search
top

Ending Checks and Balances

Based on the comments of the President and a Democratic Congressman, I sometimes wonder if a new platform for the Democratic Party isn’t going to be that the Supreme Court can no longer serve as a check on the Executive and Legislative branches. This morning, Rep. Gerry Connolly said:

“It’s not really up to the Supreme Court to second-guess the legitimate decision made by the elected representatives of the people, and if people want to change that law, they can do so by changing the legislators,” he said.

Of course, in April, Obama made comments that caused him trouble by challenging the authority of the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress and supported by the President.

“For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said at a news conference.

Mr. Obama said the court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns the law because it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

To continue in the over-the-top rhetoric from Connolly, he also added this statement on just how terrible opposition to the individual mandate would be:

Connolly said a ruling against the mandate would rank with the court’s worst decisions in its history. He compared the potential opinion with those now considered to be the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes: Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the “separate but equal” doctrine, and Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that people brought to the United States as slaves are not U.S. citizens with rights.

It almost comes off as saying that those opposed to the individual mandate are like people who support racism and slavery. Another decision by the Court that Connolly cites as a problem a case he refuses to name, but rather prefers to call “the very novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, overturning D.C.’s gun control laws.” Though that isn’t quite as evil a case as the challenge to healthcare. He just considers that to be an example of extreme partisanship on the part of conservatives on the Court.

10 Responses to “Ending Checks and Balances”

  1. rudytbone says:

    I’m sure this loathsome toad is quite upset that the CA courts overturned Prop 8 also. After all, the voters had spoken, right?

    • Bitter says:

      I saw someone else make the point that he’d probably find some way to say that judicial review is great when talking about Roe v. Wade.

      • karrde says:

        We could also mention Brown vs. Board of Education.

        I think it’s pretty obvious, though, that these arguments are mainly “we like the Supreme Court when the rule the way we want, and think they are unjustifiably striking down good law when they rule the way we don’t want.”

  2. I’m not at all thrilled with unlimited democracy, but the hypocrisy of the crowd that thinks Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, Goodridge, and the Prop. 8 decisions are just wonderful protections of minority rights, but overturning Obamacare is equivalent to Plessy v. Ferguson (which upheld a state law) makes me want unlimited democracy for a couple of years just to teach these hypocrites a lesson.

    • karrde says:

      I’m reminded of this quote.

      These people seem to think that they can cut down all the laws of the land to get the Devil. And they would be surprised if the Devil turned against them, and they had no laws to protect themselves…

    • Arnie says:

      Excellent point on Plessy, sir! Connoly shows his ignorance as well as his hypocrisy by citing a case that actually contradicts his argument! Love it!!!

      Thank you, Mr. Cramer!

  3. Patrick H says:

    Just another blowhard that believes everything the court does something he agrees with is great, while everything the court does something that he disagrees with is horrible.

    But I don’t think he really has thought out his idea.

  4. asdf says:

    Well, there you have it. You’re all RACISTS if you believe that there might be cause for SCOTUS to overturn any bill Obama signs into law.

    It’s a sort of modified version of Godwin’s law, you see. Any time you mention the possibility that a measure might be unconstitutional, someone is bound to bring up Dred Scott, Plessy, and the holy grail, Brown.

    And just as Godwin’s law dictates that the first person to bring Hitler up in a debate loses, I pray that one day the same will apply to those who try to shame everybody into submission with Brown vs. Board.

  5. Alpheus says:

    This may seem off topic, but did he have anything to say about Obama’s Pronouncement that he’s essentially implementing the DREAM Act, by Executive Fiat (that is, not even by Executive Order)?

    As several people have said about this, what role does the Legislature have in making laws anymore?

    Yet it’s probably safe to say that this decision, which has not had the blessing of the Legislature, is acceptable to Conneley too…

  6. Mike Gordon says:

    Funny he mentions the Dred Scott decision, because wasn’t that overturned by the constitutional amendment process that gave us the 14th Amendment. If the court rules Obama Care unconstitutional based a narrow view of the commerce clause, Democrats can always try to amend the Constitution to permit government do whatever it pleases.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Quote of the Day - [...] [...]
  2. I Don’t Think He’d Like How That Would Go Down… - The Minuteman - [...] Bitter Be Sociable, Share! Tweet…
  3. ORLY? « Misanthropic? Me? Inconceivable. - [...] to Bitter Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted on Wednesday, June…
top