POTUS v. SCOTUS: In John Roberts, Obama finds the perfect enemy.

New Republic ^ | March 16, 2010 | Jeffrey Rosen

[reaganaut1]

Barack Obama is gunning for a confrontation with the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts has signaled that he welcomes the fight. Last week, the chief justice described the president’s State of the Union condemnation of the Citizens United decision as “very troubling” and complained that the speech had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Roberts was making an argument about etiquette--dissent was fine, he said, but Obama had somehow transgressed the boundaries of civilized discourse by delivering his attack to a captive audience. But he was implicitly making a political argument as well. That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it.

As a matter of history, this argument is wrong: In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court, it’s almost always the president who prevails. Using the Court as a punching bag puts Obama in the company of his greatest predecessors, Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts--all of whom bashed the Court for thwarting the will of the people. As long as he plays his cards carefully, Obama has much to gain from challenging John Roberts, and the Roberts Court much to lose.

The successful history of presidential Court-bashing shows how fragile the justices are in the face of presidential attacks supported by a mobilized majority of the country. Thomas Jefferson attacked his distant cousin and arch-rival, Chief Justice John Marshall, for his “twistifications” and suggested he couldn’t be trusted; he encouraged Jeffersonian Republicans to intimidate Federalist judges by impeaching Justice Samuel Chase. Marshall reciprocated Jefferson’s disdain, calling him “the great Lama of the Mountain.” But Marshall was so spooked by the Chase impeachment that he anxiously suggested in a letter to Chase that Congress should be allowed to reverse Supreme Court decisions it considered “unsound.”

[SJSAMPLE]

In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court...

Stopped right there.

[lentulusgracchus]

I'm posting a piece from the liberal New Republic because I think conservatives should be prepared to counter an assault on the Supreme Court, especially if the Slaughter scheme is used to pass Obamacare without a vote and the Supreme Court hears a challenge to its constitionality.

Excellent reasoning, guys. There's always a reason, when the 'Rats start squeaking in unison about something or someone.

Scholars 200 years from now will have a fine old time dissecting the Great Rat Conspiracy in politics and media. Assuming they're free to study and aren't locked down in a police state.