Supreme Court

"The Obama Administration Continues to Make Legal Arguments That Don't Pass the Smell Test."


Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro highlights the Obama administration's dismal performance so far this term at the U.S. Supreme Court. He writes:

As the world awaits the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare, there's a larger story that the pundits are missing: the court's rejection of the Obama administration's increasingly extreme claims on behalf of unlimited federal power.

This term alone, the high court has ruled unanimously against the government on religious liberty, criminal procedure and property rights. When the administration can't get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of the law, that's a sign there's something wrong with its constitutional vision.

Read all about it here.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Walker Survives, Cali Cigarette Tax Hike Nixed, Philly Sued over Homeless Feeding Regulations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Noted Constitutional Law Scholar Barack Obama were arguing these cases in person there would be no contest.

    1. In other words, the same outcome.

    2. The justices, even those whom he appointed, obviously cannot grasp his superior insights into what the Constitution really means.

      1. That makes ten of us!

        (C’mon squirrels, let it through on the third try…)

  2. They’re losing these cases because the Republicans are outspending them.

    1. OK, we close the internets for today – this comment won.

  3. I think that once out of office, Obama will andle for a Supreme Court appointment. It’s been done before.

    1. I think that once out of office, Obama will andle for a Supreme Court appointment. It’s been done before.

      Was the previous case a success or failure as a SCJ? Because we know how this one would work out.

      1. Taft was considered by many to be much better suited to the Chief Justiceship than the Presidency. He himself professed to be more competent at it and to enjoy the Chief Justiceship more. I think there are many who would say similar things about Obama. The competency thing, not so much, and I have a feeling I’d disagree witg many of a Justice Obama’s opinions, but there’s no question that Obama is more suited to Ivory-tower wielding of judiciary power than executive duties.

        1. I disagree. Being a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t provide the opportunities for saoking up adulation and general ego-stroking that being an elected politician does.

          One thing Obama has never shown is any appetite for actual work, or any sort of intellectual appetite. I think he’d be miserable as a Justice (in every sense).

          1. I said, “ivory-tower wielding of judicial power,” not judicial work. He would have a staff to handle all the “research” needed to suppprt his predetermined conclusions.

  4. “a larger story that the pundits are missing”

    They are not “missing” anything, they are *willfully choosing to ignore* the plain text of the Constitution and the limits it places on the Federal Government.

  5. Don’t distract us with fact. The narrative is that a bunch of wild-eyed far right judicial activists are re-writing constitutional law, implementing a political agenda, and repealing the New Deal by accepting extremist arguments that any thinking human being know to be nothing more than “words.”

  6. The Constitution is just an temporary inconvenience…../#47699730

  7. These guys are not making a whole lot of sense man, I mean like seriously.

  8. To be fair, if Ron Paul were president he’d probably have a hard time getting a single SCOTUS justice to agree with his constitutional vision too.

    But he’s not a leg-thrill inducing articulate Constitutional scholar like BO.

  9. Ron Paul wouldn’t have much agreement in the Supreme Court, because over the past century, the SC has progressively removed much of the restraint placed on the other two branches, as well as on their own. Despite the clear intent of the framers to prevent Federal over reach, and the many and clear statements they included attempting to prevent it, the three branches have whittled away at those restraints until they barely exist.

    We’re in trouble, and all the feds are going to do about it is work to further increase their power and control.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.