[Parallax]

I might skim areas that seem like irrelevant minutia,

As would I, and as I presume they did as well. I did not say "irrelevant". Irrelevant and minutia are neither synonymous nor mutually dependent..

Yet here we have an arrogant judge saying he might reject the entire bill (when he only needs to rule on the mandate) because he is too lazy to separate out what is not constitutional.

Actually, I believe that ruling only part of a law unconstitutional, rather than the whole law, is a relatively new concept. Historically the entire law has been struck down if any part of it didn't withstand the challenge. Gene can likely confirm or refute that with certainty.

But we are talking about a historic bill, one that has tremendous consequences for Americans. It is not "ordinary" law that's at stake in any sense of the word. Furthermore, a great amount of work was put into the project and passed by the elected representatives of the people

Totally irrelevant to the issue. It's either constitutional, or it's not. Suppose the elected representatives of the people worked very hard to pass a historic bill that had tremendous consequences for Americans. One that wasn't "ordinary" in any sense of the word. A law that reinstated slavery, or said only whites can go to college, or minimum wage laws only apply to men? Would all of those flowery sentiments be a good argument as to why it shouldn't be found unconstitutional?

Yet here we have an arrogant judge saying he might reject the entire bill (when he only needs to rule on the mandate) because he is too lazy to separate out what is not constitutional.

I believe what he said was that as the entire law's success, or ability to function hinges on the mandate, it doesn't matter what the rest of it says. If the individual mandate is struck down, the law won't work.
If the first floor of a building is condemned, and has to be demolished there isn't much point in inspecting the floors above.

---

Last edited by Parallax; 04-04-2012 at 02:34 PM.

[stevewig]

I think the issue shouldn't just be wether its fair for someone to do their job to the fullest or not all the time, we should be simplifying the bill's trying to be passed. not trying to include other things into bills that really don't need to be there, and making the whole process more simple. however, having said that I don't believe, no matter how tedious a job may be, saying you simply don't want to do it is just absurd. if you take on that role, you have an important duty. you get paid by the people to do that duty. if you don't want to do your job properly, then get a new job. I personally find this attitude pathetic, and it seems to me to be a good indicator of the type of attitude a lot of our current government seems to possess. 'should I really be expected to properly do my job and uphold and defend the constitution with every bill?' YES. you should. period. if there is something you don't understand and need clarification, then having an aid, or more than one is perfectly understandable. but that shouldn't mean that you can get away with only doing your job half assed.

Couldn't agree more with this dissertation - particularly if it involves an attempt to dissolve a bill that is subject to political/party affiliations. Particularly so because people right now have their lives improved by or saved by these measures as we speak!

[les3547]

Actually, I believe that ruling only part of a law unconstitutional . . .

That's incorrect.

Totally irrelevant to the issue. It's either constitutional, or it's not. Suppose a law were passed by elected representatives of the people who worked very hard. A historic bill that had tremendous consequences for Americans. One that wasn't "ordinary" in any sense of the word. Would all of those be a good argument as to why it shouldn't be found unconstitutional if the law reinstated slavery, or said only whites can go to college, or minimum wage laws only apply to men?

??? I understand what his job is. My statement was related to his arrogance of not reading a bill he is ready to dismiss. He doesn't have to dismiss the entire bill, so to do so means he should have sound reasons, reasons he can't know until he reads the bill.

I believe what he said was that as the entire law's success, or ability to function hinges on the mandate, it doesn't matter what the rest of it says. If the individual mandate is struck down, the law won't work.

It isn't up to him to decide based on a law's functionality is it? Constitutionality, and only constitutionality, is his realm. If the law becomes non-functional after gutting the mandate, then it won't function . . . and that will or won't happen without Scalia's interference. His overreaching is what Obama criticized IMO.

If the first floor of a building is condemned, and has to be demolished there isn't much point in inspecting the floors above.

Lol, exactly what Scalia is trying to get away with. Just like the fallacious logic of his broccoli challenge, this too is a thinly veiled partisan argument.

