I'm about to get political

Ok, folks.  I rarely get political.  I'm pretty middle of the road (with more right leaning than left), but I just CANNOT sit back and not say something about this.  A couple of days ago, a former Constitutional Law professor said the following: Ultimately, I'm 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.

If that quote doesn't make you scratch your head you either (1) are not from this country or (2) did not so hot in middle school civics and should not audition for Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?  One of the core tenants of the United States Constitution is the policy of Checks and Balances.  Meaning that each branch of the federal government checks the other branches.  Meaning?  Well that means that one of the Supreme Court's jobs is to do just what the President of the United States said it could not.

In one of the most famous Supreme Court cases (and a case that every first year law student studies on the first days of their Constitutional Law class), Marbury v. Madison, it was determined that it is the responsibility of the COURTS to determine what the law means.  Not the legislature. Not the executive.  THE COURTS!  Further, Marbury v. Madison overturned the Judicary Act of 1789.  Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803.  Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137): It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. … If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. (here)  


There has been a lot of backtracking in the last couple of days.  He's been talking about how he was referring to SCOTUS not overturning laws on economic issues (umm they totally have before, and if they haven't then I want the weeks I spent studying the commerce clause back).  Then, he narrows the scope of his statement even more by saying that SCOTUS hasn't overturned a law on an economic issue like health care.  Umm, isn't that because THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE?

After that, he starts spouting about the Lochner Era of Due Process and Commerce Clause regulation.  One thing that I find funny, regardless of any other comments being made, is that it is finally getting down to the fact that, to the government, health care is an economic issue and not an issue of individual rights.  Therefore, for any politician to say that everyone has a RIGHT to affordable health care is such BS because it apparently is NOT an individual rights issue, but one of MONEY!

I posted something on my FB and now everyone is getting their panties in a twist about it.  For example, a lawyer friend of mine (don't forget, I'm a lawyer) is telling me about what he said and what "precedent" means and frankly is just chasing her tail and frustrating me.

I respect the office, but am frustrated by the man.  It is misleading and people will cling to this.  They will take it as truth and it just isn't!  Please, someone tell me how someone can say things like this and then we are supposed to take him seriously? Why do you say something that acts as nothing by to piss off the Supreme Court Justices?  Why do you misstate so many facts (umm the health care plan was passed by a margin of 7 votes, that is so NOT an overwhelming majority - even members of his own party voted against it).  I am just appalled by him saying this.

Alright, say what you want in the comments.  I have already defended my feelings to some of my liberal friends.  There is just little you can say when there was such a blatant misquote of the document you swore to defend and uphold.

And with that, I leave you with this:



Sheree will check you if the Supreme Court does not.