Tuesday, April 03, 2012

APRIL 3, 2012

STEVEN HAYWARD ON Obama’s Assault on Judicial Review:

I’m grateful for the favor Obama did for us yesterday of exposing his extreme constitutional ignorance, with his comments on how it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to strike down a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. (As if a House margin of seven votes is a “strong” majority.) True, he walked back the comment today, but surely because his statement was not merely indefensible but outright embarrassing to his media defenders.

I’ve been growing weary of hearing people mention that he’s a “constitutional scholar,” since he never published a single thing on the subject either as editor of the Harvard Law Review or as a member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School. But hey—he taught constitutional law, didn’t he?

Not really.

Meanwhile, the judiciary is not amused: Fifth Circuit calls out DOJ lawyer: Is your boss now claiming that courts don’t have the power to strike down laws? “The courts may choose take Obama at his word, unless he explains that it was just a campaign speech and not intended to represent the position of the Executive Branch on the matter. The Fifth Circuit’s ‘homework assignment’ is a fairly gentle reminder to the President that he actually leads the United States government and not just the campaign for his reelection.”

Related: Obama Walks Back Supreme Court Threat, Still Gets It Wrong.

Hey, Obama’s so bad on this that Ruth Marcus is complaining. “Obama’s assault on ‘an unelected group of people’ stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning ‘a duly constituted and passed law.’”

As I said earlier, if I were in Congress I’d introduce a proposed Constitutional amendment providing for elected Supreme Court Justices, and ask for the President’s support . . . .

No comments: