President Obama: Overturning Individual Mandate Would be "Unprecedented, Extraordinary Step"
President Obama (center) holds a press conference in the Rose Garden with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) and Mexican President Felipe Calderon (left).
April 2nd, 2012
03:55 PM ET

President Obama: Overturning Individual Mandate Would be "Unprecedented, Extraordinary Step"

President Obama’s day of international diplomacy was interrupted Monday when a reporter from Bloomberg asked him a question on domestic politics, inciting a strong defense of the president's signature health care reform legislation.

Standing with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon during a press conference in the Rose Garden, Obama was asked about the possibility that the individual mandate could be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

He responded by saying that he was confident the court would not take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step” of deeming the bill unconstitutional. He then pointed to the popular conservative talking point about the dangers of judicial activism, contending that if the Supreme Court threw out the mandate they would be circumventing the legislative process.

“I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've 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 - this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Here’s the president’s full answer:

I'm actually - continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.  And the reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it's constitutional.  That's not just my opinion, by the way.  That's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case.

I think it's important, because I watched some of the commentary last week, to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of pre-existing conditions. The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn't otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with pre-existing conditions who have health care right now because of this law.

Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a pre-existing condition. That's part of this law.

Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.

So that's just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn't even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it's fully implemented in 2014.

And I think it's important - and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care.

So there's - there's not only an economic element and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate.

Ultimately, 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.

And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've 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.  Well, this is a good example.  And I'm pretty confident that this - this court will recognize that and not take that step.

soundoff (120 Responses)
  1. Tracy

    Love that man... Too brilliant not to be re-elected. We still have your back Mr. President... Here comes your ARMY...

    April 2, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • John

      Whenever the GOP gets into trouble they go running to their friends on the Supreme court to help them out......How shameful......

      April 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
      • Steveo

        Huh? Do you even know the role of the judical branch of government?

        April 2, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
      • The REAL Truth

        Unfortunately of late.. yes! all to well. The Branch that elected Dubya, the group that gave us Citizens United and ruled that Corporations are *people*. Yeah, the Judical Branch and especially the SCOTUS needs to rule on law, not politics.
        It's a shame that has not happened in recent years.

        April 2, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
      • dontbow

        The dems go running a lot more just look at their record. chickens the lot of them. these tax dollar buffet laws that the dems keep coming up DO need to be struck down and fast.

        April 2, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
      • 1FreeWorld

        I am surprised that a CNN Writer mentioned the word Easter.

        Is Easter a Christian Holiday?

        I hope the White House is ok with that!

        Usual Suspects:
        There are all the usual suspects like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Clifford the Big Red Dog and the Cat in the Hat.

        I thought the Suspect was Je-sus and he started a good thing!


        What would Bugs Bunny Do?

        April 2, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
      • RealityBites

        One of the most covert, back door, pork loaded, shamefu laws ever passed by a single party majority holding a democratically elected Congress hostage. But I digress.., to the Supreme Court.

        April 3, 2012 at 8:19 am |
      • 1FreeWorld


        April 18, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Americanmexphil

      CNN forgot to tell the whole story. He basically threatened The Supreme Court. in His comment.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
      • rightytighty

        No, it would unprecedented for Congress to force people under penalty of a fine to buy a commercial product under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. And most likely unconstitutional concidering that way Obama is now acting out..

        April 3, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
      • demwit

        Americanmexphil must be new here

        April 3, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
      • 1FreeWorld


        April 18, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Andeline Plaatjes

      I want to concur the previous person's comment. YES ! Brilliant man ! President Barack Obama is also someone of great character, someone the United States of America has needed for a long time. Re-electing him is the smartest move you can do Americans ! Look how he has already not only promised but SHOWN his real concern for the middle class . One has only to look at what he has DONE what he promised for people who suffered under the previous health care system. My heart goes out to those parents who are awaiting the supreme courts ruling to see whether their child will keep receiving the assistance he /she now enjoys under the OBAMA CARE ! it is a really good label you guys. .
      Barack Obama will continue proving how right he is for the second term. He has the ability, the wisdom to accomplish the goals he set for himself and his administration. And take note of this. You dont want to hear us repeat it do you . But here it is. He showed great courage to take on this job with its terrible economy, two wars, the existing strained foreign relationship with many countries, to name a few. Those who are running for president right now is a joke for how can they even begin to try fit in his shoes. MY VOTE GOES FOR PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA all the way from CANADA

      April 2, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
      • patriot

        Your an IDIOT ! Our not yours {President} is purpousley trying to enslave us Americans to federal control.This is socialism ,look hat word up.Not one month has gone by in Obamas' administration gone by that was not a new dept record.$5,000,000,000 has been spent ! When our national dept was a little over ten trillion before Obama took office.Obama is systematically bankrupting America ! This means not only Americans standards of life will go down but Canadas' too.And the rest of the world.Our dollaris only worth about 15 cents now !We have never had a president destroy somuch of our constitution and bill of rights as this onehas.He willnot be reelected unless its a scam.If China called us on our dept to them right now.We wouldnt even have a montary system.Obama and his family are exempt from obamacare and congress.If its so good why dont they get it too?Our unemployment has raised continously since he took office.Look it up.Only now that its relection time does our news say it is better.It's not !In this obamacare law there is alot of it that they dont talk about that will dictate to all Americans what federal government wants for us.When we dont want it.There will be longer waits to get medical procedures.And 74% of Americans dont want Obamacare.But it was unconstitutionally shoved down our throats !Mitt Romney will win and Newt G.will be our vice president.If you knew how to research the facts you would know this.But you just believe T.V. dont you.787 billion is stimulous failed.He does not care for Isreal.And unemployment is still above 8%.He has no plan.He must go back to Chicago.He took away alot of funding from medicare.That our senior citizens worked for it.He wants a one world government ! He is destroying the coal jobs in Kentucky,West Virginia ect.We do not want communism here in America !

        April 4, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • DonaldH

      Yeah. Here come the Brown Shirts to the rescue. Not on my watch!

      April 2, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Howard


      April 3, 2012 at 1:04 am |
    • Sponge-Bob

      Army? The majority of voters want this overturned, don't you read the news?

      April 3, 2012 at 4:04 am |
      • 1FreeWorld


        April 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • John

      Way to bring the country together BO. You and the dems spent years working on a faulty, illegal law and shoving it down our throats. Now you are taking steps to divide the country even more when this law gets shot down. BO is without a doubt the most divisive president this country has even seen.

      April 3, 2012 at 7:07 am |
      • FLIndependent

        John, do all you Repubs not realize that the individual mandate was a Repub idea – what is wrong with all of you? You're always griping about supporting freeloaders and having personal responsiblity but, because Obama went along with it, you think a mandate that everyone have health insurance is wrong and taking away your freedom. So, what about the people that go to the ER because they have no insurance and then those of us that have insurance have to pay for them? Isn't that system supporting what you call "freeloaders"? I just don't get your twisted logic. You all are only against this because Obama supports it – if a Repub president did the same thing you would be all for it and you know it!

        April 3, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Ray E. (Georgia)

      Well Mr. Prez,
      Shoving Obama Care down out throats is an Extra Ordanary Unpresidented step. The people are going to feed it back to you in extraorandary huge gulps. Now that is a Shovel Ready project we can really get our theeth into.

      April 3, 2012 at 8:56 am |
      • jean2009

        Spelling wasn't something that you got your teeth into.

        April 3, 2012 at 9:17 am |
      • Alesia

        I love it when people call the health care reform Obamacare. You'll remember its name when you find yourself taking advantage of the benefits that have been set in place. Not one single person can predict their future (despite any desperate attempts). Should your health fail (or a loved one) or you finances face a setback, you'll be one of the very people seeking to exploit Obamacare because of your circumstances. That's a fact. There have been hundreds of thousands of people who have changed their views about Obamacare, because they suddenly have been diagnosed with a serious illness (at the time the had no health insurance), and can now get insurance despite their condition. That is how Obamacare is working.

        April 3, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Brian

      President Obama spoke out against the Supreme Court three days after the Supreme Court Justices had voted on Obamacare. The public won't hear what the vote tally was until June, but it seems that someone associated with the "secret" vote slipped the final tally to the President. Why else would the President risk alienating the Supreme Court with his antics by warning the Supreme Court not to cross him. His Chicago style politics has no merit in a free country. OMG: Obama Must Go.

      April 3, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Alesia

      I'm in the Army, too! I'm not sure about everyone else's religious beliefs, but I'm a true believer in Jesus Christ. I am fervently praying that God's Will be done in this situation. This law is the right thing and the best thing for the American people- even for those who are too ignorant to realize it. God placed Obama in this position at the right time to ensure we were not swept away by the horrible economic tragedies that would have befallen us had ANY OTHER person been elected. THE DEVIL IS A LIE! (that's to everyone who speaks ill of Obama and his mission to truly change this world for good).

      April 3, 2012 at 9:54 am |
      • FLIndependent

        I agree Alesia and I'll never forget the night of the 2008 election when Palin told their supporters not to worry because God would put the right person in office! So, who became our President – certainly not McCain! That was so funny and I'll never forget it.

        April 3, 2012 at 11:56 am |
  2. The people

    Looks like the President Obama has the Supreme Court strong armed and in his pocket too.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • DonaldH

      If what you are saying is true, then the only recourse for us citizens is another civil war to re-establish the freedoms we are supposed to have under our Constitution or change this country into a totalitarian state under martial law, as it never was intended to be.

      April 2, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
  3. Scott

    Checks and Balances, Mr. President...this is Government 101.

    Isn't it the Supreme Courts duty to review laws that are deemed unconstitutional by individual States (that elected their Attorney's Generals) and who put forth a case for the Supreme Court to review.

