.
I find Obama’s constitutional remarks depressing.
In the 2010 SOTU he claimed that the Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court would open the floodgates of contributions to our political campaigns by foreign corporations. Alito shook his head because those who wrote the decision in that case specifically noted that they were not touching the law about foreign corporations – Politifact called Obama’s remarks “mostly false.”
Then on April 2 his remarks about how it would be “unprecedented” if “unelected judges” (U S Supreme Court) were to overturn a federal law and take us back to Lochner in the thirties and I’m going what - what - what ?? The errors and flavor were stunning.
Well just review a few facts –
a) unprecedented – No, they’ve done it hundreds of times from very recently to all the way back to 1803 in Marbury v Madison which established that one of their main functions was to keep the elected branches inside the constitution. This is not subtle constitutional law theory it shows up in in US History 101.
b) unelected judges – It is true that the Supreme Court is unelected and I hope they stay unelected. In this context that expression is an epithet that is used to make an independent judiciary sound like a bad idea. If it sounded familiar to you it may be because it was used in the fifties and sixties by Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, et al who wanted to impeach those “unelected judges” because of Brown v Board of Education.
c) The problem with the Lochner reference was that that decision was in 1905, not the thirties, and the full name is Lochner v New York - it was a state law - not a federal one - that was at issue.
Now it seems like that there are two possibilities. Either he did or he did not know at the time that he was wrong about those things,
If he did not know, then they should quit referring to him as a constitutional law professor.
If he did know, then perhaps that is even worse.
Added at 5:45 PM 4/10/2012
A defense of Obama's comments can be found in The New Republic article:
Yes, Obama's Comments on the Court Made Sense
.
I find Obama’s constitutional remarks depressing.
In the 2010 SOTU he claimed that the Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court would open the floodgates of contributions to our political campaigns by foreign corporations. Alito shook his head because those who wrote the decision in that case specifically noted that they were not touching the law about foreign corporations – Politifact called Obama’s remarks “mostly false.”
Then on April 2 his remarks about how it would be “unprecedented” if “unelected judges” (U S Supreme Court) were to overturn a federal law and take us back to Lochner in the thirties and I’m going what - what - what ?? The errors and flavor were stunning.
Well just review a few facts –
a) unprecedented – No, they’ve done it hundreds of times from very recently to all the way back to 1803 in Marbury v Madison which established that one of their main functions was to keep the elected branches inside the constitution. This is not subtle constitutional law theory it shows up in in US History 101.
b) unelected judges – It is true that the Supreme Court is unelected and I hope they stay unelected. In this context that expression is an epithet that is used to make an independent judiciary sound like a bad idea. If it sounded familiar to you it may be because it was used in the fifties and sixties by Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, et al who wanted to impeach those “unelected judges” because of Brown v Board of Education.
c) The problem with the Lochner reference was that that decision was in 1905, not the thirties, and the full name is Lochner v New York - it was a state law - not a federal one - that was at issue.
Now it seems like that there are two possibilities. Either he did or he did not know at the time that he was wrong about those things,
If he did not know, then they should quit referring to him as a constitutional law professor.
If he did know, then perhaps that is even worse.
Added at 5:45 PM 4/10/2012
A defense of Obama's comments can be found in The New Republic article:
Yes, Obama's Comments on the Court Made Sense
.
While a logical belief system would have to allow for the possibility that the President did not know he was wrong, the common us of the word believe does not require proof. It requires only a compelling set of facts or circumstances.
ReplyDeleteSo, I believe he knew he was wrong (the other option is to believe he knows less of constitutional law than I do).
It gets even worse. Since the words were spoken as fact it would seem that the President thought that his words would be believed by us (the small brains).
A defense of Obama's comments can be found in The New Republic article:
ReplyDeleteYes, Obama's Comments on the Court Made Sense
In the sense that O’s statement was intended to further O’s agenda it does indeed “make sense”. However, in the larger meaning of “making sense” Mr. Cohn’s comments would be semi compelling if I had not heard (and seen) O’s actual statement.
ReplyDeleteTom, as I read your last post I couldn't help but wonder why a President would intentionally say anything that would not further his agenda. He campaigned on his agenda and he got elected. Should he then throw that agenda out the window and begin furthering someone else's agenda? And I say this about all Presidents. I don't really know how the word agenda got such a negative connotation. I hate meetings but the worst ones are the ones that don't have an agenda. I remember after Bush got reelected and he was saying that his reelection was evidence that the American people wanted him to pursue what he believed was right and he was going to spend that political capital doing just that. He didn't use the word agenda but...
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for the link Wayne. I was watching when the President was saying those things and Cohn's points are valid. I did not know at the time anything about Lochner, but it doesn't take very much research to find that Lochner has become a generic term for the battle that was going on with the Supreme Court and those who were pro governmental regulation during the earlier part of the Depression? I'm not trying to defend what he said but I think there is some evidence that Cohn has a fairly good insight into the shorthand that O was using when he used the term Lochner.