I am still torn on this one. The idealist in me thinks that the voters should be forced to correct what the legislators they elect do. But, I fear that we are far too gone for that. So, we leave it to the whims of nine men and women who we hope will be able to decide issues fairly despite their all too political appointments.

"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," Obama said.

What "strong majority"? Pelosi had to pass it by resorting to the budget reconciliation gimmick...

I'm not familiar with the legal system to know for sure, but it was my understanding that "Judicial review", meaning looking at law, legal actions from ANY source is EXACTLY what the supreme court is in place, in fact exists, to do.

Actually, that function is not spelled out in the Constitution. See my comments with Rob regarding Marbury v. Madison. The SCOTUS has specific constitutional jurisdiction over disputes between states and I seem to recall a few other areas. Ruling on the constitutionality of legislation is a power/function that the SCOTUS decided that it had for itself.

Why someone would say "This is completely unprecedented" is absolutely beyond me, well other than to try to paint a negative decision, one that does not agree with his position as "Activist" and to turn the populous that supports him against the supreme court because they don't know any better.

The following people would say something like that:

1. People who are ignorant with respect to the Consitution
2. Partisan political hacks who think their audience is ignorant with respect to the Constitution and do not expect to be held accountable for the comment or don't care

I thought the same thing. I don't know how he said it with a straight face.

I am thinking that Obama knows a bit more about constitutional law than all of the yahoos in the LR combined.

The term lame duck President isn't even fitting, as it implies that he actually had done something of positive note prior to the recognition that he will never win a second term.

Were you watching the same Democratic primaries that we were during the 2008 election. Both candidates were so bloodied all the pundits were worried it would carry over to the General Election. Mixed polling supported that same idea. The democratic party was so fractured the only common bond was a hatred of Bushed that carried onto the Republican Party as a whole. Even then you had record turnout on both sides. Obama being getting the most votes in history but only narrowling defeating McCain's 3rd most votes in history run in the general population.In otherwords, it is the same game. We have no idea until the conventions. And Obama seems to be doing a good job at alienating moderates which he will need to win since it is unlikely he will get the same enthusiasm from college students and people who have never voted before. Hope and change won't work this time. Also, the general numbers don't and never do matter. The state by state numbers do and as we have already discussed, Obama is in real trouble when you look at state to state numbers.

I agree. I think it is going to be closers than both sides think. Shades of 2000 maybe. Just think of the uproar if it goes to SCOTUS again.

Which only suggests he is intentionally misrepresenting the facts in order to demonize the court. That doesn't make him any better, it makes him a deceiver.

Intentionally misrepresenting facts? How about giving a qualified legal opinion?