    If the law was a good one to begin with it would have never made it to the Supreme Court.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • John

      Supreme court justices were not elected. GOP activist judges need to be restrained. Congress passed the law....Stay out of this.

      April 2, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
      • John

        The dems passed this law and the supreme court will overturn it because it is ILLEGAL.

        April 3, 2012 at 7:09 am |
    • TexDad53

      John, what about Democratic activist judges? You know, like the 4 on the supreme court who are ready to rubber-stamp the mandate with no consideration to the contrary? Or the 9th Circuit that ignored the will of the people of Arizona and upheld a ban on their immigration legislation?

      What? don't consider that "activism?" Of course you don't, because you're what I call intellectually dishonest.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • The REAL Truth

      Funny how none of those States are blue. It's not reassuring that the SCOTUS has final word of law when it's so obviously politically influenced in recent years. Had the GOP bothered to *work* with the writers of the bill – which BTW is a Dem compromise with the GOP on a single-payer system and based on Romney's MA system – we would never be in this situation. However, sworn to make Obama a one term President, the GOP needs all the political mud it can sling.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • dontbow

      This should be handled by the states. The government should keep their noses out of our healthcare plans.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
      • The REAL Truth

        And I would agree, except that Medicare (that's Federal, BTW) was put in place because the insurance companies refused to cover pre-existing conditions and those over-65 and the states couldn't come up with solutions, so the Feds stepped in. Most states rely on Fed funds for their Healthcare funding BTW.
        And.. here's the sorry part.. the State's simply cannot agree on a common medical platform/solution. We'd have 50 different plans with 50 different funding, charge-back and cost models. That's why ACA – a Fed plan dominated by GOP content and based on Romney's MA system – was authored.
        Now the GOP insists that this will cost jobs, infringes on personal freedoms and religious rights, and... you get the point. And why? 'Cus big pharma is not happy with law – ignoring that it is 95% GOP – and has given the right wingnuts their marching order. At 17% of GDP .. that's BIG MONEY and the 1% do NOT want the CA$H COW to dry up!!

        April 2, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
      • jerry

        @ the real companies have no problem covering anything you want....but, you will have to pay for it. Are you completely ignorant of how the concept of insurance works. Or, could it be your just using this to blast the GOP?

        April 2, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
      • jean2009

        States right is a bunch of baloney that went belly-up with the 14th amendment which provides citizens of the United States equal protection under the law. Our having fifty differing views of health care is not equal protection under the law.

        Plus the Commerce Clause of the 14th amendment allows congress to regulate commerce between the states. The insurance industry is commerce, and congress is allowed to pass laws that regulate what insurance companies can do.

        April 3, 2012 at 9:30 am |
      • Alesia

        What health care plan?? That's been the issue over the last few decades. People get amnesia with the quickness! Every person in this forum has spent some time at some point complaining about how expensive their insurance premiums were, or even worse.... can't get coverage because they've been denied benefits because they don't meet the "health requirements". But as soon as someone (a democrat) makes an effort to truly address the complaints, ignorant fools get scared into believing that he's trying to destroy the country. I'm sure the same kinds of ignorant fools kicked up a fuss when Social Security and Medicare was created... thank goodness that didn't keep the leaders who TRULY new what was best stop them.

        April 3, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • FLIndependent

      If the SC has a split decision either way on this then one can only conclude that they are being partisan and going by ideology. To determine if a law is constitional and have a split decision only indicates that what one judge thinks is constitional, another judge does not. So, what does that mean – the consitition itself, just like the Bible for instance, is up to an individual's interpretation. Some of the opposers also seem to confuse legality with constitionality – the healthcare law is legal and if struck down by the SC will only be because of their party ideology.

      April 3, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
      • dave

        It seems to me that you are the one confusing legal and constitutional. If a law is unconstitutional, it is in fact NOT legal.

        Also, if the law is struck down by the SC, and that is because of their "ideology", would you also describe what the SC did in Roe-v-Wade as motivated by ideology? The law at the time did not allow for abortion. Notice that it was the "law" which, in your world, has nothing to do with the constitution.

        April 4, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  4. RickV

    He doesn't seem to remember it the way it actually happened. That he never read it, that he got "alligator arms" when it was debated in Congress, that many who voted for it lost their jobs at the next election. He only mentioned the few useful points in what is otherwise a huge, unconstitutional, overreach of federal intrusion.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  5. Spike

    Laughable from the man that has ignored the consitution he said he has studied in college. America cannot afford to reelect this ignoramus

    April 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Bob

      Ignored the Constitution? Man, you reich wingers are some trash spewing jackasses, sonnyboy.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • The REAL Truth

      Suggest you get ready for some education in Nov.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • DonaldH

      I agree.

      April 2, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
  6. WiredWrong, S.O.L

    LOL libs like judicial activism if the courts side with them, but don't like it if judicial activism is going to overturns one of their laws...typical

    April 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • FLIndependent

      Pot, meet Kettle. Besides, the mandate which is the issue was a Repub/Heritage Foundation/Bob Dole idea, so if it is overturned then I guess it wasn't such a great idea coming from the Repubs and hopefully will lead to a public option.

