Krauthammer: It would be partisan move for Democratic judges to uphold Obamacare
In response to President Obama’s bold assertion that the Supreme Court never overturns laws passed by Congress, Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer are not holding back.
Referring to an Agence France-Presse headline, “Combative Obama Warns Supreme Court On Health Law,” Steyn writes:
“Headlines in which the executive “warns” the courts are usually the province of places like Balochistan, where powerful Cabinet ministers are currently fuming at the Chief Justice’s determination to stop them kidnapping citizens and holding them for ransom.”
If President Obama is this much of a bully in his first term, imagine what he’ll be like when he has “more flexibility” after his “last election,” as he told the Russian president?
And Krauthammer says its pretty ironic for President Obama to attack the Court for overturning laws—when his party virtually worships the Roe v. Wade ruling that threw out abortion laws in 46 states.
Many commentators in the Ruling Elite have said a ruling against Obamacare woud be nothing more than judicial partisanship. Krauthammer brilliantly sees it the other way around:
“The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.” It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lockstep support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president – after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.”
Read Steyn here (about three pages/1,437 words).
… and Krauthammer here (don’t miss the last two lines ) (less than two pages/900 words).