[Parallax]

It isn't up to him to decide based on a law's functionality is it?

I don't think he was making a declaration. I believe that is what its supporters claimed and he was citing that.

??? I understand what his job is. My statement was related to his arrogance of not reading a bill he is ready to dismiss. He doesn't have to dismiss the entire bill, so to do so means he should have sound reasons, reasons he can't know until he reads the bill.

Okay, that was my misinterpretation. You were using that as a reason that they should at least read the entire law; not as a reason for why they should uphold it.

[GeneV]

As I have said earlier, I think that joking about the length of a bill and indicating that it is an imposition to read it before you possibly declare it unconstitutional is poor judicial conduct on several levels. The Supreme Court is in a very different position from any other branch of government. It is not supposed to make law or judge the wisdom of law. Its job is to hold laws constitutional unless there is no other choice, just as its job in many cases is to affirm a lower court unless there is no other choice.

It is not uncommon at all for the Supreme Court or other appellate courts to review entire trial transcripts and records (long documents full of minutia) to make sure they are correct. Compared to poring over volume after volume of a trial record, reading a 900 page law is child's play. To make a silly comment like the one Scalia made, which includes a talking point used by the ACA's opponents, even in jest, is to imply you have prejudged the case.

In Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall pulled the right to hold laws unconstitutional pretty much out of thin air, but it has now been part of our law for more than two centuries. The idea of a court determining severability (whether parts can stand) of a law which has unconstitutional portions has been around since Marshall's own later decisions and in common law of contracts since before there was a United States. How one could possibly determine whether the law is severable without reading the whole thing is a complete puzzle. One oddity is that the statute, with all its complexity, did not contain the common clause allowing it to be severed. This may be read as intent by Congress that it stand or fall as a whole.

In any case, I find the President's comments about the decision to come to be almost as unwise as Scalia's. I say "almost" because the presidency is a political office; he has no duty to be above politics. The SCOTUS does. It is an adjunct to the power that those judges have.

[jeffkrol]

As I have said earlier, I think that joking about the length of a bill and indicating that it is an imposition to read it before you possibly declare it unconstitutional is poor judicial conduct on several levels. The Supreme Court is in a very different position from any other branch of government. It is not supposed to make law or judge the wisdom of law. Its job is to hold laws constitutional unless there is no other choice, just as its job in many cases is to affirm a lower court unless there is no other choice.

It is not uncommon at all for the Supreme Court or other appellate courts to review entire trial transcripts and records (long documents full of minutia) to make sure they are correct. Compared to poring over volume after volume of a trial record, reading a 900 page law is child's play. To make a silly comment like the one Scalia made, which includes a talking point used by the ACA's opponents, even in jest, is to imply you have prejudged the case.

In Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall pulled the right to hold laws unconstitutional pretty much out of thin air, but it has now been part of our law for more than two centuries. The idea of a court determining severability (whether parts can stand) of a law which has unconstitutional portions has been around since Marshall's own later decisions and in common law of contracts since before there was a United States. How one could possibly determine whether the law is severable without reading the whole thing is a complete puzzle. One oddity is that the statute, with all its complexity, did not contain the common clause allowing it to be severed. This may be read as intent by Congress that it stand or fall as a whole.

In any case, I find the President's comments about the decision to come to be almost as unwise as Scalia's. I say "almost" because the presidency is a political office; he has no duty to be above politics. The SCOTUS does. It is an adjunct to the power that those judges have.

rumor has it they were going to add the severability clause at a later date but lost the majority to amend.... sorry can't find source.....


I like aljezzera's take.............

Citizens United was a poster child for unbridled and unpopular judicial activism. The Court's conservative majority, which pretends to abhor such activism, first ordered the parties to remake the case to enable a more sweeping ruling - a virtually unheard of move - and then overturned 100 years of precedent. Bush v. Gore was more lawless still - even the justices admitted it, when they wrote that the decision should not be used as precedent for any other case. At its heart, the decision held that the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause required the protection of an unknown number of yet-uncounted ballots by throwing them out - along with all other uncounted ballots (hence the "equal" part of the most dubious "protection").

