I assume that it is now common knowledge that the Federal Justice Department was ordered by one of the presiding judges of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit Court of Appeals [headquarters in New Orleans] to produce a three page single spaced document by this Thursday [the 5[SUP]th[/SUP]] stating whether or not the Executive Branch [meaning President Obama] concedes that the Judicial Branch has the power to strike down laws and passages in laws that it finds unconstitutional: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_...bamas-comments-on-health-care-case/?tag=stack While it’s amusing for some for the judicial branch to backhand this particular rendition of the executive branch it’s hardly the first time that a president and his hard head has fruitlessly butted against the indomitable brick wall that is the judiciary. Nor will it be the last. Now this would be more impressive were the chief justice in question [on this particular three judge panel] not been a republican, but it gains legal significance in that at the time these judges were hearing arguments between the Obama Justice Department and privately owned hospitals on . . . the Health Care Reform bill. So this is actually going to be part of the legal record, assuming that the Justice Department has got the sense to reply to the judge’s order. The irony is that President Obama was a Constitutional scholar and so could not possibly have been as ignorant of the role and the power of the judicial branch as he appeared to be in that now infamous political speech of his the other day. He was playing gotcha politics with the Supreme Court, by tossing raw granola to his base and trying to court those independents that turned their backs on him a couple of years ago, assuming that since the study of history and government are given short shrift in colleges nowadays, few graduates any longer have the educational background to know that he was trying to blow political smoke up their kilts. Well, all’s fair in love, war, and politics but either President Obama or his campaign advisers forgot or overlooked that the Judicial Branch is not constrained in the same manner as is the legislative branch. Appointees do not have to run for office and therefore they do not have to court the media and satisfy a sometimes ignorant public that can be swayed one way or the other by surface clever political speeches. Having finally grasped the general principles of the bully pulpit [after three full years in office] President Obama can play and influence the legislative branch to some degree, but the same tactics won’t work with the judicial branch . . . because they are the shepherds of the law. Now President Obama can take comfort in the obvious fact that the mainstream media will do their very best to ignore this incident, but the Internet won’t ignore it and more and more voters are using the Internet on a routine basis. No, it won’t be anything more than a very minor and momentary stumbling block for this president. So, really, the only disturbing thing about it is that this Constitutional scholar and canny politician so miscalculated this situation in the first place. He needs to get better campaign advisers and remember the difference between being the Chief Executive and being a politician on the campaign trail. In any event, long, long after President Obama is a historical footnote in textbooks the belly crawl admission by his Justice Department that the Executive Branch [meaning President Obama] concedes that the Judicial Branch has the power to strike down laws and passages in laws that it finds unconstitutional will be part of the permanent record of a legal ruling; and that’s both amusing and comforting.