Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more colloquially known as Obamacare. Now President Obama is using his office to inappropriately sway the court’s eventual ruling.
A large part of the controversy surrounds a provision called the individual mandate, which would force every American to purchase some form of health insurance.
Some of the comments made by Obama on Monday are unnecessary and worrying, especially coming from a former constitutional law professor.
Specifically, Obama said, “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.”
He continued, “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
By referencing a possible overturning of this law as “an unprecedented, extraordinary step,” Obama is attacking the Supreme Court. By calling the nine most powerful judges in the world “an unelected group of people” who should exercise “judicial restraint,” he is negligently using his office in an attempt to sway what is supposed to be an unbiased decision.
Obama’s preemptive strike took the form of his usual political calculations — attacks disguised as commentary — easily defended later as a mere analysis but clearly a form of masked coercion.
It was a passive-aggressive attempt to inject his liberal viewpoint in what should otherwise be an objective decision based on the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. President, the fact that the Supreme Court is an “unelected group of people” is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended. As Obama certainly must understand, it is the very spirit of our republic to vest the ultimate power to interpret the constitution in this “unelected” group — a group which he helped appoint.
This power is not given to Congress, and just because a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” voted for the bill does not mean that it cannot be unconstitutional at the same time.
The strength of the majority has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law. It is inappropriate for the president to suggest otherwise.
Ever since Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, the courts have struck down laws.
The president is worried. You can tell he is worried because he is saying he is “confident” that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.
In the backward world of politics, elected officials say one thing when they mean another. Obama would not have released such a strong-armed statement if he didn’t think it would reach the ears of the Supreme Court and affect its decision.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that the individual mandate is well within the constitutional power of Congress. I fully believe that Obamacare is constitutional. I fully believe that if the Supreme Court overturns this law, it would be deeply rooted in politics and not in the court’s historic objectivity.
But I do not fully believe that politics should be used to help sway the court’s decision.
I do not believe it is appropriate for the president to inject such brash and inappropriate language to condemn an action by the court. And, perhaps most worrying, I do not believe that the president believes in what he is actually saying.
Garrett Bruno is a political science sophomore at UF. His column appears on Thursdays.
