Skip to comments.Again! WH warns of 'unprecedented' SCOTUS ruling
Posted on 04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by tellw
President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.
"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.
But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."
The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.
Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.
Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.
Resistance is futile......you will be assimilated.............
Obama should appoint a Czar to investigate those “unelected judges”!
He better be prepared to finance its implementation. The House would never allocate a dime to implement a program deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Especially if it's a 6-3 or 7-2 vote.
Rush is correct. Zer0 is playing to the ignorant voter base who believes freedom is the free stuff you get from the government.
Carney is the nerd who always got ‘pantsed’ in high school.
..as they cheerily realize on the way to the poor house: A tyranny by a majority of legislators or a despot — its all the same.
You RECTIFY the situation...............
That’s really it, isn’t it?
The difference between the left and right is the definition of freedom.
Conservatives define freedom as the liberty to do as we will without harming others.
Liberals define freedom as the liberty to do what they want without consequences, ie, going hungry for not working.
And just like Captain Kangaroo was a captain.
It might be wise to send O a copy of U. S. vs Nixon (1974?). Even the Won is not above the law. Of course, the USSC doesn’t have as large an Army as does the Pope (obscure reference). ;-)
He’s rallying the troops, is what he’s doing.
May be getting close to the time Roberts gives the Hawaii Dept of Vital Statistics a call...
50,000,000 x 1 tiny cut/day = stuffed
As I was driving earlier, I was thinking this very thought and logically, my next thought was, 'this man is going to become very dangerous as his entire world collapses'. Imagine being so deeply indoctrinated in something that every fiber of your being just knows it's right. What does one do when it all collapses, and in a very public way, right before your eyes? I'm more convinced than ever he'll resort to violence if he has to.
U. S. vs Nixon (1974) Maybe the most famous words from that case: “We are a nation of laws, not men.”
Why aren’t they (Roberts) insisting Kagan recuse herself? She’s obviously in violation of federal law. And she’s a man.
And yet Obama keeps trying to pet the nice badger ... Best to let him keep talking. His outstanding personal characteristic is his overwhelming hubris/arrogance. Nixon’s mistake was not speaking up; 0’s is not knowing when to shut up.
I don't doubt you, but would you please provide the source for that.
If the law is an unprecedented power grab then it certainly is unprecedented to knock it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.