Supreme Meltdown- After Rough Week for 0bamacare Supporters in High Court, President Obama Lashes Out At Supreme Court Justices

With last week's rendezvous before the Supreme Court in the books, the Administration's ability to convince the nine justices that the Patient Protection and Affordability Act- better known as 0bamacare- is indeed constitutional seems to have burned out before it could even begin. Many of 0bamacare's supporters blamed a lackluster performance on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for its poor showing before the Supremes. To quote Iowahawk- they seemed more upset at Verrilli's inability to polish a turd than any substantive defense of 0bamacare.

As the hearings adjourned, it appeared as though the only questions were would only the individual mandate be struck down or the entire bill, even though it was expected that the panel wouldn't announce their decision until mid-June.

However, the inevitability of the anticipated ruling seemed to be confirmed on Monday when President Obama lashed out at the conservative justices on the Supreme Court during a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian PM Stephen Harper at the White House.

"Ultimately, I am 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 at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.

Interestingly, President Obama didn't seem this worked up over unelected federal judges striking down Oklahoma's anti-sharia law, California's Proposition 8 and key portions of Arizona's SB 1070. Those were either passed through ballot initiatives or elected state representatives- all of them being passed by a wider margin than 0bamacare was.

President Obama claims that the Supreme court- a body that deliberates on the legality and constitutionality of various laws, rules and regulations since its inception- striking down 0bamacare would be 'unprecedented', yet legal scholars say that it's rare for a sitting President to initiate a verbal confrontation with the justices on the high court. The bellicose nature of Obama's attack on the enumerated powers involving the Supreme court led some to speculate that one of the justices had leaked the case's outcome to the White House over the weekend.

Not everybody in the federal court system was taking Obama's uninformed scolding lying down. On Tuesday, in direct response to the President's remarks, a three judge panel on the 5th circuit court ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page report over whether or not the administration believes the Supreme Court has the right to strike down a federal law [at face value, this has all the makings of a college professor rebuking an obnoxious know-it-all student and giving him an additional assignment to turn in- NANESB!].

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

Not surprisingly, Smith's retort has been called into question by a number of judicial 'experts' who didn't see anything wrong with Obama's confrontational remarks on Monday.

The three page homework assignment report, given to DOJ counsel Dana Lydia Kaersvang, is due on Thursday.