Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Peter Schiff - Unprecedented Presidential Posturing

Recs

19

April 12, 2012 – Comments (5)

Last week, responding to President Obama’s latest populist assault on the wealthy, I issued a commentary in which I explained why his ideas about American economic history were fundamentally flawed. As dangerous and erroneous as those views are, at least I can cut the President some slack for commenting on a subject in which he really has no basis for expertise. Hailing from academia and local community organizing, Barack Obama likely did not spend huge amounts of time boning up on economic history. However, there are other subjects where he should find firmer footing. Constitutional law certainly comes to mind. After all, Obama rose to national prominence based on his status as a legal scholar.  He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was elected president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the top ranked schools in the country.

Based on these achievements, it is simply stunning that he made so many fundamental errors last week in his analysis of the Supreme Court’s review of his sweeping health care legislation. Not only did he make grossly inaccurate statements with regards to the health care legislation, and the history of Supreme Court decisions that relate to it, but he also showed little understanding of the very purpose that the Court serves within the constitutional framework of the U.S. government.  These remarks either indicate that a Harvard degree isn’t worth the paper it’s written on or that there is nothing Obama won’t say to advance his political agenda.

Full article 

5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM, leohaas (31.85) wrote:

100% political baloney.

Calling out judicial activism is a Republican thing. Reagan, both as canditate and as President, did it on a regular basis when it came to Roe. So why is it so wrong for a Democrat to do this?

Report this comment
#2) On April 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM, kdakota630 (29.46) wrote:

leohaas

Judicial activism is a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."  

President Obama appears to be trying to sway the Supreme Court Justices to do just that (legislating from the bench), instead of doing their job of intrepretting laws and judging their Constitutionality. 

He's not calling out judicial activism.  He's doing the exact opposite by encouraging it. 

Report this comment
#3) On April 13, 2012 at 1:50 AM, awallejr (85.54) wrote:

Who cares what he says?  The Supreme Court is independent of him.  They are life long appointees for the exact reason to prevent swaying their decisions based on re-appointment.  Trust me the Supreme Court will render its decision despite any Presidential commentary.

The biggest threat was under FDR back in the 1930s when the Supreme Court kept over turning New Deal legislation.  FDR was considering pushing forth legislation to increase the SIZE of the Supreme Court so he could stack the Court.  Once he won re-election by a wide majority in 1936, Chief Justice Roberts switched his votes from against FDR legislation to pro FDR legislation, hence the phrase "a switch in time saved nine."

Report this comment
#4) On April 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM, kdakota630 (29.46) wrote:

awallejr

I think the point is that President Obama of all people should've known better.

Also, thanks for the history lesson.  I was aware of most of what you mentioned, but not the part about Chief Justice Roberts switching his votes, or also the reference to the phrase "a switch in time saved nine."

Report this comment
#5) On April 13, 2012 at 11:49 AM, CluckChicken (26.87) wrote:

I think Jon Stewart had the best comment on this. He basically said through his standard video clip collection that depending on which way you want so ruling to go you will say one of the two sides of all this, and switch depending on the cases, no matter your education on the history of the court.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement