President Obama is probably just trying to work the refs in his comments suggesting he is "confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Since Progressives have long praised the Court for taking away from the people the right to make law on may subjects, the comment might seem striking. But I actually think it is entirely consistent with the Progressive understanding of the "living constitution." Whatever furthers the Progressive agenda is good, and whatever blocks it is bad. Living is only supposed to be in the direction of "progress." If the Court strikes down laws Progressives like, they will decide that judicial review is passe.
But what if the country is divided about what is "forward" in history? And what if some (many, I suspect) Americans are not living in an Hegelian world in which History has direction?
More evidence that a living constitution is impossible absent a consensus about what's next.
P.S. Obama's criticism of Paul Ryan for "thinly veiled Social Darwinism" draws out a related point. Uncle Barry's moral ideas are from fifty years ago. His Progressivism is trapped in the past. His living constitution is the prisoner of 20th century Progressivism.