The Necropolitan Sentinel

Breitbart.com says bluntly and accurately that he has declared war on the Supreme Court with respect to his Healthcare Reform legislation:

Today, President Obama effectively declared war on the Supreme Court. Speaking from the Rose Garden, he suggested that the “unelected” Supreme Court must avoid the “extraordinary … unprecedented” measure of striking down his unconstitutional Obamacare regime:

Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will 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 …

This is not the first time Obama has threatened the Supreme Court. Back in January 2010, in his State of the Union Address, he dramatically misrepresented the Supreme Court’s stance on campaign finance, and explained, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Alito shook his head and mouthed, “Not true.” That’s because it wasn’t true – but Obama’s interpretation of Constitutional law is lacking at best, deeply dishonest at worst.

Obama is now tackling a strategy stated by Rep. Jim Clyburn this morning – he’s going after the Supreme Court as his bête noire, knowing they cannot respond. But he’s bound to fail for a simple reason: the American public understands that the law is unconstitutional. Obama is no FDR, and nobody is interested in packing the courts to raise their taxes and devastate the economic future of the country.

Unfortunately for Obama, he also made the tactical misstep of explaining why if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, the entire law should be struck down:

I think the justices should understand, in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually have health care.

In other words, the individual mandate lies at the heart of Obamacare; without that beating heart, the rest of the law becomes unworkable.

This thug needs to be impeached and thrown out of office for a seditious violation of the Constitution.

At Lonely Conservative, there’s hollow laughter at the idea that the “King of Czars” has an objection to the unelected exercising power.

He must go. A more classic demonstration of Critical Race Theory in action I never want to see again. And, right on time, NBC starts hysteria mongering over Global Warming.

Completely unrelated:

A California solar energy company that was unable to meet a deadline for an Energy Department loan guarantee last year has sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware.

Solar Trust of America’s Chapter 11 filing on Monday listed assets between $1 million and $10 million, and liabilities between $10 million and $50 million.

Even (via @exjon) reliably liberal WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus knows he’s overstepped:

To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.

That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.

And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”

But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.

To be clear, in my opinion she is wrong to believe that the Individual Mandate is constitutional, but otherwise, she understands just why the Supreme Court needs to answer only to the Constitution and legal precedent.

And now, Reuters openly wonders whether Obama’s been tipped to the way the Justices are leaning regarding the mandate.

A reminder via Glenn Reynolds of what we’re dealing with here:

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: Video: Obama Campaign Disables Credit Card Verification, Accepts Donation from ‘Nidal Hasan.’ “Obama’s campaign implemented the same lack of verification in 2008, but the mainstream media never called them on it. It appears as though that episode has prompted a repeat in 2012. . . . Not only can people in foreign countries donate to the Obama campaign in violation of federal campaign law, so apparently can identity thieves who have access to stolen credit card numbers. People who do not know that their credit cards have been compromised may not notice small amounts in the $3 dollar donation range that the Obama campaign has been targeting, when such donations show up on their statements.”

Tweet