[pepsionice]

The curious part of the statement is that it wasn’t exactly a strong majority in the House or the Senate. In fact....a number of Senators had to be promised various things...to get them around to voting in support of this.

[BCrago66]

Mark Levin’s commentary on Obama;s remarks are pretty good too:

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-methodically-rips-apart-obamas-scotus-intimidation-argument/

[bd476]

The bad news is obvious. At Free Republic, you'll get the truth and nothing but the truth from conservatives participating on the Internet's Premiere conservative forum.

Please make your donation to Free Republic's Second Quarter 2012 Freepathon today and help keep the lights on so that others can find the conservative way.

Click here to pledge your support!

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

Can't help but wonder if there might have been a leak from perhaps his planted stooge, Kagan?

Would not surprise in the least!

[MissEdie]

Wasn't that thing passed through Reconciliation?

[RedEyeJack]

This is typical Obama... Having it both ways... as in leading from behind. Judicial restraint for you and judicial activism for me. Pure political evil... no substance all rhetoric.

And the MSM just puts on their knee pads and “adores” him some more.

[DeaconRed]

The Supremes may get their revenge.
Remember when ZERO made fun of them during a State of the Union speech?
Looks like pay back time to me. . . .

[OrioleFan]

Quoth the president: “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Oh, Mr. Obama, let's just forget the mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and due to lack of a severability clause, your entire "law" is going to get tossed on the ash heap of history.

[dps.inspect]

I damn-well hope the Justices are personally outraged by this president’s action. I hope they can plainly see the existential threat to both the relevance of the court as an institution and themselves personally. For as soon as a dictator propels himself to that position, his first actions are always to do away with the courts and anyone who resists him. What will they do, bend the knee to king Obama or stand for the rule of law? God, please help those fair minded justices who try to uphold the constitution.

[snowsislander]

Excellent commentary from the New York Sun.

[jimfree]

Paging Mark Halperin.

[Flintlock]

Remember, boys and girls—he has inflicted TWO MORE leftist crazies to join the others already there.
(Think : wise latina)
Not much credibility left in them there black robes.

[DrC]

“the president expressed confidence that the Court would “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.”

I believe he meant “Democrats elected to Congress.THAT in fact is what is unprecedented. No single major piece of legislation in the past century has been enacted on a pure party line vote, especially in the face of a persistent majority of the public in opposition. The Constitution and all its checks and balances were designed to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of a majority, but also the reverse.

The 2010 Congress was the most liberal since 1965-66. Obama exploited a very rare moment in which progressives had a temporary lock on the reins of power and rammed through a highly unpopular piece of legislation. He didn’t care whether it was constitutional: he was achieving a century-old progressive dream. So what he did as president literally was unprecedented. SCOTUS, OTOH, has on occasion overturned major pieces of legislation; that’s not unprecedented: that’s their job! For Obama to claim this is unprecedented shows how poor a constitutional scholar he is (either that, or he’s merely a flagrant liar: take your choice).