Obama: Hey, the Supremes shouldn't have even taken up King v. Burwell

It's not like the guy has never publicly upbraided the Supreme Court before. He did it during a State of the Union address, right in front of them, after they displeased him by deciding that Citizens United has the right to criticize Hillary Clinton. So why not let them have it, in advance, for the purpose of chipping away at their credibility in the event they rule against him in King v. Burwell.

That case, as you know well, concerns whether the federal government has to administer ObamaCare according to the statutory text by only subsidizing policies purchased on state-run exchanges. This would wipe out federal subsidies for those in the 34 states who are buying their policies on the federal exchange because their states exercised their right not to establish and run their own. And that - thanks to the inflated costs caused by ObamaCare's many mandates - would render the policies unaffordable for many. Obama claims he has no contingency plan in the event that happens. But what if that really means his contingency plan is to change nothing - meaning the federal government would find some sneaky way to continue the subsidies regardless of what the Supremes decide. You think Obama wouldn't dare defy the high court? Have you been paying attention to the way this guy operates? Defy Congress and they hold hearings and press conferences denouncing your abuse of your power. Not that the media care, but at least they can do something. What can the Supreme Court do? Especially when Obama has planted the seed in the public's minds that the case never should have been heard in the first place:

With a crucial legal decision looming, President Barack Obama said Monday the Supreme Court should not even have considered the latest challenge to his signature health care law but he voiced confidence the justices “will play it straight” — and leave the law intact. Obama weighed in on the merits of the case against the five-year-old Affordable Care Act as the High Court prepares to announce a decision sometime later this month that could wipe out health insurance for millions of people.

---

Wrapping up a two-day international summit Monday, Obama told reporters there was no reason for the health program to end up in court, maintaining that “the thing is working.” “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up,” he said. The remark was a direct and provocative challenge to a court that holds the fate of one of Obama’s top legislative achievements in its hands. To prevail, Obama needs the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of whom most likely voted to hear the case in the first place.

Now there's nothing wrong with Obama arguing the merits of his side's case. But he's doing a lot more than that. He's trying to invalidate in advance any rulings that don't go his way. Only if he gets what he wants, he implies, will the court have "played it straight." Any legal question about how he is administering the law should be put aside because, according to him, "the thing is working." I don't think this is just rhetorical recklessness. I think Obama sees an opportunity here to establish a new precedent, which would be that the Executive Branch can defy the Judicial Branch if it can convince enough of the public that the latter overstepped its bounds in making a ruling - especially if the case can be made that obeying the ruling puts a hardship on a lot of people. Of course, none of this would be legitimate. There are many ways ObamaCare could and should be fixed, up to and including repealing the entire thing and getting rid of the incentives for third parties to pay for most of an individual's health care needs. Obama knows all that, but if he considered it, he'd also be considering giving up some of the power grab the federal government achieved when it passed ObamaCare in the first place - and that's beyond the pale for the modern-day Democratic Party. A lot of people think Chief Justice Roberts swooped in and saved ObamaCare in 2012 because he didn't want his legacy to be so "activist" as to throw out a president's signature piece of legislation. I'm not sure that was really his motivation, but at any rate let's see if Roberts is so willing to save Obama's # after having the Court's very authority to choose the cases it will hear so brazenly challenged as Obama has done in this situation. I think the White House should lose because it's wrong on the merits. If Obama's own arrogance helps tip the case in that direction, though, fine by me. It would serve him right.