Politics and Politicians

El Presidente Obama cranks up the spin cycle, preparing for the possible demise of ObamaCare at the hands of the Supreme Court:

"I'm 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," Obama said on Monday. "And 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. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Let's digest that statement:

"I'm confident

We're off to a bad start already. Confidence is negatively correlated with competence.

Wait. What did I just say? You heard me. The more incompetent you are, the more likely you are to be confident in your abilities. Completely confident.

Let's see what La Wik has to say about confidence:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which the unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" (p. 1127).

Source: Dunning-Kruger Effect and Unskilled and Unaware

Returning to our regularly scheduled program:

that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law

Unprecedented? Really? The Supreme Court has been striking down legislation as unconstitutional since the early days of the Republic United States. While the SCOTUS has been eerily deferential to Congress when it comes to Commerce Clause jurisprudence since the days of the New Deal, striking down laws for exceeding constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce is hardly unprecedented. Unusual, perhaps. But not unprecedented.

What is unprecedented is the claim that Congress may dictate that a free human being can be compelled to purchase a product as a condition of living. Now that's a radical assertion.

Let's continue, shall we?

that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

In the Senate, the bill passed by a party-line vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with one senator (Jim Bunning) not voting.

It passed by a slim margin in the House of Representatives: 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.

I'm not sure how a brilliant constitutional professor of President Obama's caliber can call that a strong majority. Perhaps he's implying that only Democrats are democratically elected.

Moving right along...

Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism

Judicial activism is legislating from the bench (making up new laws.) Overturning laws that exceed constitutional authority is what the court is supposed to do.

Let's continue!

or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

What does he mean by 'duly constituted?' The Court's job is to determine whether the law passes constitutional muster -- whether the law is an exercise of valid, delegated, enumerated power contained within the Constitution, based on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented.

The Commerce Clause is not, and cannot be, a blank check that gives Congress unlimited power to control peoples' lives, despite the bogus jurisprudence since the New Deal. The Supreme Court has recently begun to prune back that tangled mess. Much more is yet to come.

If the Commerce Clause means what President Obama and much of Congress asserts it means, then our federal government has unlimited power to dictate the daily lives of Americans, and the entire Bill of Rights is meaningless. Is it?

Let's finish up. I'm getting hungry.

Well, this is a good example.

No, it's not. It's a crappy example.

And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

There he goes again: he's "pretty confident" -- well, at least he's not completely confident. And that's a good thing.

And having said all that, I suspect that he's merely doing what he does best of late: spinning things in order to gain maximum sympathy votes from his core constituency should the massively bogus ObeyMeCare legislation be struck down.

Questions, Questions

Lucy... you got some 'splainin to do:

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

[...]

"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Well, well... looks like we have a minor battle between the branches here.

Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

Looks like someone got a remedial homework assignment courtesy of the judicial branch.

I thought there was something oddly familiar about those photos of Warren Buffett receiving his reward.