There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”
...
And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”
Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettling-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html
It may surprise some of you to learn that I've actually been to cunt talk school. (It is the province of the comedian to call a spade a spade. Accept the practice or remove yourself from my theater. I will not care. It does not affect my bottom line, which is now, and has always been, zero.)
The cunt talk school I attended ten years ago was this internet outfit run by a constitutional law professor. A start-up, the school was unaccredited. I didn't care, as it was reward enough for me to learn the law. I didn't finish. I ran out of money or time or both. I have inquired of Senator Anthrax if he might pull some strings and get me into a real cunt talk school with full scholarship, room and board, and a modest stipend. I don't have an undergraduate degree and I have zero intention of getting one. The school in question will have to accommodate that, as well as my unflattering characterization of the legal sciences.
The doctrine of judicial review contemplates that legislation may be reviewed by the judiciary, a power I suppose the Constitution does not strictly confer.
In Justice Holmes' day, the judiciary may well have chosen to tread carefully. It was presumed that legislators soberly weighed the lawfulness of their pronouncements.
Standards have slipped. We're dealing now with pure animals who think it's okay to rape, torture, kidnap, and execute anyone, anywhere, for any reason. They codify this into their preverbal legal gruntings which aspire to the status of "law."
The utterances of a United States legislator are now to be considered, on their face, disgusting and unlawful.
A United States law now is presumed to be unconstitutional.
No human follows a United States law.
Full speed ahead. Review away.
