New York Times former Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse appeared on the CBS morning show Saturday to defend Barack Obama's unprecedented attack on the "unelected" Supreme Court and hold to her much-mocked belief, first presented in her March 21 column for nytimes.com, that ObamaCare opponents are "simply wrong" and their argument "analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection." A week later, that "weak" argument emerged triumphant during Supreme Court arguments, demolishing the White House's rationale for ObamaCare.
First, Greenhouse put the best spin on Obama's attack on the Supreme Court:
Glor: What did you make of the President's comments?
Greenhouse: Well, you know, I think this, the sound bite that emerged from them and then the meltdown that the federal judge down on the Fifth Circuit exhibited -- it's a little exaggerated. What the president was saying, as I understand it from reading the full text, he's saying, look, Republicans have been running against, quote, 'An activist Supreme Court' for a generation now, and I'm asking this Supreme Court not to be activists and not to reach out and strike down a democratically enacted statue."
....
Glor: So how much are they paying attention to what the President is saying, then, and what -- and what the papers are saying?
Greenhouse: Well, I certainly think they're aware of it. You know, when that federal judge demanded that the Justice Department come back in a day with an explanation of of whether the, doesn't the President agree that the court has the power of judicial review. That was really an amazing and highly politicized overreaction. So I think it indicates that within the federal judiciary, as well as the political system, everybody's hanging on every word.
Glor: And one would think maybe not the last comment like that as we, as we close in on this decision in June. Linda, I have to ask you, you covered twenty-nine sessions. Where do you think the Court is going to come down on this?
Greenhouse: Personally, I think I agree with many constitutional scholars who think actually, that the statute is going to be upheld, because there really isn't much of an argument on the other side. And even if there are justices who don't like the law, who would not have voted for the law if they were members of Congress, you know, they have to write an opinion, votes on the Supreme Court come with reasons and there's really, it's hard to articulate why this Supreme Court, given the precedence that exists, that support the power of Congress over interstate commerce, how the Court would explain striking down this statute.
