You're watching...
University of Missouri Law Professor Thom Lambert on Obama’s comments that the Supreme Court striking down the health-care law would be “unprecede...
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
New criticism of the president today for his warning to the Supreme Court not to strike down -- care.
A -- has claimed it would be unprecedented.
With shocking not only because it's wrong but only because he's the president.
But because Obama taught constitutional law when he was a professor at the University of Chicago.
Here to -- -- and someone who actually took the president.
Lambert now a professor of -- himself at the University of Missouri.
Professor what -- the show great to have you here.
I how eaten your first reaction to this statement that I striking down a lot would be unprecedented when -- think.
Well sort of shocked when I have my Wall Street Journal and read president say that it would be unprecedented to strike down.
-- statute passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress putting aside the point that it wasn't really.
Strong maturity get past the Affordable Care Act he knows that this simply isn't true that the supreme court for.
For years has declared -- unconstitutional when they conflict with the text of the constitution and they're there invalid so.
I know that he knew that wasn't true when he said it I was really shocked to see it in print.
Well and you -- which I thought -- really hit the nail on the head here.
-- said imagine if you picked up your morning Paper to read the wanna hear astronomy professor's question whether the earth rob revolves around the sun.
It was so fundamental and can we still have you here.
Professor Lam about it how good we can't see you know we can -- area are right and still can't -- me.
Yes we can now.
You're straight out of -- It's a little bit about how the administration responded to a lot of criticism not just from you but from lots of people.
Eric Holder wrote this the power the courts to review the constitutionality.
Of legislation is beyond his view.
The president's remarks were fully consistent with these principles.
What do you make -- -- Well -- tomorrow from Bill Clinton I guess it means it turns on what the meaning -- fully consistent is.
I mean clearly his statement that it would be unprecedented to overturn -- Affordable Care Act.
Is not fully consistent with what was in mr.
holder's letter but.
The attorney general's letter was correct that the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn unconstitutional legislation and it's done so.
Many times.
Right and I hear -- it does so at least two to three times each and every here.
With the appeals court out of line and asking for this letter from holder.
Well I don't think so -- -- case that was before the fifth circuit was a case involving a challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
It came right after the president had made.
Or the argument was right after the president had made his statement and so I think it was entirely appropriate for the fifth circuit judge judge Gary Smith for who might clerks.
To request clarification from the Justice Department.
Still a -- -- -- you know the man I mean what's it like it to the kind of guy to that question natural order does he not like -- being observed by.
Elected officials.
Well it judge Smith is an extremely fair minded judge he's not a particularly aggressive questioner.
He has question judges a lot on the issue of jurisdiction or the -- and questioned -- a lot on the question of jurisdiction.
Why is this case before us and the statement by the president was in the nature of -- jurisdictional claimed that the court Hewlett lacked the authority to overturn this.
Legislation and so it naturally peaked judge Smith's interest and I'm sure it does right and happy here the president.
Stepping on and the courts toes here.
Yeah I it was obvious that it just didn't rub -- the right way.
-- tell us what it was like having the president as here as your professor.
What was he like as a teacher.
-- is a very popular teacher.
He's a good speaker as we all -- either very likable guy.
It's not particularly rigorous especially by university Chicago standards.
And one of the things that was really interesting to me about his comments is that in in the entire course that I took from him which was on the fourteenth amendment that's.
Part of the constitution that serves as the basis for Roe vs.
Wade Francis and very controversial decisions -- the court really went out there in overturning legislation.
The president never seem concerned about judicial activism not when it was cases like roe vs waiter Griswold vs Connecticut.
Now he seems pretty concerned.
And -- that was interesting.
Well that's a definite flip flopped -- do you feel like you can comment.
On -- the Supreme Court will will turn down the -- individual mandate or how they might rule.
Well I'm not constitutional law scholar and corporate law scholar and a little bit.
Nervous to wade in -- I think it'll be awfully close and I really wouldn't be surprised either way.
You would be surprised either way it.
It's such a big lie if they do take out the individual mandate will be possible for the rest of the lot.
To continue to do you think.
-- there I would say I think that if if the -- individual mandate goes.
It would really be sort of activist for the court to step in and try to Parse the 2700 hates -- -- That would really be acting like legislature so I think if the individual mandate goes the entire statute -- Well professor Lambert thanks for coming on the show and I really appreciate your time in your insight into some big going on on the Supreme Court thanks -- Thanks for having me -- come.
