You've heard the background story about how the Bamster was editor of the Harvard Law Review and then a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. That would somehow indicate, at least to me, that he either knows what he is saying is a lie or he was one very pathetic prof.
Un-elected Court Shouldn't Overturn the Legislature
Is it possible that he doesn't know that the isolation from election which our forefathers established for the federal judiciary was precisely to free them from political pressure from an emotional electorate?
Is it possible that he doesn't know that Marbury v Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review and that is specifically for the purpose of checking an over-reaching legislative and executive branch?
Is it possible he doesn't recognize the principle of constitutional supremacy in which the Constitution limits the legislature in the hierarchy of law?
Is it possible he doesn't accept that the rule of law takes precedence over the rule of man, and simply because a lot of people won't be insured in the event of an overturning of Obamacare the government is still limited?
Or is it simply that he knows these things but he holds the Constitution in such low regard and the electorate as so ignorant that he is lying and pandering to seek re-election?
Yeah, that's the ticket.