Don Quixote’s Thought for the Day: Obama and the Court

Why all the fuss about Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court?  He’s following in a proud tradition.  I’m reminded of Jackson’s classic line, “Mr Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it [some accounts add “if he can”].”  At least Obama hasn’t threatened to pack the Court.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Zhombre

    Well, DQ may be right.  Obama’s offensive may be entirely rhetorical.  The Empty Suit will flap but not make a move against the court.  I doubt he is accustomed to real adversity and thus unable to take substantive steps.  He and his minions engaged in  a brief rhetorical campaign against Fox New but lo and behold! last weekend the weasel Robert Gibbs was there on Fox News Sunday interviewed by Chris Wallace.

  • suek

    >>I’m reminded of Jackson’s classic line…>>
    Spoken at a SOTU speech???  I think the occasion for the comment was the basis for the fuss more than the comment itself.
    >>At least Obama hasn’t threatened to pack the Court.>>

  • Mike Devx

    You have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find a similar comment!  And I don’t think Jackson did this in as highly formal an atmosphere as a SOTU.  Even Roosevelt, who tried to pack the court, didn’t assault six elderly Justices sitting in a sea of applauding Democrats like that.   The elderly will again take notice of Obama’s crappy treatment of them.
    And Obama and his usual minions did this for such a small, small thing!  The unions contribute huge amounts of money in various ways, with 95% of it going to Democrats.  Corporations contribute more, but the % breakdown is about 55% to Republicans, 45% to Democrats (or it might even be 51-49, can’t remember.)   Durbin was speaking of this as if it were the end of the world!  Crazy.  All I want is complete openness and transparency of who and what is donating to which greedy, corrupt Congressman or Senator.  Of course, I’ll be glad to know who and what are donating to the HONEST po too, if anyone can identify an honest Congressman or Senator to me.  But openness and transparency are the key.  There are so many vigilant hawks in the blogosphere that transparency and openness on campaign donations, bills, debates, etc, are all we need.
    So Obama verbally assaults the Justices, sitting in a small group at the formal SOTU, in a manner never done before, and for such small potatoes as a minor political payoff.  It’s upsetting.  But really, actually, it’s tone deaf and kind of freaky.

  • Ymarsakar

    Obama’s a coward. All he has got is verbal violence.

  • Bookworm

    Good question.  I agree that it’s significant that you have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find precedent for such a direct attack — and Jackson wasn’t known for grace and dignity.  The forum was also a lousy place for such an attack, because the Justices were there as guests.

    The attack was also offensive because it was wrong at so many levels.  The ruling Obama attacked as not a piece of legislation.  Instead, it was framed as a constitutional free of speech that the Legislature had improperly restricted.  So Obama ended up sounding like a demagogue who is opposed to free speech.  He didn’t help himself when he got the facts and the law wrong.   Lastly, it was incredibly ungracious for all the Democrats to stand up and cheer a president’s attack on the Supreme Court.

    From start to finish, the whole thing was ungracious.  And really, it was emblematic of a speech that had no vision but was, instead, a series of statements that boil down to Obama denying culpability for the State of the Union and instead saying, almost indiscriminately, to Republicans, Democrats, Supreme Court justices, citizens, etc. “It’s all your fault.”  It was a mean-spirited, whiny speech, and the attack on the justices was just the most obvious indicator of those faults.

  • Don Quixote

    Jackson’s is just the most famous and most blatant.  And he actually and openly defied the Court, which Obama will not do.  I agree Obama and the Dems were ungracious, but did you really expect anything else?  What is surprising is how gracious both the Republicans and Obama were at their meeting the other day.  Anyway, the State of the Union Address is hardly a sacred event that has ever been free of partisanship. 

  • Mike Devx

    DQ #6:
    > What is surprising is how gracious both the Republicans and Obama were at their meeting the other day.

    Amen!  I hope they have at least a few more of these “talks” so that  I an American version of the Daniel Hannan moment can happen, when a GOP-er will stand up and deliver a rousing, partisan three-minute blistering but true speech to Obama that goes viral.

    It should happen, and if any of these so-called conservative men and women in Congress  had a spine, it would happen.  But I’m not holding my breath.  They’ve disappointed me far too often.

  • JKB

    Well, Obama chose to attack the Court on national television during a speech watched by what is arguably the best informed citizenry in the history of the Republic.  Obama has, in previous, statements, expressed opinions giving the impression of low opinion of of the Constitution and its limits.
    Obama was promoted as being a graduate of Harvard Law School, editor of the Harvard Law Review and as a professor in constitutional law at the Univ. of Chicago School of Law.  (What does it say about the Univ. of Chicago School of Law that one of their former professors would so consistently demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the subject he was employed to teach?)  Even given Obama’s lack of scholarship and non-repute as a lawyer, it is still expected he would have a better than layman’s appreciation for Constitutional rolls and the Rights enshrined in the Constitution.
    In sum, it was a big deal as a President trained and theoretically experienced in Constitutional law chose to attack a separate but equal branch of government for acting in accordance with their Constitutional mandate on a subject fundamental to the rights of the citizenry.  And he did it right in front of the whole country with nary a hint of embarrassment.

  • suek

    Glenn Beck had an excellent show yesterday on Fox News, on the development of Progressivism.  I have no idea if it will be available from online sources, but if it is, it’s definitely worth watching.
    He compares Obama to Woodrow Wilson, by the way, and it’s not a complimentary comparison in his opinion.  He also pointed out that there is a “Progressive xxx” (caucus, organization…I can’t remember the exact name used.   Like the Black Congressional xxxx), and at present, 11 out of 20 major committees are headed by members belonging to the Progressives, and they come from both parties.  In fact, one of the clips he  presented was McCain stating during his campaign that Teddy Roosevelt – definitely a progressive – was one of his models.  The “common ground” is often due to this fact.

  • Ymarsakar

    Old Hickory was a damn fine President.