that s inappropriate or calls that an activist court, he is really very puzzling and very troubling and suggest this president will say anything, will attack any institution, will distort the truth with reckless abandon, and in this case in a way i think is terribly disrespectful of one of the branches of our government. i m going to let you think it over buzz just let me not george w. bush. we ll say anything, we ll distort the truth with reckless abandon and in case so that s who? who s he talking about? it can t be george w. bush because there s no evidence that any of the republican candidates know who george w. bush is. he s never been mentioned, that s right. mike, tell us what s going on here. they are suddenly very, very upset that a president actually quoting republicans not saying he was using the republican phrase about them being unelected saying this is what you guys used to say. and they can t take it when he says that.
people would somehow overturn a duly stud and past law. martha: well, that has all kinds of legal scholars talking about that statement this morning, and shannon bream joins me live in washington with some of the reaction that has been sparked by the president s comments yesterday . coming from the campaign trail, here s mitt romney. they will opine as to whether omabacare violates the constitution. i believe it does. that will not be an activist court, that will be a court following the constitution which is precisely what it was designed to do.
too. he went further on monday daring the justices not to strike down his healthcare law, saying it would be judicial activism. warren hatch says, quote, it must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every supreme court decision you don t is activists. reaction coming from the campaign trail. they will opine whether obamacare violates the constitution. i believe it does. i think they are going to say it does. that will not be an activist court that will be a court following the constitution which is precisely what it was designed to do. reporter: other prominent leaders have shown more deference to the court in recent years. after the justices decided bush v. gore, gore said he accepted the decision and was bowing out. president bush also said he would accept a ruling with
perhaps not an easy ride but not so rough a ride in the supreme court as they did this week. here you have justice kennedy, a swing vote on these issues, doesn t seem the administration can win without him, he s openly skeptical and said there is something unprecedented about what the administration did here. i would say this, anyone who judges how the court is going to rule based on the questions hasn t looked at the history of the questions before and then the results. would you consider a 5-4 decision along ideological lines an activist court? with citizens united where they took 100 years of precedence and allowed corporations and others to put so much money into campsigns when they hadn t been allowed before. and to uphold it on those same ideological lines, is that just as activist in your mind? well, the bottom line is, there is a broad tradition of
administration lawyers were quite confident they would get perhaps not an easy ride but not so rough a ride in the supreme court as they did this week. here you have justice kennedy, a swing vote on these issues, doesn t seem the administration can win without him, he s openly skeptical and said there is something unprecedented about what the administration did here. i would say this, anyone who judges how the court is going to rule based on the questions hasn t looked at the history of the questions before and then the results. would you consider a 5-4 decision along ideological lines an activist court? with citizens united where they took 100 years of precedence and allowed corporations and others to put so much money into campsigns when they hadn t been allowed before. and to uphold it on those same ideological lines, is that just as activist in your mind?