That was hardly the only arbitrary and absurd aspect of the Bush v. Gore decision. Indeed, almost all legal observers despaired of making any sense of the ruling - even those who defended the results found the reasoning itself impossible to defend. One person who did attempt a thoroughgoing analysis was famed retired LA prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who argued (article, book, book review) that the complex maze of contradictory rationales all made perfect sense from one perspective: as a criminal enterprise to steal the election.

Prior to the Supreme Court hearings last week, there was good reason to think the case was neither close nor hard - if one looked only at the law. As Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried put it in the quote above, the law stood squarely in the middle of the Congress' Commerce Clause power. And other conservatives agreed, including ones like Jeffrey Sutton and Lawrence Silberman - two appellate court judges who had already found Obamacare to be constitutional. But that assessment foolishly disregarded politics, as Fried himself regretfully noted in an interview with Ezra Klein, from which the quote above also comes.

Re-framing the context

When activist judges want to radically rewrite the law, a general strategy often comes into play revolving around re-framing the context in which arguments are made. First, the framework of existing precedent is set aside. Second, the question at hand is framed provisionally in terms of other issues that existing precedent has routinely dispensed with. And third, a new framework is developed to make sense of the problems created by getting rid of the old framework. This process usually takes several years and a series of cases to unfold, but this past week, the process appeared in highly compressed form, seemingly in the course of a single session of oral arguments on Tuesday, only to be further confirmed the following day.

The old framework was - as Fried noted - the Congressional power of the Commerce Clause. The new framework - at least as tentatively expressed by justices Kennedy and Scalia most pointedly - is that of seeking an ill-defined "limiting principle" - to wit, if Congress can pass this act, what Constitutional principle stops it from doing anything and everything? (As if that weren't already answered in the old framework.) In between, the provisional framing driving the pivot from Commerce Clause to "limiting principle" came not from the law, but from a wholesale influx of overheated Tea Party rhetoric. When asked by Klein, Fried argued against this hijacking process quite succinctly:

First of all, the limiting principle point kind of begs the question. It assumes there's got to be some kind of articulable limiting principle and that's in the Constitution somewhere. What Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1824 is that if something is within the power of Congress, Congress may exercise that power to its fullest extent. So the question is really whether this is in the power of Congress.

Now, is it within the power of Congress? Well, the power of Congress is to regulate interstate commerce. Is healthcare commerce among the states? Nobody except maybe Clarence Thomas doubts that. So healthcare is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.

.

[stevewig]

The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.

You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.

Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Samuel Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country to the Gilded Age.

During that period—which ran from the years after of the Civil War to the start of the 20th century—wealth became highly concentrated and corporations came to dominate American business.

At the close of the Gilded Age, the U.S. infant mortality rate was around 10 percent—a number you find today in impoverished Central African nations. In some cities, it exceeded 30 percent. Women could not vote, and their lives were controlled by men. Blacks lived apart from whites and constituted an economic, social, and political underclass. Corporations exerted an unchecked and deleterious influence on the lives of workers.

All these ills were ultimately addressed by the federal government, but the strongest and most sustained resistance to fixing them came from the court. One exception was the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued that where economic regulations are at stake, judges must respect legislative decisions aimed at protecting society’s most vulnerable members. Our Constitution, Holmes famously wrote, does not enact social Darwinism. If the legislature acts to protect the poor and less powerful, its actions must be respected by the judicial branch...............

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

[metaglypto]

I have just spent the last twenty to thirty minutes trying to get up to speed on this thread, so if I have missed something someone said somewhere, please be at least as forgiving towards me as some of you are willing to be towards SCOTUS,the president, and Congress for not having read every word, sentence and cited document so far.

What strikes me as odd about this discussion is this. The title of the thread is, "Obama Confident About Health Care Law", yet very little has been said about what Obama actually said. Most of the discussion has been about SCOTUS, and what it can, can't, should or should not do. With the exception of GeneV in post #65, and les3547 in post #51 I have read very little analysis of what Obama has actually said. Did I miss something somewhere? If I did I will make amends.

I have read a number of times in these threads people waxing passionate, though seldom eloquent about the stupidity of Sarah Palin, often at the same time bowing before his Highness, Obama. I have pointed out a number of stupid statements by Obama in another thread in defense of Palin's stupid comments. Almost without fail, Obama'isms have been defended as being gaffes while Palin's are attributed to pure stupidity.

Okay what Obama said this time was nothing short of unimpeachable stupidity. I am sure there are some who are going to call me a racist for opining against Obama. That is okay, there are some that think they see a racist whenever a black person is criticized, I won't lose sleep over it, I promise.

President Obama said, “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.” Obama went on to say “Ultimately, 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.”

Nevermind the fact that the House, despite a huge Democratic majority, barely passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by a margin of 219-212. Since when is that a strong majority? Either he is an idiot for saying that, or he thinks the rest of America are idiots for not remembering that, and believing what he says.

Obama, with his vast experience as a community organizer may have missed some salient points about the law. What Obama describes as "an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law" has, in fact, been done countless times since 1803. This is what Wikipedia has to say about that....."Marbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in the history of the Western world that a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional".[1][2] The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government."

Obama is confused as well about "judicial activism" as well. Judicial activism is not, as he insists, simply the act of overturning an existing law; it is when judges allow their personal views about public policy, and not the Constitution, to guide their decisions. It is the job of the Supreme Court Justices to invalidate a law they deem to be unconstitutional, it is in fact is precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

What the president said, then, was ill-informed, ignorant,and in my opinion rivals the stupidity of any other president with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter.

Whether or not this gets overturned by SCOTUS or not is yet to be seen. What he said and how he said it does not bode well for Obama. It almost seems that the message he is trying to send to them is, "You need to throw out your old fashioned ideas of what the Constitution says, and simply kowtow to me because I AM THE PRESIDENT!"

[magkelly]

All this begs the question if a law is okay via the constitution and the current President likes it does that necessarily mean it should go "as is" if rewriting it a bit might make it better?

I personally think that all that stuff in there about involving the IRS and so forth in people's insurance is totally stupid and that it will cause major problems for the very people Obama is so busily trying to help. What happens if no one wants to insure you at all, because you are already sick and not working? What if the state won't help after a certain point?

What if you simply don't make enough to buy decent insurance but can't qualify for whatever reason for the insurance that they've promised will be available to the non-insurable? Non-employed etc. I mean come on how are you supposed to pay for it if you can't afford it now and you get turned down for SSI/SSD and state programs? I've been there, done that and I never got anywhere with those people. Doctors said one thing, they said "no" anyhow. It's total BS the whole system.

Eventually I just gave up and got trained to work at something I could do on my own schedule when I was up to it. But I'm betting that who gets federal help for insurance payments will depend upon all that though. What do you get that way. Which will leave me totally screwed as I can't get independently insured and I can't get any help from the rest anymore. Being self employed was really my only option at this point. But do you want to bet it's going to get me into hot water legally speaking at some point? I'll end up fined for something I can't help and can't afford even if I could get it.

I like the idea of coverage for the non-insured don't get me wrong. It would be lovely if it worked. Be nice to have "some" insurance since they'd just turn me down otherwise, but the way this thing is written I'm just not too sure it won't cause some massive problems for people who really cannot afford to even go there. I'd be happy if they did rewrite it a lot actually. It's a nice idea, this plan, but practical? Not too sure about that.

[ihasa]

I have read a number of times in these threads people waxing passionate, though seldom eloquent about the stupidity of Sarah Palin, often at the same time bowing before his Highness, Obama. I have pointed out a number of stupid statements by Obama in another thread in defense of Palin's stupid comments. Almost without fail, Obama'isms have been defended as being gaffes while Palin's are attributed to pure stupidity.

