Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented"
Carolyn Kaster
(CBS News) -- President Obama expressed confidence Monday the Supreme Court will not overturn his signature health care law when it issues a ruling later this year on the constitutionality of the landmark legislation, arguing it would be "unprecedented" for the court to make such a dramatic power play over Congress.
"I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House when asked about the case at press availability after meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Mr. Obama said a decision by the nation's top court to throw out the law would be unprecedented and precisely the kind of action that many conservatives for years have criticized as overreaching "judicial activism."
"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance.
The Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments in the case last week and is expected to issue its decision later this year, possibly at the end of the court's session in June.The president characterized the debate over the law as a "political" one, and said most constitutional law scholars believe the law should not be thrown out.
"That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law even if they are not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency," said Mr. Obama, himself a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.
"I would just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have 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. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.
On the most controversial aspect of the law, a requirement that everyone purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, Mr. Obama said there is more than just a legal argument to be made.
"I think it's important, I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get healthcare," the president said.
"So, there is not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this. And I hope that is not forgotten in this political debate," he added.
Popular in Politics
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 69 Comments
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 127 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Bill Ayers: Obama should be tried for war crimes
- FBI: Surveillance info helped reveal subway, stock exchange bombings 213 Comments
- Treasury secretary's loopy signature is now less loopy
Unprecedented? No. Marbury v. Madison comes to mind, followed by dozens, if not hundreds of similar cases.
Strong majority? No. 219-212 isn't a strong majority. It's barely scratching it.
Democratically elected Congress? Who cares? That's irrelevant if it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court exists to make sure laws follow the Constitution. Again, something that idiot you stupid Americans elected in 2009 should know, since, well, he supposedly taught constitutional law.
And here's the really funny part: Obamacare will work for a few years. Then it will go down the same road as similar systems in the EU. You will NOT get the best healthcare. You will get the cheapest, since otherwise it can't be financed. If you want top stuff, you will have to pay yourselves anyway.
Mrs. Zann, let's say for a moment that there are more men in the US than women. And tomorrow, the men (being the majority in this example) vote that women can no longer vote.
What would be wrong with that? I mean, the majority decided, right?
--------------
LOL...Mortar...there are some things no constitution or government on earth can change!
Like how you wouldn't be here without a woman!
Like how women have other ways much more affective, to fight back against controlling men! LOL!
The idea that a woman should have to go to her boss and ASK the boss IF they approve of birth control, so the insurance company will cover it.....that's not controlling?
Liberals believe in the strength of the group.
Conservatives believe in the strength of the individual.
Our country was founded upon the ideals of the individual having unalienable rights...and for the short time we are here on this planet, we have the right to pursue happiness in a way that we define.
Liberals want that happiness defined for the individual...and then want others to insure that happiness happens.
Two totally opposite ways of doing things.
----------------------
The thing is Mortar - you can't just stick people into a category!
I know I don't fit into your little stereotypes there! I believe in the strength of individuals AND the strength of a group! If we would break issues down and tackle them ONE at a time, I think we'd find more of us agree than we think!
You think in terms of denying rights.
I think in terms of NOT denying rights!
That things have changed? Are you afraid if we take a vote that gays can marry, and you'll be forced to accept that they exist?
Are you afraid you'll no longer be able to Control Women?
What is it you are all so afraid of?
Jesus disagrees with you, Mrs. Zann.
------------------
LMAO!
And when did he tell you that Mortar?
Well maybe I disagree with Jesus then.
Cuz to me the heart is where Love and Caring come from.
The head is where Greed comes from.
ZANN/RANGER 2012 : )
Zann-Zel, but in both instances, that insurance customer costs the insurance company a lot more than say a responsible driver, or a person who has no prior conditions.....so the insurance company should be compelled to lose money on those customers ? how would they stay in business, getting tiny premium dollars, and then shelling out huge dollars for treatments of severe pre-existing conditions
----------------------
Well what are poor people with pre-existing conditions supposed to do George? I don't intend to just say oh well, I'll just die, since I got this pre-existing condition! I plan to fight the insurance companies & the government if I have to - for Fair Treatment!
Nope. Jesus would never be for what liberals want to do...FORCE people.
-----------
Jesus would never say "Can't heal you, you have a pre-existing condition!"