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.
The j@rk0ff grew up in Indonesia.
Our system is just noise, just crap on his shoe.
That comes after November.
So what does the judge do if there is no letter - hold the entire Dept of Justice in contempt?
Lock em up and throw away the key?
Works for me!!
I cannot argue with your statement.
Rectify? Damn near killed ‘em!
” Now, in the old time usage of the word Professor, he would probably qualify. That usage was a professor was the guy who played the piano in a whore house.”
“instructor” = “student teacher”
My dad was a full professor....I know the hierarchy.
He actually wasn’t a professor, but a lecturer.
That is a lie. He was NEVER a Law Professor. He taught a class. I suspect that everyone he taught flunked the bar.
the hairsplitting begins. the devil is conversant in the details.
Piss poor politics to likely alienate Kennedy (if he was leaning or undecided)
I'm wondering if you feel or any other posters feel that the Supreme Court usurped this power.
More accurately: a guest lecturer on the 14 th amendment. No more than that.
Yes, you were the one who taught me that O. was not actually a "professor."
I am beginning to suspect that leftists have different standards.... Camille Paglia described how the leftist faculty members all give "excellent" ratings to each other's "works."
Why should they spend much time there at all? On the other hand, the Federal Execution Chamber at Terre Haute, IN might be more than a little busy, at the end of all this...
How many laws has the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional?
Good to have on hand when they start screaming.
Marbury v Madison, 1803...
I agree. Good points and perspective.
This evil bastard will get away with as much as he’s allowed.....and so far he’s gotten away with a devestating amount.
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.