I don't think your argument is helped by wheeling out poor beleaguered Sarah Palin and trying to draw comparison between her numerous brainfarts, and the President's comments which were more 'political grandstanding' than ignorance. Obama knows what the Supreme Court is and what it's supposed to do, but look at recent decisions it has made - 'corporations are people too' - my god if they can twist the constitution to come up with that conclusion, it shows they do have some degree of flexibility with which they can choose to make their interpretations, and they are most certainly a 'political beast' rather than a bunch of airy, detached and scholarly guardians of the constitution.

...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Abraham Lincoln.

[metaglypto]

I don't think your argument is helped by wheeling out poor beleaguered Sarah Palin and trying to draw comparison between her numerous brainfarts, and the President's comments which were more 'political grandstanding' than ignorance.

Really?!? Like I already stated,

Almost without fail, Obama'isms have been defended as being gaffes while Palin's are attributed to pure stupidity.

While you attribute it to "grandstanding", I say it is stupidity. He probably did not write the speech, but if he is as smart as you think he is then he never read it prior to making it either. One lesson many politicians have learned from Reagan is to improve their oratory skills. Obama is good at it, apparently not so good, nor his speech writers, on a critical thinking level. Otherwise he never would have said that.

Obama knows what the Supreme Court is and what it's supposed to do, but look at recent decisions it has made - 'corporations are people too'

This is one of the problems with ambiguous statements like "recent decisions". Is almost 200 years ago recent? In terms of when dinosaurs roamed Washinton, D.C., instead of some of their more recent counterparts with nearly equal intelligence like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, yes it is recent. In terms of how long this nation has existed as such, not so much. According to Wikipedia, "The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts." Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote: ...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Abraham Lincoln.

I am not sure what your point is here. From what I can tell this has been going on for some time now, and Obama is doing all he can to escalate it.

[ElJamoquio]

'corporations are people too'

Of course that's not what they said, that's what people who mock the decision describe it as.

A person has the right to speech. They can try to sway others to their conclusions.

A group of people, like the ACLU or the Sierra Club have the right to speech.

A person has the right to use the political arena as it affects their financial well being. For instance a bicycle shop owner can recommend to city council that more bike lanes be built in the community.

A group of people, like the League of Michigan Bicyclists, can do the same thing.
A group of people, like the employees/shareholders of Trek, can do the same thing.


I don't like giving "the Man" more control over the political process, even if it's 'just' the financial pursestrings. But you'd need an amendment to change it IMO.

[les3547]

. . . and the President's comments which were more 'political grandstanding' than ignorance.

That's one theory floating around, I have a different take on it.

I think the President's remarks were aimed at Scalia's threat to strike down an entire law based on one small part he might find unconstitutional, not to mention the arrogance of threatening to overturn it in its entirety without actually reading the law. Think about it, that's the only explanation that makes sense when you consider Obama's education and past restraint the President has shown in criticizing anybody.

That a magna cum laude Harvard grad and senior lecturer for 12 years on constitutional law is ignorant of constitutional law is absurd. It's precisely because he understands the role of the Supreme Court that he spoke out. Why would he challenge the right of the court to rule on the constitutionality of a law when he knows beyond all doubt the court is empowered to do that? It's because when he said he was "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 was referring specifically to the actions being contemplated by the court that isn't its job.

Similarly, he referred to the justices as "unelected officials" to say that congress had created a multifaceted law, and congress is a body empowered by the electorate and the constitution to do so. Whatever is constitutional in that law is outside the province of the Supreme Court, so for an unelected group to interfere with constitutionally sanctioned work of congress (striking down an entire law when only part of it is in question), is "unprecedented."

The mistake President Obama made was not clarifying his complaint. It has allowed opponents to interpret is words literally and then accuse him of challenging the legitimate authority of the court. It wasn't the legitimate authority he challenged, and his words weren't spoken in ignorance, as some here pretend. The President let his anger show over what Scalia et al are up to, and it caused him to make a sloppy statement that could be twisted by Obama haters and news hounds who are always looking for something to sensationalize.

