Yawn: Obama shills for Obamacare
The Obamacare fail light is illuminated steadily and the President is trying to tell us—that is, the Supreme Court—that all is well. From Politico:
In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law.
A rare instance? Consider that the President is following the hallowed advice of his intellectual mentor, who gave him some advice—actually, a rule—on the issue at hand.
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
Although it would be exceedingly poor form, the President didn’t name the names of the Supreme Court justices in question.
Back to Politico:
Overturning the law would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
In the mind of the President, legislation and judicial decisions are only appropriate if they ratchet in one direction—to the left.
This means the President’s position on judicial activism depends on how the ruling rendered aligns with his worldview. If it aligns with his worldview, he’s down with judicial activism and nothing is said; if it doesn’t, it’s judicial activism (as a pejorative).
The President is sometimes described as a “constitutional scholar” (due to his part-time employment at the University of Chicago), despite a complete absence of evidence, that is, any academic writings, that would form a basis for such an assertion. Describing him as a constitutional scholar is a reflection on our societal trend towards credentialing and away from knowledge.