Obama: Supreme Court striking down law would be “unprecedented”

This word, “unprecedented”. It doesn’t mean what Barack Obama seems to think it means.

This was Obama today:

“I am confident 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.”

Huh? It would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn a law passed by Congress? In which universe?

The Supreme Court has had the power of judicial review since Marbury v Madison was decided in 1803. That’s 209 years of precedent Between then and 2002, more than 158 acts of Congress have been overturned by the court. Or, as Kyle Wingfield calculates, one every sixteen months.

But maybe Obama means it would be unprecedented for a law passed by a “strong majority” to be overturned? But that doesn’t make sense, either. ObamaCare barely passed Congress. And other overturned laws, such as the Gun-Free School Zones Act, passed by overwhelming majorities.

There’s simply no way to look at Obama’s statement and conclude it’s factually accurate. The former “constitutional law professor” has again demonstrated shocking ignorance of American legal history. And we’re not talking obscure history. We’re talking crap even the casual observer would know.

It’s time to consider whether Obama is: A) lying, or B) is really this ignorant of American history. The answer isn’t exactly clear. I’d actually prefer it to be the former if only because the latter would be so damn depressing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>