This Is True Judicial Radicalism

President Obama said that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed on economic issues on Monday. Yesterday President Obama even went further into explanation of those remarks:

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce -- a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

And that is very true. But to show how partisan our 3rd branch has become, yesterday Fifth Circuit Judge, Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, made a rather odd demand of the DOJ, ordering them to produce a 3 page, single spaced report by noon tomorrow on rather the President believes the courts have the power to overturn laws. Of course that isn't what Obama was saying and that's exactly what the DOJ told Smith.

So how odd was this demand? Well it's so odd that even Greta Van Susteren was left wondering about it:

VAN SUSTEREN: I imagine the discussion tonight at the Justice Department – I would certainly be having this discussion – is to refuse to do it. Because it really is beyond what is necessary in the case. It has nothing to do with the case. And the lawyer answered the question in court. And it’s clearly just, you know, the judge is mad. And to refuse to do it, maybe you draw a contempt charge but then I would then take it up with the full court. I’m not so sure the Department of Justice has to comply with this.

There you have FOX News' legal analyst questioning Smith. Let me rephrase that. There you have a legal analyst from the news network that despises healthcare law actually having to defend the administration on a case involving it.

Perhaps it's time for Smith to go. What he did yesterday was nothing but pure partisanship and our courts are not the place for that. I'm not sure of the disciplinary actions within the judicial, but hopefully John Roberts takes note and starts whatever is necessary. The fact is that Smith has totally wrecked any honor left in our courts with one little partisan temper tantrum.

And on a final note, I wish someone would ask Smith how he feels about Newt Gingrich's past statements that the President and Congress could arrest judges that make rulings they don't agree with. Where was his outrage then?