obama’s law be reinstated?

    • myiq2xu says:

      His mother HAD healthcare insurance that covered her condition. What she didn’t have was disability coverage to pay her living expenses.

      • Lulu says:

        Private disability coverage that she applied for after diagnosis and was denied, not Social Security Disability. Just saying.

      • Kim says:

        Yes, I know, and the mailing skirts that issue by just saying that “President Obama has seen firsthand the pain endured by real people facing overwhelming health problems”. It never says she didn’t have insurance, although it feels like it originally read that way and was then edited.

        My point is, why send out propaganda mailings- two in a week- now?

        • DeniseVB says:

          Fundraising ? Today’s the last day of the quarter and Team WTF needs small donors. Who better to hit up than people who may send $10 because Barry feels their pain? They’re also sending out $3 lottery tickets to have lunch with him too.

          That’s my guess 😀

      • foxyladi14 says:

        but he spins a different story 🙄

        • Kim says:


          I’d think fundraising, too, but there was no ask in any either mailing. The only way you know it came from the DNC is by the return address. Both are presented as just informational.

  11. myiq2xu says:

    Zsa Zsa screws Huffpoop bloggers:

    AOL Inc on Friday won the dismissal of a lawsuit by unpaid bloggers who complained they were deprived of their fair share of the roughly $315 million that the company paid last March to buy The Huffington Post website.

    U.S. District Judge John Koeltl rejected claims by social activist and commentator Jonathan Tasini and an estimated 9,000 other bloggers that they deserved $105 million, or about one-third, of the purchase price.

    The lawsuit contended that the work of unpaid content providers like bloggers gave The Huffington Post much of its value, and that the website’s sale allowed co-founder Arianna Huffington to profit at their expense. Tasini said he alone had made 216 submissions to the website over more than five years.

    But Koeltl said “no one forced” the bloggers to repeatedly provide their work with no expectation of being paid, and said they got what they bargained for when their works were published.

    • WMCB says:

      Wait, aren’t her writers part of the 99%? I thought that wage agreements entered into voluntarily, where the top dude makes tons of money and the poor worker gets less (in this case nothing), were inherently unjust and evil.

      • driguana says:

        funny…I just read on another blog someone calling Olbermann a true member of the 99%…what the “f”…I sometimes think the whole planet has suddenly gone delusional!!

  12. WMCB says:

    Some discussion of this going on over at Hillaryis44 as well. Wbboei was discussing the moaning about “but…but….imagine the mess if they strike this!” as a reason to uphold. Of course, inherent in that is “What about Obama’s signature legislation?!! You’ll ruin everything for him, and that’s political, and you are not supposed to be political!”

    … there is but one proper response. We (the Court) are not in the business of defeating or re-electing presidents, but if he and his fellow travelers and campaign contributors wrote and passed a bill which is unconstitutional, then it is not the role of the Supreme Court to save them, regardless of what Rosen Cohen and Tribe would have you believe.

    • craterlakegirl says:

      “We can’t let the first black president fail” makes Obama a dangerous president. We can’t criticize him or his policies. Worst. President. Ever.

  13. WMCB says:

    ROTFL! Might be a little problem with that VP pick….

  14. 49erDweet says:

    “Political”, huh? And here I thought everything was based on sexuality, Does this mean I’ve been wasting all this time and effort?

  15. cjwk says:

    Isn’t SCOTUS charged solely with ruling on whether or not a given law is constitutional? With that as the sole guiding principle, if SCOTUS strikes down ACA (i.e. ‘Obamacare’) as unconstitutional, how can that reasonably be deemed ‘political’ except by those concerned only with their political futures and not with the future of individual liberties under this democratic republic? Seems to me the fact that the founders clearly established the judicial branch as the final guardian of the Constitution strongly affirms the founders’ intent (as is clearly noted in Marbury vs Madison) for the Constitution to be viewed and preserved as the superior, paramount law of the land, and NOT as just any other ‘legislative act’ ‘alterable’ when the ‘legislature’ (or indeed POTUS) ‘shall please to alter’ it (if not outright ignore it as the legislature and POTUS clearly have done with ACA). In re the SCOTUS hearings concerning ACA, great article and link, “Shall we be citizens or subjects”?


Comments are closed.