Unpacking the Nexus Between Obama and the US Supreme Court

President Obama's legacy often intersects with the contentious issue of the US Supreme Court. Critics frequently suggest that Obama should take new measures to safeguard the judiciary. However, a deep dive into the current state of the Supreme Court reveals that it is far from needing any interventions, let alone ones prompted by former President Barack Obama.

Understanding the Current State of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, as a pillar of the American institutional framework, is currently operating within a framework that aligns with its indispensable role. It is an institution that does not exist in peril and is certainly not in need of aid from political figures, especially from those who occupied the Presidency preceding its current composition.

The current court's robustness is further underpinned by the appointment of three originalist justices by President Donald Trump. These appointments have shifted the balance towards a more stringent interpretation of the Constitution, reflecting originalist principles which aim to understand the document as it was intended when it was written.

Challenges to the Supreme Court

The only real challenge to the stability of the court comes from the political opposition within certain circles, particularly from the Democratic Party. There have been vocal calls for 'court-packing' (a concept where additional judges are appointed to a court to change its philosophical leanings). Such ideas, however, have not materialized and are highly unlikely to do so as the political equilibrium naturally oscillates.

The issue of court-packing is not one-sided. It is a fear that could be reciprocated by the majority party in Congress, leading to a significant expansion of the judiciary, bringing into question the very maintenance of judicial balance and integrity.

Obama's Legacy and the Court’s Alignment

Highlighting the inappropriateness of invoking Obama to 'save' the Supreme Court brings us to Obama's own legacy and his approach to governance. There are several factors to consider:

**Economic and Health Disasters:** Obama's tenure was marred by significant economic challenges which he promised to "build back better." Despite his ambitious plans, the U.S. experienced low inflation, energy independence, and a functional supply chain, all of which were for the better. However, his policies also resulted in infrastructure and healthcare dilemmas, particularly with the healthcare system which continues to be a contentious area. **Health Pandemic Management:** His response to the pandemic was marked by discord and indecision, leading to higher mortality rates compared to the following administration, despite the existence of a vaccine.

In the context of the Supreme Court, the current composition and the work of originalist judges demonstrate a judicial path that is largely in line with the original intent of the Constitution. Just as economic and health challenges required different approaches, the judicial system is inherently stable and self-regulating without the necessity for presidential interventions beyond nomination.

Obama's Imprint on the Supreme Court

The idea of Obama appointing satanic democrats to the Supreme Court is a caricature of a more complex political reality. His selection of judges, such as Merrick Garland, confirmed a nuanced approach, balancing the ideological spectrum without alienating the broader judicial landscape. It is crucial to recognize that the Supreme Court has a long tradition of maintaining its independence and the judiciary has historically been capable of self-correction.

Furthermore, the recent appointments made by President Biden, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, serve to bring a fresh perspective while maintaining a balance in the court's political and ideological composition. This approach is in line with the court's long tradition of interpreting the law rather than creating it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court stands as a bastion of judicial integrity and serves as a reminder of the enduring power of constitutional checks and balances. Absent any tangible threats or significant deviations from the original intent of the Constitution, it is unreasonable to advocate for interventions aimed at 'saving' it. The actions of former presidents, including Obama, played a part in shaping the court but cannot be the sole determinants of its future. It is in the hands of the current judiciary to uphold the principles it was founded upon.