It’s Obama’s Country… The Supreme Court is Just Living In It

There are times when President Obama speaks that I honestly can’t believe I’m hearing such pompous, demeaning rhetoric coming from the man who holds the highest office in our nation. It’s often hard for me to sit through, not just because I disagree with him, but because of the audacity he displays by applying the very worst of motivations to those who don’t see things the way he does.

It’s one thing to explain why you support a policy or view, and why you think your opposition is wrong. It’s an entirely different thing to vilify and attack the legitimacy of those who question your decisions.

We saw such rhetoric during a press conference Monday when President Obama was asked by a reporter his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s negative reaction to his Obamacare healthcare mandate. Obama responded by demeaning the importance of the role of the Supreme Court, pointing out that the justices are an “unelected group of people” and claimed that it would be an unprecedented act of “judicial activism” if they had the gall to overturn his “duly constituted and passed law.”

I find such statements absolutely remarkable. Obviously, the president knows that one of the primary functions of the Supreme Court is to decide whether or not laws are constitutional. The notion that somehow the court’s decisions are invalid and irrelevant because justices aren’t elected to their positions by a public vote is absurd. He knows it’s absurd. But because they have the nerve to do their job and act as a check and balance to his power, he sees them as an enemy.

President Obama took the same view of the Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union address, after they overturned bans on corporate spending in political campaigns. With the justices sitting directly before him, he publicly shamed them in front of the world because they deemed constitutional a process that he categorized as a “threat to democracy.” Notably, the president fully embraced the new rights granted by that Supreme Court decision this February by endorsing a Super Pac supporting his re-election. Apparently, it’s okay to threaten democracy as long as it helps extend President Obama’s political career.

There’s certainly a stark contrast between Obama’s relationship with the Supreme Court and the one George W. Bush had when he was in office. As some might recall, the justices didn’t always come down on Bush’s side either.

In 2006, they ruled that President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered military war-crime trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The Associated Press called the ruling a “rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.” Bush was not happy with the decision but he respected it, vowing that he would work with Congress to achieve the necessary legislation to proceed with the military tribunals. Futhermore, he resisted the urge to demagogue the issue and assured the public that the Supreme Court’s decision would not result in detainees being set free.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against Bush again when they deemed that detainees held at Gitmo had a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. ABC News called the decision a “stinging defeat for the Bush administration.” Then presidential candidate, Barack Obama, lauded the decision as, “an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law.”

Senator Obama’s reaction to the ruling was particularly interesting because what the Supreme Court did was overturn the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which was an Act of Congress and signed into law by the president. The Supreme Court ruled that the MCA Act was unconstitutional. In other words, Obama was very much in favor of negating THAT duly constituted and passed law, but if the Supreme Court reaches the same conclusion with HIS Obamacare mandate, he’ll consider it to be an example of judicial activism.

In response to the 2008 ruling, President Bush disagreed with the Supreme Court but stated, “It’s a Supreme Court decision. We will abide by the decision.”

The Supreme Court also ruled against the Bush administration on EPA regulations and executive power over state courts. In none of these four cases did Bush ever vilify the justices our call into question their legitimacy. He respected the judicial branch as an equal branch of our federal government.

Additionally, President Obama stated in the Monday press conference that the Supreme Court needs to take into account the people who will be hurt if the benefits from Obamacare are suddenly stripped from them. By saying this, he has once again proclaimed himself to be the moral arbiter of our nation, declaring that those who disagree with him are in fact immoral. The reality, however, is that if he signed illegal legislation into law, he himself is to blame for the ramifications of its repeal. After all, if someone steels a car to give to their daughter as a high school graduation present, it’s not the big bad police who are to blame when the car is taken away from the daughter and returned to the owner.

Regardless, well all know that President Obama will try to pin the blame on everyone else. That’s what he does. And the media will most certainly help substantiate his claims to the American public.

Still, my hope is that even in a day and age where a good portion of the public has no real understanding of what’s going on in Washington, people (even those who view him favorably) have to be getting suspicious of this president’s routine proclamation that everyone who is obstructing him is illegitimate. That is, after all, the kind of philosophy we expect from a foreign dictator… not the esteemed leader of a free country.

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration (Computer Information Systems), and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. He is the author of the Sean Coleman Thriller series. His first novel, "From a Dead Sleep," is available at all major retailers. His second novel, "Blood Trade" is available for pre-order and will be released in Sept. 2015. John lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website:
  • Daniel

    THE MAN REALLY believes HE IS THE SMARTEST IN THE ROOM,his smugness AND arrogance are 2 things in a myraid of things I find VERY DISTURBING about POTUS. When he first ran for Prez. I don’t think anyone looked at his voting record, it looked as though YOU WEREN’T GOING TO GET OBAMA IN TROUBLE FOR ANY OF HIS VOTES., he would vote “PRESENT” isn’t that alot like kissing your sister?

