Skip to comments.Following the Constitution Isn't "Judicial Activism" (Judge Vinson's decision was originalist)
Posted on 02/03/2011 12:52:01 PM PST by SeekAndFind
For discussion's sake, let's just concede that every four years or so the American public is fooled into voting for a demagogue who's mastered a pleasant-sounding, market-tested populism. Let's then imagine -- this is for discussion only -- that this person's resulting agenda, cheery but mildly authoritarian, passes with public support.
Does the federal court system exist to rubber stamp legislation? Should they check in and see if it's cool with the public? Or do we have courts to decide the constitutionality of laws? Do we insulate judges from democracy for a reason? Do we have a Constitution to keep a check on government or to bend to the constant predilections of the electorate?
The White House's position is clear. When U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled this week that Obamacare was unconstitutional -- due to its individual mandate -- the White House's first reaction was to call the ruling "out of the mainstream," as if it were remotely true or that it even mattered.
The decision, you may not be surprised to hear, is also a case of "judicial activism" and an "overreach."
Co-opting conservative terms like "judicial activism" is a cute way of trying to turn the tables on those who have some reverence for the original intent of the Founders.
The true activist invents new ways to expand power and set precedents allowing his or her ideological views to be embedded in the "Constitution" forever. An activist searches for ways to rationalize intrusions, not to limit them -- unless the breach involves terrorism suspects and the guy holed up in the White House is a Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Obama disdains public opinion, or even the results of national elections. Why should he pay attention to a federal judge?
In the mind of a leftist,
any overturning of legislation is “activism”.
They recognize and do not deny when judges are activist on their behalf, and of course, encourage this behavior.
BUT, here’s where insight into their worldview comes in handy - they ALSO see, as “activist”, when judges rule against THEIR legislation, even if such a ruling is based on the objective standard of the Constitution.
They either have no concept of, or simply reject, the idea of “objective standards”.
This is the basis of their worldview, in Gen 3:5 - you are like God, deciding good and evil for yourself.
There are no objective standards, not in the Bible nor the Constitution.
US District Judges are nominated by the President under the constitutional authority of Article III. We all know what BHO thinks of the Constitution, so it’s no surprise he dismisses a decision by such a judge.
Obama takes a totally poisitivistic view of law. The law is nothing more than an expedient to an end in view. If it doesn’t serve the end, then it is ignored.
I have this “discussion” with a certain lib in my family every once in a while.
When there’s a disagreement on a “right/wrong” issue,
I’ll point to the Bible as my reference,
and she’ll say, sarcastically, “oh, so that proves you’re right and I’m wrong?”
No, I say, _I’m_ not right, the Bible’s right.
This reference to an objective standard simply DOES NOT REGISTER -
“so, you’re right and I’m wrong?”
and around and round we go.
But to the left, following the Constitution IS judicial activism!!!!
His admin was found guilty yesterday of contempt of court.
I suspect it’s not going to be the only time.
NEGATING a law is not activist. Making law, i.e. gays have the right to marry, is activist.