      April 3, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
      • dave

        I love the way people spin things! Okay, here is the liberal view of Obamacare: "Greatest acheivement in the history of the United States. Obama has saved millions and Republicans hate everyone. The individual mandate is KEY to a working healthcare system for all"! Then, when the individual mandate is challenged in the SC, the whole thing was a republican idea.

        Question: If Obamacare is SOOOO great and the individual mandate is the key to the whole law, why aren't liberals thanking the Republicans for coming up with such a great idea and saving millions of lives? Just asking.....

        April 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
  7. M Gonzales

    Nonsense, This was passed using way to get around the fillabuster and is built around unconstitional mandate and he has the gall to demand it should not be all struck down. The Supreme court is supposed to act as a counter to over reach by the congress or presidancy and guess what....

    April 2, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  8. B

    Let us not forget that the -Individual mandate- was a Conservative idea before being proposed by the Democrats!

    April 2, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • rsc1911

      What – you don't think conservatives are capable of producing bad and unconstutional ideas too?

      April 2, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
      • The REAL Truth

        LOL – I need to quote that whenever the right starts complaining about the left!! LOL.
        Yes, ACA is predominantly GOP authored. But now they don't like it? Awww....

        April 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • jean2009

      Part D Medicare regardless of what is said is mandatory.

      April 3, 2012 at 9:32 am |
  9. rsc1911

    1.It was not passed by a strong majority; in fact it was rushed through on back door deals and never conferenced because of the Scott rown election in Mass. 2. Redefining "Judicial Activism" then attributing it to conservative commentators is typical Barak BS. Judicial Activism is writing law from the bench. It is the duty of the SCOTUS to check that the laws passed by congress are within the framework of the Constution. 3. Saying it should be done "because it's the right thing" are the words of a tyrant. Thank God our founders put a system in place to protect us against such tyrants. 4. I'm guessing he's already gotten word from his ex-solicitor general that his law went down in flames last Friday and his childlike buly reaction today is an attempt to intimidate a change in a vote or two. Just what I'd expect from a Chicago politician.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • 23 from texas

      well said!

      April 2, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • jean2009

      The Health Care legislation passed in the House of Representatives 219-212.
      It passed in the Senate 60-39. Both are a clear majority...and 60 in the Senate is a super majority.

      April 3, 2012 at 9:36 am |
      • C-Lo

        Jean–219-212 is not a "solid majority" and it was done by a congress elected as anti-Bush, not pro-liberalism. To that point:
        How many congressional seats were lost in 06 and 08 simply because the congress person had an "R" by their name? In Colorado, a very traditional and conservative district voted in a Dem for these reasons, and even though her district was 65%+ against the ACA, she voted for it...representative gov't my @$$. Needless to say, she was a one term representative. It was actions like this as much as any in so many districts around the nation that gave rise to the Tea Party and cleansing of congress in 10.

        April 3, 2012 at 10:16 am |
      • jean2009

        Thankful people were sick and tired of anything that reeked of Bush...and 219-212 is a solid majority considering the makeup of the House. Plus considering that they can't come to a consensus 99%of the time on any subject.

        April 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
  10. ObamaDaNigga

    Someone tell the brown clown, it is called check and balances..lil hitler doesn't want to hear it.. but he will hear big time in Nov, cause no matter how much the liberal media try to save this nut sac.. he is going down and his illegal laws will be repealed and then they can get on vetting him and putting him in prison for fraud..

    April 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • 23 from texas

      Not well said... this makes me sad. Our presidents skin color has nothing to do with why we dislike him… his failed social experiments are. Don’t cave in and use the language of the left, we conservatives should be above that.

      April 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
      • The REAL Truth

        Well said. Shame that you are pretty much alone. Shame also that you refer to "failed social experiments" like he was sitting on some bench waving a want. Care to elaborate on those failures, as I'm failing to come up with any.

        April 2, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
      • Alesia

        Just because you didn't type it, doesn't mean you don't think it. I'm an Obama supporter, and people like us have been fighting since 2008 racist radicals who claim conservatism as their cause for disagreement. When truthfully, it has been a systematic Republican institutional strategy to bring down Obama's presidency AT ALL COST. There has been absolutely no effort whatsoever to find compromising strategies/policies to help the American people. The Republicans were elected to Congress in 2010, and the first speech that was given by the Repubs Rep was their primary (meaning only) goal is to prevent Obama from being elected for a 2nd term. When you are not willing to compromise or offer REAL solutions, then you are a part of the problem.

        April 3, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • dave

      Although we agree that Mr. Obama needs to be sent home to Chicago, let me say just one thing. SHUT UP!!!! Racism has no place here or anywhere but the depths of Hell from whence it came.

      April 4, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
  11. Love that man?

    He is misrepresenting the truth in this case.

    "Ultimately, 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."