  • terry



  • Mike Jackson

    The same rules that apply to everyone else seem not to matter to our adjunct Constitutional Scholar in Chief, particularly if they does not suit his purposes.  He takes this same approach to the Supreme Court.  He apparently believes their duty is to affirm him and ignore

    If the big “O” wins reelection this fall, what happens thereafter?  Suspending the 2016 election to maintain power, or will he somehow try to set aside this fall’s election in the event that voters elect someone else? 

    Emergency powers could allow this to happen.  However, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war did not prevent the 1864 election from taking place.

    Hopefully the Supreme Court will decide against Obamacare.  If it does not, what will BO do for an encore?

  • PA Davis

    BO wants to be King, and will stop at nothing to get his way. He’s a spoiled child that needs a scolding.

  • Rick Johnson

    and Hitler blamed the Jewish banker. Does anyone still think  this President believes in the Republic? I sure don’t.

  • Jonathan Andrew Sheen

    Back in November, Mitt Romney’s first campaign commercial was an out-and-out lie. He played a sound clip of President Obama saying, “If we talk about the economy, we will lose.” This recording was, of course, taken from then-candidate Obama quoting his opponent’s economic advisor. It was not the president speaking of his own campaign, it was the president quoting a Republican talking about his campaign.

    In this campaign, John Daily tells the exact same kind of scurrilous lie. It was outrageous when Romney, a political candidate, did it. It is simply damning and should be fatal to the career of a so-called journalist who does it.

    What the president said was, “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

    In short, he is clearly quoting a longstanding right-wing talking point, the trope of the anti-democratic spector of an activist judiciary, striking down laws legitimately passed by the people.

    But Daly tries to pin the phrase “unelected group” on the President as if it’s _his_ criticism of the Supreme Court, when — presuming Daly is sufficiently literate to understand clear English construction — it was clear to him that the President was quoting his long-time opponents.

    The ill-named “Right,” of course, has no problem with Judicial Activism when it seems likely to forward its own agenda. The GOP’s moral compass points only to itself, Anything, anything, is “right” if _they_ do it, and wrong if the _other_ guys do it.

    How sad that John Daly’s journalistic integrity is the same.

    • John Daly

      Wow Jonathan… That is some pretty creative spin that you’ve laid out there.  You’ve actually managed to blame our president’s own words on the Republicans. Good job! Obama would be proud of you. With a little more work, maybe you could find a way to blame Dick Cheney as well.

      • Wil

        Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of
        the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade,
        during a discussion on abortion:  Bush condemned “activist judges” who
        are “redefining marriage by court order.” In his 2004 State of the Union
        address, Bush criticized “activist judges” who, according to him, were
        “redefining marriage by court order”:

        is,  that kind of philosophy we expect from a foreign dictator… not the esteemed
        leader of a free country, applied to Reagan and Bush?
        In your mind only President Obama should be vilified for the same utterances,
        made by Reagan and Bush.  Aren’t you special!

    • Glen


      FYI the “Right” has no agenda other than to undo the harmful things done to our vitality as a nation by the left.  We are not activists by nature, but we will never run out of well-intended leftist messes to clean up.  Many of these leftists have been Republicans.  The threat is to our very existence as a solvent republic.  Your ideas do not result in utopia and your “moral compass” always points south.

    • Rick Johnson

      Mr. Sheen, you sound like Hitler blaming Poland for the German invasion of Poland. You’re a shining example of the 52.87%!

    • Jeffreydan

      “The ill-named “Right,” of course, has no problem with Judicial Activism when it seems likely to forward its own agenda. The GOP’s moral compass points only to itself, Anything, anything, is “right” if _they_ do it, and wrong if the _other_ guys do it.”
        Making a ruling that upholds the Constitution is not judicial activism. What un-Constitutional ruling did the GOP have no problem with?  

    • cmacrider

      Your inability to distinguish between “interpreting the Constitution” and “judicial activism” establishes either you are either illiterate or simply a victim of Obama’s propaganda.  In either case, you are hardly qualified to critique Mr. Daly’s articulate article.  (and I not you singularly fail to do so)

  • gdaylan

    Although the laws may be changed according to circumstances and events, yet it is seldom or never that the constitution itself is changed; and for this reason the new laws do not suffice, for they are not in harmony with the constitution. – Niccoló Machiavelli

  • AshSix

    Great synopsis, John.  Guess someone who resides along Pennsylvania Ave needs to read up on what checks and balances are all about.  The framers understood the importance of that relationship.  Too bad the leader of the free world doesn’t.