Obama’s lecture to the Supreme Court filled with ignorance, apathy, and good ol’ Chicago style community organizer thuggery

Today, President Obama, after listening to the president of Mexico brag about great the Mexican socialist health care system is, decided to threaten the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That’s right, the head of the executive branch decided to bully the co-equal judicial branch and in doing so he showed his extreme ignorance or more likely, apathy of our history and our constitution and the way our three branch federal government operates. The president stated, “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

First of all, the president is well aware that this legislation passed by the slimmest of margins with no Republican votes.Secondly,of course there are plenty of precedents of the court upholding the constitution by overturning laws (all of which were passed by a majority of a democratically elected congress) they deemed to be unconstitutional. In Marbury v. Madison in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution including sixteen pieces of FDR’s New Deal legislation.

It was very telling that in defending his Big Fucking Deal legislation, Obama seems more than willing to ignore the rule of law and the law of economics in striving to reach his desired ends, he said, “So there’s not only an economic element and a legal element, but a human element to this,” Obama said. “Hopefully, that’s not forgotten in this political debate.”

This should not be surprising from the same man who has professed, “The Warren Court interpreted that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”