NYT Op-Ed advocates giving President a precedent for ignoring Supreme Court. …Wait, what?

As one of my colleagues noted privately, expect this potential strategy to get some traction in the coming months: “If the administration loses in King [v. Burwell], it can announce that it is complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment — but only with respect to the four plaintiffs who brought the suit.” …Sure, Democrats.  Give the President that precedent.  Give ALL future Presidents that precedent.

You know, somebody once said to me: never assume that your opponents will never win another election.  Apparently, the New York Times has never heard of this commonplace, rational attitude.  Certainly nobody who oversees their Op-Ed page has…

Moe Lane

PS: Note that I am skipping over the legal aspects of this; I have no idea whether it’s good law or not, so I decline to comment on that. But the political fallout… yeah, that I can assess.  Hoo, yeah, I can.


  • Antoninus Pius says:

    hopefully he’ll not decide to ignore the 22nd amendment and dare congress to do something about it.

    • Texas 1911 says:

      Ignoring the 22nd Amendment would be difficult. We had an election during the Civil War with Confederate forces some 90 miles south of the Capitol. We had elections during WWII. Not even a declaration of martial law would suffice. Bill and Hillary would be appoplectic and give all the anti-dictatorship democrats plenty of reason to side with elections w/o Obama on the ballot. We have never given the military cause to intervene in political affairs and such a move by Obama could have enormous unforseen consequences. I cannot imagine such a move, even by Obama.

  • bensdad00 says:

    22nd amendment, silly thing. If this goes like 2008, judges will decline to stop any challenge based on it by saying no-one has standing to file suit.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      Gentlemen, remember how silly the BDS people sounded in 2007? Let’s not succumb to the same condition, OK? 🙂 – Besides, what makes you think that the Democrats WANT Obama in office past 2017? He’s been pure hell on their job prospects.

      • Antoninus Pius says:

        no one claims the dems would want it, but that’s how you get a type D non-charismatic dictatorship…i dunno. just a bad vibe i’ve been getting. sort like 1966-68. hopefully they’ll be content with stealing the silverware like the clintons did.

      • Herp McDerp says:

        Besides, what makes you think that the Democrats WANT Obama in office past 2017?
        Sure, Obama is an albatross around the Democrats’ necks. But if he can establish a precedent, some future “Progressive” president will be able to push things a little further, and then further still. And eventually we could end up with a “one man, one vote” situation, with Lord Snapcase as the one man.
        And the Times is perfectly predictable in its position on this matter. Look at their editorials on the filibuster: When RethugliKKKans control Congress, a filibuster by the Democrats is the Last Best Hope of Good Government. And when the Democrats control Congress, any attempt by the Party of Absolute Evil to use the filibuster to obstruct what the Democrats say is necessary must be condemned by all sane, honest, morally superior people such as themselves.

    • midwestconservative says:

      I don’t see how Obama wins a 3rd term. Even if he were eligible to run for one. He ain’t FDR. The real reason he won in 2012 is because of how limp wristed Romney ran his campaign.
      America ain’t going to vote for Mr. Lame Duck nor are they going to vote for the current situation in which the entire world is on fire.

      • acat says:

        The idiots in Iowa (and elsewhere) nominate Jeb, who runs a Romney-style campaign, with the bonus of a major scandal..
        Clinton steps aside and backs … ??? … who wins broad-based support…
        My nightmare scenario is Hillary stepping aside for a *moderate* Dem instead of a hardcore nightmare Dem because Jeb has less appeal than a pile of dog {excrement}.

  • bensdad00 says:

    Ok, snark 2.0 – –

    He can ignore any constitutional piece he likes with Speaker Boehner – (D) Ohio, around to keep impeachment charges from being filed.

  • midwestconservative says:

    So Future GOP president will ignore Roe v. Wade. Awesome!

  • jaytrain says:

    Since an utter charlatan and a pathetic nitwit in the bargain , Hillary , is set to win the presidency, I don’t see how the R’s in fact ever do win another election . You can play Blue Wall Electrical Cottage for the fine points , but the NYT wager seems to be money . In retrospect King George was a pretty decent chap , for a king anyway . mb it has all been big mistake , this Republic thing

  • Robert Mitchell Jr. says:

    I remind you Mr. Lane, of the NYT’s position on the Electoral College, when it looked like Gore was going to win it, but not the Majority vote, and then when we found it was the reverse. For the Left, it would seem there is only the eternal “NOW”…….

  • garfieldjl says:

    Moe, this is really quite simple, Obama like many liberals think the rules don’t apply to them. The rules only apply to Republicans and the peasantry…

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by