Well, I'll be hornswoggled! INTEGRITY!
The mainstream media and left-of-center pundits managed to leave criticism of President Obama’s bizarre—for a lawyer and supposed authority on Constitutional law, and yes, for a President too—assertion that there was something “unprecedented” about the Supreme Court declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional, and something inappropriate for this to be done by “unelected” judges, to conservative sources, an increasingly common and deplorable technique that allows the Left to thereafter discredit legitimate and non-ideological observations as “partisan.” Thus it was a relief, and a credit to the organization, when the reliably liberal American Bar Association weighed in with the same critique of the President’s comments, with similar intensity.
In a press release, the ABA president William T. Robinson III stated in no uncertain terms that:
“President Barack Obama’s remarks on Monday speculating about the Supreme Court’s potential decision in the health care legislation appeal are troubling. Particularly worrisome was his suggestion that the court’s decision in this case could serve as a ‘good example’ of what some commentators have cited as “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” by an “unelected group of people.”
“We’re gratified that the president recast his remarks Tuesday. He clarified appropriately that ‘the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it.’”
“Federal judges are, by design, not elected officials. Article II of our Constitution reserves for the president the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices and all other officers of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. In fact, President Obama himself has offered more than 123 nominations for Article III judgeships, including two lifetime appointments to our nation’s highest court.
“The legitimacy of judicial review was settled more than 200 years ago in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, which established such review as a key safeguard of the separation of powers doctrine. The Framers of our Constitution clearly understood that an independent judiciary is critical to the maintenance of our democracy and freedom.
“It is incumbent on all of our elected officials—including those aspiring to hold office—to continually demonstrate that the courtroom is not a political arena. It is a measure of a free society that individuals are able to openly disagree with court decisions, but we should expect our leaders to refrain from partisan statements aimed at judges fulfilling their constitutional role and responsibilities.”
Presumably Prof. Dyson doesn’t think the ABA’s criticism of the President is rooted in racism, only the critiques of the conservatives who said exactly the same thing. And can we presume that when and if the Court strikes down the individual mandate, the President and his allies will respect that opinion as the legitimate and honest determination of an independent judiciary? Will Democratic leadership “refrain from partisan statements aimed at judges fulfilling their constitutional role and responsibilities”?
I certainly agree with Mr. Robinson that this would be the respectful, responsible, fair and ethical response.
We shall see.
Meanwhile, kudos to the ABA for showing integrity and putting aside its own partisan leanings, which are often all too prominent, in the interest of protecting an independent judiciary.
Ethics Alarms 
In fact, every time the Supreme Court strikes down a law passed by a majority of a democratically-elected Congress, it is, at a minimum, disagreeing with the constitutional judgment of at least one other branch of the government.
The question has always been; where does a court transition from legitimate constitutional review to legislating from the bench? A lot has to do with the integrity of the judges themselves. But few principled jurists, I think, could ignore the severe constitutional question brought on by the passage of Obamacare. What it must eventually come down to is a comprehensive review of the Commerce Clause itself.
The Supreme Court’s history of liberal interpretations of this have not only led to the massive growth and intrusions of the federal government, but have led us to this point; bureaucrats being able to control the citizens by mandating their access to life or death medical care. It inevitably HAD to come to this point. I maintain that it’s not enough for SCOTUS to overthrow Obamacare. It must review the entire principle of the Commerce Clause on the basis of original intent. If it does so fairly and responsibly, the federal apparatus that burdens our lives must necessarily dissolve as well.