    This was unprecedentedly and extraordinarily rammed through congress and no one knew what was in it, or how much it cost until it was passed.

    Perhaps he just forgot about that.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • geekgirl42

      And people who are still jumping up and down screaming about how bad "Obamacare" is *still* have not read it. Have you?

      April 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
      • DonaldH

        I have read the part where it forces you to buy insurance from a private company or pay a "tax" to the IRS. That alone is enough for me to want it struck down in it's entirety. That is a violation of my citizen rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Congress needs to strike down Obamacare and start over on healthcare. I don't want some board of government appointed bureaucrates telling me what healthcare i can or cannot have!

        April 2, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
      • jean2009

        So DavidH I assume you are either fantastically wealthy, or never plan to be ill and die suddenly with no warning or of absolutely nothing. If you are not fantastically wealthy...I guarantee you that you will not leave this earth without a long illness that will require medical care. How do you propose to pay for the expense if not with the aid of insurance? Wait until you can stick the rest of us with the bill for your emergency room care?

        April 3, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • The REAL Truth

      Right up there with Dubya's Patriot Act – which BTW has/had far more reaching implications and violations of individual *rights and freedoms* than the ACA ever will. Passed in fear by a GOP led Congress after 911.
      Yet you all get upset because of the individual mandate and the right wingnuts start talking loss of freedoms, socialism and lord, please don't take away my AK47 (over my dead body) !! Where was the GOP outrage over the Patriot Act.
      If you say the wrong word in the right place, the Feds can break wire tap you, break down your front door, incarcerate you for a indeterminate amount of time, ALL WITHOUT WARRANTS, etc. Where's the complaining over that ?? Hmmm ??

      April 2, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Real Truth...there was, is and will be a lot of complaining and outspoken "fear" of the potentials of the PATRIOT ACT by freedom loving Americans. Like with the ACA, there are some valid parts, but taken as a whole, they both are, and should be, frightening to any average American. I have said before that Bush was not a Republican, he was a Democrat with "conservative" this I mean to use the label of Democrat in the traditional sense of Big Fed Gov (look at all the expansions of DC, some "justified" by 9/11 like the PATRIOT ACT, others like NCLB just out of want for more DC control). Was the PATRIOT Act necessary in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? Maybe. Did it go too far? Probably. Has this administration or any Congress since brought limits to it? No. And there is still grumbling about it among the populace.

        Remember that during most of GWB's presidency blogs and message boards like this were still in their infancy, so average joes like us didn't have the ability to speak our minds in large forums like we do today–it's not that there wasn't criticism of the PA, it just wasn't as easily broadcast

        Also, just because GWB made mistakes doesn't justify each and every move BO makes. I first wish we would elect a true leader to the WH not another politician–politicing should be left to the congress, with the president as a check/balance, not as an additional member of congress. People on here always talk about how "you can't have it both ways," but I for one don't want it either way, I am hoping for a new way and BO has not been the solution.

        April 3, 2012 at 10:07 am |
      • jean2009

        @C-Lo Sorry honey..... it doesn't work that way. George W. Bush was a Republican and you whether you like it or not are stuck with him so spare us Democrat..... we won't and don't accept him as one of us. That is your bad baggage so deal with it. He ran as a Republican, he bought into Voodoo trickle-down don't tax the rich economics, and since he didn't have the revenue to pay for his unfunded wars he borrowed. Then to keep everything from crashing and burning too soon....he borrowed to give tax rebates like a hunkapapa to everyone. Which means he managed to triple the deficit again just like your other god Ronnie Reagan. No thank you G. W. Bush is all Republican and all yours.

        April 3, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
  12. david

    Research israels aparteid policies.

    Investigate AIPAC contributions to politicians.

    Israel is the leading cause of anti-semtism.

    Don't support pro zionist politicians.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Steveo

      How about you live somewhere surrounded by those who want you off the planet and then let me know your survival plan!

      April 2, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
      • jon

        They have no right to be there.

        Israel is an aparteid terrorist state.

        April 2, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
      • Steveo


        You have a lot to learn about the history of Israel! they have every right to be there!

        April 2, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • dutchblitz

      A million Arabs are Israeli citizens. The Palestinians don't want any Jews living in the West Bank or Gaza, and yet Israel is the apartheid state?

      April 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
  13. John


    Huh? Do you even know the role of the judical branch of government?

    Yes. It is not their role to side with their fellow GOP friends and be activists. They were not elected......How shameful......

    April 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Steveo

      John, I imagine you feel the same way towards the liberally appointed judges?

      April 2, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
  14. susan

    ya, who cares if it's legal? certainly not this president.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
  15. John

    Supreme court has just become another biased,activist wing of the Republican party. They are not neutral and have an agenda to help their fellow GOP friends.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • The REAL Truth

      They have not been neutral for quite some time now.. Take a look at the history of the 5-4 decision. Makes for some interesting research.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  16. John

    When you cannot win in Congress go to your GOP friends on the Supreme court and have it overturned. This is judicial activism and it smells to high heaven......

