« | »

Obama Continues To Misstate SCOTUS History

From a remarkably clueless Reuters:

White House in damage control over Obama Supreme Court remarks

Wed Apr 4, 2012

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) – The White House was forced on the defensive on Wednesday as it sought to explain controversial remarks President Barack Obama made earlier in the week about the Supreme Court’s review of his signature healthcare reform law.

"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney told reporters during a White House briefing dominated by the topic.

This remarkably clueless, even for Mr. Carney. Or rather it would be remarkable if the White House spokesmen was not so regularly clueless. Mr. Obama’s "observation" was inaccurate in every aspect.

Obama expressed confidence on Monday that the Court would not take an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" by overturning the law, provoking a storm of protest that he had been inaccurate and was challenging the nation’s top judges in an election year…

But it was unremarkable. Jay Carney said so.

The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, qualified the remark a day later by stressing he meant action by the Court on a matter of commerce, a legal distinction that cut little ice with his critics

It cut little ice because it too betrayed a (willful?) ignorance of Supreme Court history.

During robust questioning when Carney was told at one point that he had mischaracterized what the president had said, the press secretary was forced to repeatedly defend the remarks of his boss as an observation of fact.

Even though it was a remarkably ‘fact free’ observation. In reality, not a single thing Obama said about the Court was true.

"Since the 1930s the Supreme Court has without exception deferred to Congress when it comes to Congress’s authority to pass legislation to regulate matters of national economic importance such as health care, 80 years," Carney said

This is simply a flat out lie. Just as it was when Obama stated it during his campaign appearance before the fawning Associated Press, when he claimed:

We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

First, Lochner v New York was decided in 1905. So Mr. Obama was only off in his chronology by 30 odd years.

Moreover, Lochner was decided to be a states’ right case over which the Court decided the federal government had not control. Indeed, the Supreme Court struck down legislation because it regulated businesses. So Mr. Obama had things exactly backwards.

Furthermore, Lochner is only associated with the New Deal insofar as the notorious 1937 "switch in time that saved nine" case (West Coast Hotel v Parrish) ‘overturned’ Lochner by saying the freedom of contract was not un-restricted. Which began the long march of the federal government expanding its power via the Commerce Clause.

Lastly, but most importantly, the Court has overturned any number of laws that were based on the Commerce Clause. Including, US v. Lopez, which was decided in 1995, and US v Morrison, which was decided in 2000.

So even Obama’s revision of his revisionism is laughably wrong in every way.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, April 5th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Obama Continues To Misstate SCOTUS History”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    Thank you for straightening out the case History Steve. Good Lord.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    To Obama:

    “I must say, sir, that it becomes increasingly evident, and blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer that, of the things you claim to be and are apparently documented as an expert, you seem to be monumentally ignorant.”

    Just a line I’d love to have said in a movie I’m creating in my head as pure fantasy.

  3. GetBackJack says:

    That Obama was known as a “scholar” says everything we need to know about the condition of our higher education.

    They’re all high.

  4. Liberals Demise says:

    Here’s to the Nov. 6th mandate so this Bozo can pack and vacate.
    Hint: take the Koran the Mooselimb Brotherhood gave you the other day.

  5. wirenut says:

    “There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance–that principal is contempt prior to investigation.”
    Herbert Spencer. End quote. No wonder why Fonda left him, and the “left” is full of it.

  6. Tater Salad says:

    When will America understand that they have been “fleeced”?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »