Conservatives are wondering today if the long held tradition of the Supreme Court keeping its decisions secret until their official release to the public has been broken.
Yesterday, President Obama spoke about the SCOTUS deliberation of the Patient Affordable Health Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. He boldly, but inaccurately stated how the vast majority of public opinion favored the act, and how every legal analyst worth his or her salt supports its constitutionality. He went on to say the act ". . . was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." While that is technically true, the phrase "democratically elected" should probably read "Democrat elected", for both the House and Senate were controlled by his party at the time of its passing.
No honest person could in good conscience suggest that Obamacare was bipartisan in its support. The act would not even have been passed by Democrats were it not for the many strong-armed tactics of then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and for the blatant political bribes offered to key party recalcitrants like Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Even some liberals seem to agree that our President went too far over the edge yesterday in his attacks on the Supreme Court. He spoke in berating terms, calling them an "unelected group of people " and stated how wrong it would be for them to "overturn a duly constituted and passed law." Huh? Isn't that the exact charge of the Supreme Court - to review and either confirm or overturn congressional law? Hasn't he himself frequently advocated for a SCOTUS overturn of laws that he has not favored?
Some say that the President's bold assailing of the Court yesterday was little more than an attempt to intimidate conservative justices into reconsidering their opinions. Although the official Court decision has reportedly already been made, it is not due for release until June. It is unusual, but not unprecedented, for a justice to reconsider and revise his or her opinion between the time of the original decision and the official announcement of same. Could the President possibly have a source of inside information about the Court's decision, and be using his bully pulpit to badger the conservative justices to conform?
Today Neal Boortz, a conservative talk show host, postulated that if such an abrogation of procedure has occurred, rookie Justice Elena Kagan is likely to be the loose-lipped court insider. Kagan is a confidant of the President and authored the defense strategy for O'Care when she was still Obama's Solicitor General (can anyone say conflict of interest?). Betrayal of the Court' secrets is probably unlikely, but if ever confirmed, would surely set off a political firestorm of unrivaled magnitude.
Elena Kagan's past does not bode well for her this discussion. After all, in her previous life at Harvard, a colleague charged that Kagan had "squealed" about a sensitive personal matter. When pressed about the squealing charge, Kagan replied "I just can't help it. Squealing comes so naturally to me."