Obama's fear of defeat framed his attack on the Supreme Court, Monday. Big mistake. I swear, the man wears a size 11d mouth.

Sen. John Kyl (Arz) intends to retire,  with
this being his last term.  

Editor's opinion:  We all know why Obama went on the war path,  Monday.  He is afraid his societal reformation bill,  we call it "ObamaCare,"  may be struck down,  in whole or in part,  and wants to begin a trail of critical review before that happens,  if it happens,  in late June.  

Beginning with his negative remarks on Monday,  Obama is hoping that his political allies and minions will continue his talking points,  so that when the time comes,  the criticism and any suggested course of action will be seen as part of the national discourse.  He has most of three months to establish this discourse.  Understand that, on the one hand,  if  he waits to mount his attack, his words will seem "knee-jerk" in nature,  and "whinie" in character.   But,  and on the other hand,  if he begins the debate now,  before the Court's potential decision against his law,  what he announces, afterward, will seem to be only an extension of the national narrative.  

The following is from Hugh Hewitt, his discussion with Senator Kly about Obama's threat to the Supreme Court.  You will want to read the full interview at Hugh Hewitt.  Understand that the Supreme Court has ruled against the national legislature, striking down some 150 bits and species of legislation.  

******

From the HH show:

The president showed a bit of "Chicago rules" for SCOTUS yesterday, which should push any wavering anti-Obamacare justice into the "strike-it-all-down" camp.  It is truly a remarkable thing for the POTUS to ramble on about the SCOTUS, but we saw it before in the 2010 State of the Union, and we will hear all about it throughout the summer and fall, and Obama tries to make the Court's exercise of its authority to "say what the law is" yet another occasion for wrecking yet another institution.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece on this absurd bit of editorializing.  Senator Kyl has a piece in today'sWall Street Journal on this absurdity. I interviewed Senator Jon Kyl about the president's absurd and stilted remarks --"duly constituted law"?-- and that transcript is here.  (Kyl also has an important piece in the Journalon the president's tete-a-tete with Russia's Medvedev.) Read the whole thing for updates on spending and missile defense, but here's the key exchange on the president's assault on the Court:

HH: Well, I want to start with you by playing for you something the President said, and I remind everyone that Senator Kyl’s been on Judiciary for as, have you been on it for all eighteen years?

JK: Yes, I have.

HH: Okay, so eighteen years of Judiciary hearings, and here is what the President of the United States said today about the Supreme Court hearing last week.

Barack Obama words played for John Kyl's comment:   I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example.

HH: What do you think of that, Senator Kyl (laughing)?

JK: Well, the Wall Street Journal had a great lead editorial this morning answering that question. Liberals are very happy when the Supreme Court strikes down things that they don’t like. And they, of course, don’t call that judicial activism at all. And the Journal gave numerous examples of that, hailed by the Democrats as forward thinking, and the living Constitution, and all the rest of it you’re familiar with. But if the Court ever says Congress has gone too far here in stretching its authority under the Commerce Clause, whoa, couldn’t have that. That would be judicial activism. No, judicial activism in this case would be to affirm that the Congress has a right that the founders never intended it to have, namely to force people to buy something to create commerce so that then Congress can regulate it. That would be judicial activism.

HH: Senator Kyl, obviously you’ve hashed out the Commerce Clause jurisprudence issue many times in confirmation hearings. And given that background, what did you make of the arguments last week?

JK: You know, it’s hard to, obviously, nobody’s making predictions based upon the questions of the justices, but it’s clear that they were very much up on the arguments, they’d read the briefs . . . . . . . hyperlink to HH for the rest of the story.