More proof that the vaunted Constitutional law professor isn't all that sharp on Constitutional law (or checks and balances):
The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."
It is one thing to argue for judicial restraint and legislative supremacy; quite another to argue that the Court should defer unconditionally to Congress when a matter of Constitutional law is raised. This seems to be a deliberate political strategy by Obama to make the Court a campaign issue if Obamacare is deemed unconstitutional.
Courts do matter a lot as any conservative will tell you; but Obama's stated position on this matter makes him look unversed in the area of law in which he is supposed to have expertise. It is not unprecedented for the Court to limit the Commerce Clause in the modern era. They did during the Clinton years in the Lopez decision.
Also noteworthy is that the President failed to directly address the Constitutional issue at hand and instead offered a weak political response. Further, the "political court" argument fails to acknowledge that the four liberal Justices also tend to vote in lockstep.
It will be interesting to see the Justice Department forced to rebuke the President in writing, but he asked for it.