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:
â€œItâ€™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,â€ 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 courtâ€™s worst decisions in its history. He compared the potential opinion with those now considered to be the Supreme Courtâ€™s biggest mistakes: Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the â€œseparate but equalâ€ 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.â€™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.