Response to "LA Times" Editorial "Law Professor in Chief"

Although the Los Angeles Times betrays a strong liberal bent, considering the overtly challenging political cartoons from Ted Rall, I admire that the editorial staff at least summoned the legal wherewithal to hold the President accountable for his uninformed opinion about the role of the Supreme Court.

A constitutional scholar such as President Obama should be deferring more often regarding the proper role of the Court in evaluating, qualifying, or even striking down Congressional acts.

From Marbury vs. Madison to the present, from Chief Justice John Marshall to John Roberts, the third branch of government, often derided as the "weakest" by Federalist writer Alexander Hamilton, has followed necessary arguments to delineate the meaning of the Constitution, construe of the role of Congress and the Representative, and extend to their fullest power the rights conferred on the American citizen.

Hardly unprecedented, for the Supreme Court to amend or throw out ObamaCare entirely falls appropriately within their scope as arbiters of limited government. Although I do not share the Los Angeles Times' argument that Justice Kennedy has tailored too narrowly the commerce clause in relation to the United States' overt attempt to directly manage 17% of the country's economy, I do appreciate that they have remonstrated the president for belittling the proper role of Supreme Court.