    April 2, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
  17. TexDad53

    People tend to cry "Activist Judges!" only when decisions go against them. Didn't hear too many liberals complaining of "activist judges" when the 9th Circuit upheld a ban, enforced by a federal judge, against provisions in Arizona's immigration law. A law, by the way, "that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" (Obama's words, not mine). Legislators are and should be held in check by the judicial branch of our government. It is hardly "activism" when this occurs, it's called democracy at work, and accusations of "playing politics with the law" are only sour grapes.

    April 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
  18. Tom

    The egotistical president ...Chicago politics ...what an 'enlighted' leader who is out of touch except for his all knowing attitude on all matters. He will not win the next election is our only hope because of his divisive approach. Now he threatens the Supreme court ..amazing his ego.

    April 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  19. dontbow

    I hope they strike this down and send the people a message of hope and change away from this the worst president ever.

    April 2, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • The REAL Truth

      Actually, the man he inherited the mess from will probably go down as the worst in history. Both fiscally and otherwise. 4 of the last 5 GOP Presidential heroes have been puppets. At least this one can stand on his own 2 feet with a modicum of grace and poise.

      April 2, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
  20. AngryMobVoter

    Now Obama thinks he is more important than the Supreme Court. Obama you are: pompous, self-important, arrogant, autocratic, conceited, contemptuous, disdainful, presumptuous, vainglorious...DANGEROUS...

    April 2, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • FLIndependent

      Well, the majority of Americans voted for President Obama, not the Supreme Court. Also, he is only stating confidence in the fact that he believes the law will stand...far from being pompous and arrogant but you'll put any undesirable label on this president that you think will stick. He was just speaking at the AP conference and reiterated the fact that the mandate was a Repub idea so get over it!

      April 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
  21. For Freedom

    The Law goes against the Constitution. Like it or not, this is what our country is based on and we the people can purchase what we want, when we want. This President has decided to ignore the Constitution of the United States. it will go down.

    April 2, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Brian

      What? The health care mandate could make us pay for something we otherwise don’t think we need? Why, that would be like the States forcing people to pay for a picture ID that they otherwise didn’t need, just to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Oh, wait...

      April 2, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
  22. JustAO

    How did that last Republican president do on the job? I don't think he was much of a scholar or thinker. He didn't know anything about the constitution.

    It seems we need our president to argue the case against the Supreme Court on constitutionality. I mean, it's nice to finally have an intelligent constitutional law professor from Harvard as President as opposed to some average joe who never studied or researched creating our laws.

    We need more experts who do the research in our congress instead of voting in the loud mouths who'd be better at cheerleading reality-tv shows.

    April 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
  23. John

    The saddest thing is that President Obama was a Professor that taught the Constitution and should understand that the Judicial Branch of Government has the responsibility to PROTECT the individual from the IMPROACHMENT of the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government. In this case, the Judicial Branch is performing their Constitutional Responsibility. In the cases where Liberal Judges "interpretted" laws ( that were already passed ) and expanding them beyond what the legislators and Presidents that passed them ever intended, rather than sending the legislation back to the Legislative Body that passed the, that is Judicial ACTIVISM, NOT Constitutional Judicial Review, which is what this case is all about.

    April 2, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • jerry

      NO obama was a part time law lecturer...not a real professor of law....but as all narcissistic personalities he has over rated his knowledge of the law...and this proves it...he over stepped AGAIN and he is going to suffer the consequences.

      April 2, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
      • jean2009

        If you ask the University of Chicago they will tell you he was regarded as a professor of constitutional law for the 12 years he taught at the university.

        April 3, 2012 at 9:43 am |
      • Alesia

        OK. So I guess anyone can teach at Harvard? Is that your point? Please.... Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.(1988 – 1991) He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

        Where are your credentials to offer some thought provoking insight to this debate?

        April 3, 2012 at 10:51 am |

    I totally agree w/ the President, as far as prescedent.....But we'll see what the Justices have to say.....Obama 2012!!!!

    April 2, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • jerry

      fooled by the slight of hand eh? Moron.

      April 2, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
  25. C Williams

    But that is the job of the S.C. Judging bills passed by Congress, when said law is called into question. I thought Obama was a constitutional lawyer?

    April 2, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • dutchblitz

      He also appointed two of the people in the "unelected group."

      April 2, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
  26. DonaldH

    Obama is such a golden tounged manipulator! What really suprises me is that people actually belive it is OK for the federal government to force you under a tax penalty to buy a product from a private (read non-government) company! And, they thank him for taking away their freedom of choice. Looks like some people have forgotten the very roots upon which this country was founded. Reminds me of the saying: There's a sucker born every minute. Some people don't know they have been scammed until it's too late.

