Hell, I'm a pleb and even I understand that, as well as checks and balances.
So, the President was well within his duties to warn the Supreme Court about putting politics before the law (which is supposed to be apolitical - big joke, yeah, I know.)
The President is totally correct. The Supreme Court is an unelected body, appointed to serve for life or until they decide to call it a day. They have taken a part of the healthcare law, applied it to the Commerce amendment and are arguing - strictly alone party lines, mind you - that the act is illegal in its nature. The President ties together economic, legal and human interests in his defence of his signature legislation (enacted by Congress, by the way). He is also totally right to bang a gong about an unelected body - at present, a very corrupt unelected body whose conservative majority is tied up in conflicts of interest and Koch manoeuvres - oveturning legislation enacted by a Democratically elected Congress.
My godfathers, the last time SCOTUS did such a thing was way back in 2000 with Bush v Gore- - and that worked out so well, didn't it? Not. Just imagine how well (not) this little ditty would work out.
Oh, and he's right to sock it to conservative
Then - lordy, lordy! - our President plumps one which aims right for the big mouths of the naysaying
Nice one! If there can't be an individual mandate (which was a plan developed and endorsed by Bob Dole until the Democrats owned it, which turned its former Republican supporters against it), then, in order to ensure that everyone, and I mean absolutely everyone, is covered by medical insurance, let's have single-payer ... Medicare-for-All.
I'm surprised Grover Norquist's head didn't explode. By the way, in order to get that puppy, people are going to have to get off their asses and vote in a Democratic House and a strongly Democratic Senate.
That was a great move and absolutely brilliant, but all it took was some dumb news bimbo in the form of MSNBC reject Norah O'Donnell, author of baby books and assorted trivia, to argue the point with Jay Carney, actually nit-picking about the use of the word "unprecedented" by the President in describing the Supreme Court's potential judicial overreach.
You can watch the fireworks here:-
You know, I have a big problem with bimbo politics and bimbo political pundits and - well, bimbos, in general. I didn't suffer four years fighting male prejudice at the Country Club of the South (read University of Virginia in the throes of going co-ed in the early 70s) to see political punditry reduced to the snide bitchery of the sorority house. And, really, I thought we were past parsing this President's every word.
I just wonder why we still do? (And that's a rhetorical question).