With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.Say what? What happened to passive deference to SCOTUS? What entitles the President and many Democrats to denounce this Supreme Court decision, but it's somehow verboten to criticize Roe v. Wade, as heavy-handed an exercise in arbitrary judicial ukase as could be conceived? (And, please to note, much criticism of Roe comes even from pro-aborts, on legal and logical grounds: it's a poorly crafted decision. The President here has nothing to say on legal grounds, he merely dislikes the result.)
I disagree with them emphatically on this issue, but I am glad to see Liberal exercise of the true principle of our government --namely, that the three branches of government are co-equal interpreters of the Constitution, and Congress & the President can and must correct improperly decided SCOTUS decisions. If they don't exercise these checks, we become not self-governing citizens, but subjects, of "The Nine." (Which, ordinarily, is precisely what the Left wants --they see Courts as policy-making entities. Moderates and wimpy Conservatives like this, too, because they love to evade taking stands on divisive issues, and enjoy punting to the Court. "I'm pro-life, but Roe v. Wade is the law of the land....what can you do?")
The President here is wrong on the policy but correct in the exercise of powers --may the Congress and some future pro-life President take note.
Update: in comments, Mr. W. has more on the ruling itself.