    April 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
  27. genek10

    Obummer, the alien robot from far, far, away… no public record, no birth certificate, no history…. knows nothing of American Constitutional government…

    April 2, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
  28. Zechary

    Personally, I'd love to see Medicare reform, and I do support a number of Obamacare's provisions. However, the Individual Mandate opens doors to future legislation that I'd rather have shut. It's one thing to govern what the individual can or cannot do, but it's entirely different to dictate what an individual "Must" do. If it's constitutional to mandate that everyone must purchase Health Insurance, what's to stop them from mandating that you must buy Mac and Cheese, or that you must buy a hybrid car.

    But what's funny is that Obama said it would be Unprecedented for the unelected members of the Supreme Court to overthrow legislation passed by Congress. Take a quick look at the Court's history and you'll see that's entirely false.

    April 2, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
  29. genek10

    Obummer: alien robot from a galaxy far, far, away…. no public record, no history, no birth certificate, no conscience… knows nothing about American Constitutional governance…. duped the Demos BIG TIME…

    April 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
  30. jerry

    obama is in real trouble...he is all in on this...and he is ring to look really stupid when it blows up in his face ( this legal overstep). But, obama really believes he can BS the voters no matter what the facts is incompetent and arrogant. WTH his BS has gotten him this far. Lets just see how stupid the American voter November.

    April 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
  31. Lisa

    The supreme court is doing its job. If there is no constitutional problems with it then he shouldnt be coming out stating something that should be so obvious. The problem is that it is unconstitutional. You cannot force people to buy something or pay a "tax penalty". I would like to have my own decisions in my life and let the government worry about all their problems. Dont they have enough to worry about. Get your budget together before you decide what I should pay for someone else. Seems common sense to me.

    April 2, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
  32. Cody

    I can see how the law could be helpful to alot of people, but I personally do not being forced to buy something. I all ready have health insurance, and I know this may sound like fear, but where does the line get drawn? Just so everyone knows, I am not some Obama basher or right wing nutjob. I hope they overturn this law. I am sorry to all the people it will help.

    April 3, 2012 at 12:04 am |
    • Alesia

      Well Cody, would you like the car insurance mandate to be overturned as well? If you own or drive a car, you're required to hold insurance for that as well or face penalties...... Jeez people. It's the same thing.

      April 3, 2012 at 11:22 am |
      • Paratrooper_us

        Alesia – First, it is a STATE mandate that you own Insurance for your car, not Federal. And that is what is being argued in the SCOTUS. They are stating that the Federal Government over stepped it's bonds with the State Government's rights. Second – I do have an option in regards to the Auto Insurance. If I opt not to have Auto Insurance, then I do have the right not to purchase an automobile. There is no penalty, if I decide not to have Auto Insurance, and with that decide not to purchase a vehicle.

        Also – If I can afford to, I do have the right to be Self-Insured (many large corporations do practice this right).

        You cannot compare Auto Insurance to Health Care, unless there is an option to allow me not to choose to have Health Care, and not pay a penalty.

        April 4, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
  33. geggyg

    Only a week ago Santorum was on the steps on the Supreme Court with the teabagers trying to intimidate the justices , and critising Pres Obama for not defending the health care reforms. A press conference at the WH is less phsically intimidating , than Santorum on the steps of the SCOTUS with a crowd of teabaggers that he is revving up.

    April 3, 2012 at 3:43 am |
  34. Sponge-Bob

    It doesn't much matter what Obama thinks, the court gets the final word on constitutionality. He has to live with the decision regardless of what it is. If it's upheld he'll praise them but if it's overturned he'll demonize them like a little kid who didn't get his way. If this is upheld then there is basically no limit to what the government can make us do legally.

    April 3, 2012 at 4:03 am |
  35. Brian

    I noticed that President Obama spoke out against the Supreme Court three days after the Supreme Court Justices had voted on Obamacare. The public won't hear what the vote tally was until June, but it seems that someone associated with the "secret" vote slipped the final tally to the President. Why else would the President risk alienating the Supreme Court with his antics by warning the Supreme Court not to cross him. His Chicago style politics has no merit in a free country. OMG: Obama Must Go.

    April 3, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Steve

      OMG: Obama Must Go!! I like that

      April 3, 2012 at 9:44 am |
  36. Emmy Skaddittle

    where are these "robot judges" that the republican senators wanted so badly when Judge Kagen was up confirmation? I guess that doesn't count for republican judges

    April 3, 2012 at 9:48 am |
  37. Alesia

    People in this forum are so ignorant. The health insurance mandate is just as legal as CAR INSURANCE. Obama is a Harvard Law professor turned President. HE KNOWS THE LAW!

    April 3, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • C-Lo

      No Alesia, they are VERY different. Car insurance is manditory only if you have a car. You are not forced to buy car insurance if you choose not to own/use a vehicle. It is also legislated at the state level not on a national level. Manditory car insurance is to cover potential losses to OTHERS caused by you (recoup the cost of the vehicle if you still owe money to the lender, pay for damages you cause to others through your carelessness). If you want to cover the vehicle for your losses (i.e. after you own it free and clear) if something should happen to it is not manditory–only the liability for payment to others is manditory.