[ElJamoquio]

That's one theory floating around, I have a different take on it.

I think the President's remarks were aimed at Scalia's threat to strike down an entire law based on one small part he might find unconstitutional, not to mention the arrogance of threatening to overturn it in its entirety without actually reading the law. Think about it, that's the only explanation that makes sense when you consider Obama's education and past restraint the President has shown in criticizing anybody.

That a magna cum laude Harvard grad and senior lecturer for 12 years on constitutional law is ignorant of constitutional law is absurd. It's precisely because he understands the role of the Supreme Court that he spoke out. Why would he challenge the right of the court to rule on the constitutionality of a law when he knows beyond all doubt the court is empowered to do that? It's because when he said he was "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 was referring specifically to the actions being contemplated by the court that isn't its job.

Similarly, he referred to the justices as "unelected officials" to say that congress had created a multifaceted law, and congress is a body empowered by the electorate and the constitution to do so. Whatever is constitutional in that law is outside the province of the Supreme Court, so for an unelected group to interfere with constitutionally sanctioned work of congress (striking down an entire law when only part of it is in question), is "unprecedented."

The mistake President Obama made was not clarifying his complaint. It has allowed opponents to interpret is words literally and then accuse him of challenging the legitimate authority of the court. It wasn't the legitimate authority he challenged, and his words weren't spoken in ignorance, as some here pretend. The President let his anger show over what Scalia et al are up to, and it caused him to make a sloppy statement that could be twisted by Obama haters and news hounds who are always looking for something to sensationalize.

I understand and agree with you.

Anyone who calls a 219-212 majority a 'strong majority of a democratically elected congress' like it's a mandate from the people, opens the door to all kinds of lies and shenanigans and deserves what he gets.

Even if it WERE a mandate from a democratically elected people, that means NOTHING. I bet that, in the past, there were large majorities of southern-states-congress's that would vote for segregation and poll taxes. Doesn't really mean that the Supreme Court should base it's decision on what the majority of people want, does it?

All said... a really abominable statement from Obama. And the Supreme Court won't flinch at the statement, of course. If anything, having the President piss off the Supreme Court will sway it the wrong way. So this statement is really to rile up his base, apparently.

[metaglypto]

Additionally, in another thread, I mentioned that Obama,when he campaigned in Oregon, said, while apparently reading from notes, "It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

I let it go as a gaffe, a mistake that anyone could make at the time. I now rescind that statement. I watched the video of him saying instead of just reading about it. He slows down, thinks about it for a moment and clearly states "57 states" except Alaska (Sarah territory) and Hawaii, and then states, "one left to go".

Unless you are not out of grade school, how do you make that kind of mistake? Especially for a presidential candidate. Since then I have read numerous exonerations and explanations as to why he made that mistake. Compare this to Dan Quayle when he misspelled "potato",and it turned out the script he was reading from had it misspelled. I can see that as a fairly easy blunder to make anyway, especially when the plural form of "potato" is "potatoes". The media would not let it go,and I heard over and over again about that. It is a prime example of a biased media.

Now consider since Obama has taken office. He has no shortage of staff to do the research he needs, write his speeches, proofread those speeches, coach him, rehearse him, make sure everything is in order so he gets nothing wrong, and he still screws it up. Hell, if I can do a Google search and find this stuff in five minutes or less, what is Obama's problem? And yet, with all those resources at his disposal,provided by taxpayer money,you want to try and compare him to Palin who doesn't have squat, and goes into interviews with little or no preparation as to what they are going to ask her.

Obama is the one who called the press conference. It is not the least bit unreasonable to expect him to be accountable for his stupidity, either personal nor the corporate stupidity of his staff.

Indeed you have picked a tough row to how when you state,

Obama knows what the Supreme Court is and what it's supposed to do