TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

President Obama believes it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn his healthcare reform:

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.

One of the Constitution’s central purposes is to make sure that a majority of citizens, acting through their “democratically elected Congress,” cannot trample over people’s rights. The purpose is to restrain both the government from intrusive actions and to prevent a majority of citizens from using government to do so.

Being passed by a majority in Congress does not make a law sacrosanct.1 Democracy—rule by the majority—is not an ideal or end. It is a means of achieving a goal, which is a more just government and society, one that protects the people’s rights. It’s absurd to argue that the Supreme Court should let a law stand that violates the Constitution because Congress voted for it or even that a majority of citizens support it.

The “unelected group of people” ad hominem is troubling, too. Obama knows well that the Supreme Court justices are not subject to elections and term limits for good reason: to separate them from the political passions of the day and to allow them to make cool, informed decisions. You could argue that the current court is heavily partisan and so this safeguard has been short-circuited. I disagree, but that’s a different argument, and it’s not the argument the president is making. If we take Obama at his word—that he finds it troubling that an “unelected group of people” can overturn a law passed by a majority of Congress, then he’s arguing the Supreme Court should be subject to elections. He’s arguing that an arrangement that’s functioned remarkably well since the beginning of the country should be overturned and replaced, because—because why? Because his healthcare reform may be overturned? Because suddenly it’s unacceptable for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by majorities in the legislative branch?

I don’t think that’s what he’s arguing, though. I think he decided to take a cheap-shot at the Supreme Court as a part of the opening shots of his campaign. And that—that he is making the Supreme Court a target for his campaign—may be a worrying foreshadow of what we’ll see during the summer and fall.

1. If that were the case, I’m curious why the administration would seek to eliminate Bush’s tax cuts. After all, they were passed by a majority of Congress. [↩]