      I know this has been a talking point of the left on Obamacare, but it is a false arguement.

      April 3, 2012 at 10:56 am |
      • Alesia

        No C-Lo, it IS the same thing. EVERY person will at some point utilize health care services, including those who do not pay for or have an individual premium-paid plan. If that individual receives care (i.e. emergency or urgent care, etc..), but can not pay for it, those losses (as you put it) are covered by others who DO pay for premiums. 1. States must increase their tax thresholds and pass those increases to taxpayers because they hold unpaid health care bills. 2. The insurance companies are recouping those losses by increasing the premiums paid for by plan holders 3. Hospitals and healthcare systems increase their operating costs because of a surplus of unpaid bills, which means routine doctor visits and other medical care cost 3-4 times more than it should (i.e. $10 Tylenol pill) and prevent most people from getting comprehensive care. 4.Medicare/Medicaid benefits are reduced for qualified receipients because the healthcare system and insurance costs must paid for at the national level as a trickle down effect from points 1, 2, and 3. DO YOUR RESEARCH

        April 3, 2012 at 11:33 am |
      • Alesia

        In short, WE ARE ALREADY PAYING PENALTIES. It's just packaged and worded in language that is not described as MANDATED.

        April 3, 2012 at 11:36 am |
      • C-Lo

        Alesia, what you are advocating through this is driving down healthcare costs through manditory health insurance purchasing. If you insist on equating it to car insurance then here it goes...
        We will all be affected by the costs of vehicles. Those who can afford more for cars can purchase more fuel effecient and luxurious vehicles while the have-nots are relegated to older vehicles. In the end, they accomlish the same purpose–getting you from place to place, kind of like the old style MRI lay down machines vs. the new stand up/non clostriphobic ones. they both get the same results, one is just more comfortable. You want to try to control the price of the car by regulating auto insurance, make everyone purchase auto insurance for relatively similar amounts regardless of the cost of the vehicles they are insuring (or if they even have a vehicle to insure) in hopes of making a 2012 Lexus cost similar to a 1986 Buick.

        High costs of US health care is due to a multitude of issues
        1. We have a higher overall cost of living
        2. Americans are lazy–how many, particularly those who have insurance, get regular physicals each year? How many take control of their own health and take care of themselves.
        3. We are one of the first markets to recieve the latest and greatest in technology, drugs etc which comes at a cost
        4. We expect fix all/cure all remedies and insist on something everytime we visit the doctor–who cares if it's viral, give me antibiotics.

        In short, it (health care) is a commodity, as heartless as that sounds, and there is only so much to go around. Unless you address the direct costs of the care, the insurance premiums will necessarily continue to skyrocket. Dems know this and are wanting parts of this system to fail so they can eventually mandate single-payer thereby controlling the entire industry. As the premiums continue to shoot up, because insurers know they can charge whatever they want (price controls be d@mned...look at utilities) people will be smart enough to realize it is cheaper to pay the penalty than buy the insurance, and they can always pick it up once they do need it.

        I would guess, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that you are one who ultimately wants the single payer system in place. Why do you trust a gov't who experimented on it's population for decades with all types of unethical and inhumane tests? Why do you trust a gov't to run another program for you when it cannot manage the ones it has? Why do you trust a gov't to provide a successful service when gov't run schools fail students hand over fist. If public education is such a great deal, why was Palin's education at a state college riddiculed when Obama's private education was admired?

        I am not anti-govt...federally it has it's place in protecting the nation, regulating the currency, dealing with foreign nations, signing treaties, operating the courts, I'll even go so far as to say the federal highway system, FAA, FCC are welcome and needed departments. But for the life of me, I will never understand how people continue to give more power to an organization that proves time and again it is incapable of managing such extraordinary programs. Look at every nation that has tried to provide more and more to its people while requiring less and less from them...Soviet Union, Greece (and other parts of Europe) China, middle east...either the society crumbles or it takes a tyranical form of gov't to force compliance...fiscally penalize those who do not comply, then if they don't pay up, it's tax evasion and prison time. Sounds like the makings of a tyranical gov't to me.

        sorry for the long soapboxed post, but it all ties together.

        April 3, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • For Freedom

      No Alesia, you are wrong. Car insurance mandates are enforced by the states. The constitution protects Americans from the federal government forcing them to buy a product. Just because the free market of health insurance includes covering unpaid medical bills it is a cost agreed upon by the company supplying the product and the purchaser. No matter how you like to spin it, the constitution provides basic protections from this type of government overreach. This law, in the way it is written, is illegal.

      April 3, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
  38. Fundraisers for Clubs Fundraising for Charity


    April 18, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
  39. Sheila Cisneros

    Doesn't anyone realize if Obama hadn't reminded the Supreme Court justices that their positions were "unelected" this may never have been voted in favor of the government run Health Care Mandate and tax? If you were making $200,000+ a year and had to face losing your job or upholding the Constitution, what would you do?

    October 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm |