I ran across this piece at the Daily Beast this morning and my forehead is mildly sore from all the times it hit my desk in frustration while reading it.
The author tied himself or herself up in more knots than Carney did yesterday at his presser. Invoking Reagan and FDR side by side to cover President Obama’s behind was something I am sure they thought would be viewed as bold and brave. They were wrong.
Knowing even a bit about history surrounding FDR, one would know that he was a fan of getting his own way. Using him as an example reinforces the argument that Obama was questioning the Court’s authority to do the very job they are appointed for. As for the Reagan quotes linked, all one has to do is actually visit the link and read the full text. Reagan was not speaking to the Court but rather about it – Obama was talking directly to them. This time, they are not sitting in the front row at the State of the Union unable to speak up. Fair warning.
What made the article for me was the over-sized font statement section, clearly meaning to be dramatic but really blows their own article out of the water:
“We need to know what Obama’s views are, because they count more than ours do; presidents actually get to appoint judges who agree with them.”
I couldn’t find the author and neither could some of the folks commenting. One such comment summed up quite a bit of what I thought of the piece myself. SCfromNY – I like the cut of your jib:
FDR’s fight with the Court, culminating in the Court packing scheme, is not generally regarded as one of the high points of his administration. And as for him not “expecting to influence the Court, at least not directly,” I’m sure it’s a coincidence that the Court changed its mind on New Deal legislation after FDR unveiled the Court packing plan.
That quote from Reagan was telling, because he was discussing judges usurping the normal mechanisms of government through the creation of new rights out of nothingness, and often using those invented rights to overturn decades, and in some cases centuries, of policies. A man who doesn’t think the courts are just making stuff up with no regard to what the Constitution actually says does not appoint Robert Bork to the the Supreme Court.
As for Obama and what the article claims is his “eagerness to engage in an extended discussion about the Constitution” all I can say is, has the author actually been watching the debate over the ACA? Obama, like Nancy “Are you serious” Pelosi and his various shills on TDB hasn’t engaged in ANY discussion, much less an “extended” one, about the Constitution, preferring instead to act like a petulant five-year-old stamping his feet and insisting everything he wants to do is unconstitutional, end of story, and how dare anyone disagree with him. And he’s behaved like this before: Obama did not simply have “the audacity to mention the Citizens United ruling in the presence of the people who decided the case,” he ripped into them in a venue at which they could not respond. and flat out lied when doing it.
In that Obama is very much like FDR: both behaved with a degree of spoiled brattiness that would embarrass Veruca Salt. Here’s hoping the Court gives him a well-deserved spanking and sends him to bed without supper.