The Supreme Court (Motto: "We're more than health care") granted cert in Moncrieffe v. Holder in which the court will decide whether possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is an "aggravated felony". The fall out here is that if the court decides it is, it will subject more clients who are foreign nationals to removal.
MARBURY v. MADISON:
Barak Obama, Constitutional Law professor, lawyer, editor of the Harvahard Law Review and President of the United States fired a warning shot over the bow of the Supreme Court earlier this week. The Wall Street Journal responded in an Op Ed piece, part of which is reprinted here. The Journal wanted to know whether in the course of his career at Harvahard and as a Con law Professor at the University of Chicago School of Law whether the President had ever read Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "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," he declared.
Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities...
Rumpole yawns: The President calls the court activists when they strike down a law he supports and un-caring conservatives when they uphold laws he doesn't like. Whose ox is gored? Indeed.