So our Constitutional Law Lecturer of a President has decreed a new metric of Constitutionality.
According to him, the Supreme Court should not strike down a law if it is sufficiently popular and was passed by a high enough margin. To do so would thwart the will of the people.
And what law was he talking about? Why Obamacare which passed by a mere 7 votes in the House, 21 in the Senate, both on pure party votes, and is still underwater in public polling with a majority of the nation thinking it will be repealed and at least a plurality thinking it's unconstitutional.
That, is what Obama thinks was "passed by strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" and would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if overturned.
Pardon me for being a lay person, but I thought that popularity and number of votes wasn't a factor in the Constitutionality of a law?
It doesn't matter how the law is pushed across the finish line does it? Once it's over it's sacrosanct and the ratchet tightens one more kink.
It's not like there's been a steady erosion of separation of powers at work here. Standing on the shoulder of giants here.
Though we're starting to see blowback. From the GOP and judges: Court of Appeals Demands Obama's Lawyer Answer Whether Courts Have Power To Strike Down Federal Law Or Not.
And to cheer you up, PJTV's Trifecta has the video of Obama's comments and some hilarious commentary on it.