Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Editorial

Obama and judicial review

Conservatives took great relish this week in attacking President Barack Obama for some ill-considered observations regarding the Supreme Court and its role in reviewing the administration's health care reform law. One would think that the nation's highest court had never been criticized before — or that the president's remarks had been something more than political spin in the first place.

Two things Mr. Obama said this week clearly weren't true. First, he suggested that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn a federal law. And second, he claimed that health care reform had been approved by a "strong" majority of a democratically elected Congress. Well, an elected Congress, yes, but it was actually approved by a narrow, mostly party-line vote.

Still, one would think from the reaction in some quarters that the president had threatened a takeover of the judicial branch. Mr. Obama wisely clarified his remarks one day later to note that, of course, the court has authority to review any law passed by Congress but what would be unprecedented would be to veer so far from past legal interpretations of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause as to toss out the Affordable Care Act.

Was the president's speech even an attempt to pressure the court? If so, it was spectacularly ill-timed, as it's likely the court made its decision in private deliberations several days earlier. In reality, it was the nation's chief executive exercising his own Constitutionally-protected right to express an opinion about a law that he believes in passionately — just like he did when he criticized the Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision during his 2011 State of the Union Address, something that also made conservatives (including some on the court) apoplectic.

Should presidents and members of Congress be prohibited from expressing an opinion about the third branch of government? Surely, that's the scariest possibility of all — that the men and women in black robes should not only have lifetime appointments but should be immune from criticism from elected officials, let alone the general public.

How quickly we forget the "Impeach Earl Warren" movement of the 1960s or President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to stack the courts. There's always been a tension between branches of government; the system was designed that way. Indeed, the loudest critics of the courts (Judicial "activism," anyone?) have been the very conservatives who are so faux-outraged now.

Yet that didn't stop 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith and two fellow Republican appointees on the bench from demanding theU.S. Justice Department produce a 3-page, single-spaced memo affirming the court's right to review legislation for its constitutionality. If it was an attempt to embarrass the administration, it backfired as it simply made Judge Smith appear thin-skinned, self-aggrandizing, petulant, and, frankly, partisan.

President Obama misspoke (somewhat embarrassingly so for a former law professor), but he clarified his remarks one day later. One can hardly blame the president for expressing support in his signature bill or in observing the considerable precedent on his side — a point made by numerous constitutional scholars since before the measure was approved two years ago.

Clearly, the incident falls well short of the "constitutional crisis" that the more breathless right-wing commentators have suggested in recent days. If every ill-considered remark is going to produce such pretend-outrage, Lord help the American public when gaffe-prone Mitt Romney's campaign is in full gear. Better break out the tranquilizers now.

Here's an idea. Could everyone agree to engage in a genuine debate about issues of importance affecting the American people without all the fake victimization and excess outrage between now and November? Voters know a temper tantrum when they hear one, so all the Sturm und Drang of recent days won't be missed.

Meanwhile, it would be wise for all involved to wait until the Supreme Court actually makes a decision before second-guessing it. That's likely only a couple of months away. And you can bet that whatever criticism judges felt this week, it will pale compared to the outpouring that will accompany that decision — no matter how the justices rule.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Health exchange turnaround
    Health exchange turnaround

    We'll cut Rep. Andy Harris some slack for his continued insistence that Maryland's health insurance exchange is a train wreck. After so mercilessly (and justifiably) pounding the O'Malley administration for the exchange's performance, it's got to be a reflex by now to view whatever news comes...

  • Obamacare is a costing Md.
    Obamacare is a costing Md.

    In response to Dan Rodricks column on Rep. Andy Harris and his opposition to Obamacare ("As Harris votes again for repeal, constituents get Obamacare," Feb. 5), it is one thing to point out the multitudes of people being signed up for Obamacare in the 1st District but quite another to suggest...

  • CareFirst's surprise birthday gift
    CareFirst's surprise birthday gift

    I got an unexpected present after turning 70 in December — a 35 percent premium increase on my Medigap insurance from CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield.

  • Md. health exchange a home run for consumers
    Md. health exchange a home run for consumers

    The Sun's coverage of the Orioles' Adam Jones participating in health outreach is a good starting point to discuss the home run for consumers that is health reform in Maryland ("Adam Jones premieres health exchange radio ad," Jan. 30). Let's face it, Maryland's insurance marketplace has not...

  • Medicaid helps elderly, disabled
    Medicaid helps elderly, disabled

    As a health care professional, I would like to clarify a comment made in The Sun's editorial concerning Medicaid in Maryland ("A risky cut to Medicaid," Jan. 26).

  • Obamacare has raised costs
    Obamacare has raised costs

    I read with interest the news regarding the increased cost of drugs for those who have signed on with the Affordable Care Act. I am one of those who went from a co-pay of zero to a monthly cost of $299.62 for medication to control a chronic illness, ulcerative colitis. There is no cure and...

  • Psychiatrists aren't the only ones who provide mental health services
    Psychiatrists aren't the only ones who provide mental health services

    In response to your article concerning the dearth of psychiatrists in the area ("Health reform spotlights shortage in Md. of psychiatrists," Jan. 27), this is true, but you forgot to mention that there are other providers who treat mental health issues. For example, psychologists and social...

  • What's the bang for our health exchange buck?
    What's the bang for our health exchange buck?

    The article, "Health exchange enrolls over 100,000 people" (Dec. 17), was informative, and I hope reporter Meredith Cohn has a follow up.

Comments
Loading