A week or so later, I am still kind of sputtering over a comment dropped from the lips of our dear President, Barack Obama. Rather a thinly-disguised attempt, I think, to muzzle a potentially damaging outcome from the Supreme Court. His words were: “For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
I am fairly sure, even though nowhere near an expert, that the Founding Fathers of these United States of America, ensured that the three branches of government; the legislative, the judicial, and the executive, were separated for very good reason. That tyranny and despotism could not reign in this country.
Is the judicial branch of the government, in the form of the Supreme Court of the United States, not in its very existence to ensure that unjust and unconstitutional laws are struck down? I am not saying that their law that President Obama is lobbying here to uphold is unconstitutional, but that the President is very wrong to send such a pointed message to another branch of government.
The Supreme Court should be allowed to work out its stances on legislation and legal precedent without, as they say, fear or favor. They must be afforded the opportunity to discuss and debate this case before them without an elected official bullying them into compliance, that they may, or may not agree with. That is their duty.
