Maybe he forgot that he appointed two of those "unelected officials". Or maybe the man touted as a "Constitutional scholar" forgot that the judiciary is the third branch of our government and on equal footing with the Executive and Legislative branches.
And, he did it in front of the President of Mexico and Prime Minister of Canada during a press conference. Classy. They must have both had a hearty private laugh about that one.
The Constitutional scholar-in-chief said that should the Supreme Court overturn Obamacare, it would be an "unprecedented" move. Um, no, Professor Obama.
“Ultimately, 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,” the president said.
Going back to Marbury vs Madison and concept of judicial review, overturning Obamacare, would, in fact, not be unprecedented at all.
After all, the Supreme Court has been overturning laws — which necessarily have been passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress — since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison decision. By this count citing the Government Printing Office, the court declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional between 1789 and 2002, which works out to one about every 16 months. Which strikes me as “precedented.”
And for Obama now whining that any overturning by the Supreme Court would have to be due to "activist" judges, there is this:
Now, let’s look at a relevant law the Supreme Court previously overturned — the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, voided in the United States v. Lopez decision in 1995 (which also concerned the Commerce Clause and which was cited by the plaintiffs in their challenge to Obamacare). That act was part of the broader Crime Control Act of 1990, which was so strongly supported that it passed the Senate by a voice vote and the House by a vote of 313-1.
That action was taken in a liberal leaning Supreme Court. So, again, no new precedent would be taken. Shouldn't a Constitutional scholar know this stuff?
And, if the ruling comes down with a 5-4 ruling, wouldn't both sides be blamed equally, if the complaint is that ideology was behind the vote?