I watched – several times – President Obama’s absurd statement on the Supreme Court’s obligation to endorse his humongous health care bill. He proved yet again that he is grossly arrogant, utterly ignorant, a shameless liar, or perhaps all three. It is now abundantly clear that this man deserves the re-election vote of virtually no American.
By now, you know that the President claimed that if the Supreme Court were to overturn the misnamed Affordable Care Act, it would be historically unique. You’re also quite aware that overturning would be a very ordinary act, having taken place almost 200 hundred times; after all, even 8th grade students have heard of Marbury vs. Madison. However, there would truly be something unique about overturning this law – because it’s Barack Obama’s law. How could mere mortals consider themselves worthy of sitting in judgment of his law? And so, we witness this pathetic act of hubris by the President.
The President doesn’t believe that he could possibly be wrong because he’s convinced that what is written in these 2,700 pages of confusing, controlling, and sometimes contradictory rules and regulations is decent and righteous. Isn’t that all that matters? Didn’t the President make clear in his appointment of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan that empathy was just as important as their knowledge of the law?
During the ensuing firestorm, the godfather of Obama’s legal philosophy jumped to his defense. You may not have heard of Ronald Dworkin, but the Journal of Legal Studies claims that he is the second most widely quoted legal scholar of the 20th century. He is credited with creating the theory of “law as Integrity,” which advocates interpreting the U.S. Constitution in terms of “justice and fairness.” In his opinion, every ruling should be based not on the written text or case law, but on the morality of the times. This is why someone like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg can travel to a foreign country and state that our Constitution is essentially outdated. Other, newer constitutions provide more latitude for omnipotent elites to establish benevolent programs on behalf of the masses. After all, they know better.
Dworkin laid out his argument in the New York Review of Books. He had previously written that “The popular assumption that justices can decide constitutional cases by just consulting the text of that document and the intentions of its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century authors, without relying on their own sense of justice, is simplistic and wrong.”