Activist Court?
The left is busy criticizing the Supreme Court as “activist” and biased in advance of any possible ruling against Obamacare. Oh, it’s perfectly fine for the Court to be activist when it is stretching the Constitution to fit the leftist agenda. Finding a right to privacy in order to guarantee abortion nationwide? No problem. And the left never met an extension to the Commerce Clause that it didn’t like.
But if there is a case in which the Court steps back in order to curtail the powers of the federal government and return to a former and stricter state of constitutional interpretation—well, that’s unconscionably activist. And of course the Roberts Court has been doing that more and more, right?
Nope, wrong, says Jonathan H. Adler at Volokh—and, of all things, the the NY Times is his source of information:
The problem with these characterizations of the court is that if by “judicial activism” one means a willingness to overturn precedents and invalidate federal laws, the Roberts Court is the least activist court of the post-war period. As a recent NYT analysis showed, thus far the Roberts Court has overturned prior precedents and invalidates federal at a significantly lower rate than its predecessors. Further, many of the Court’s most “activist” decisions, so-defined, have moved the law in a more liberal direction (see, e.g., Boumediene, Kennedy v.Louisiana) or were broadly supported First Amendment decisions (e.g. Stevens). This does not mean the Roberts Court’s decisions are correct and there are exceptions to every rule. Nor does the court’s past conduct necessarily predict the future. It does, however, mean that when one looks at the Court’s overall behavior (and not at a single case) it is inaccurate to say that this Court is particularly “activist” in moving the law in a conservative direction by overturning precedents and invalidating federal laws.
But people such as James Fallows, for example, don’t like to let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Yeah, I read that yesterday and it just reinforced my thinking on the subject.
Is it possible the illiberal can more attribute to exactly what they do? They now claim the tea party will riot if Obamacare isn’t struck down? What the hell? Like what other tea party riots might you be referring to? Oh, that bad one at the capital when health care passed? That one where the “N” word narrative was trotted out.
New info on the Zimmerman case exonerates him from his re-enactment of the incident to the fact now out that he passed a lie detector test. But what the left puts out is a one page “complaint” from someone who won’t identify themselves that GZ harassed him because he was a better salesman.
Case after case like that.
If not participating in the health care market means you are part of the market, then isn’t sleeping interstate commerce? What causes more lost productivity? Lack of sleep or bad health? I’ll guess sleep loss. More deaths? Lack of sleep especially on highways and in industrial settings. So, in the name of the welfare of these United States, let us declare 8 hours of sleep to be the minimum necessary before a person may engage in any activity and to boost the interstate commerce activity, production, and general welfare. It’s already a requirement of truck drivers and railroad engineers, under our archaic notion that interstate activity meant, you know, activity. So the expansion of the requirement to every citizen is really in line with past precedent.
The left is busy criticizing the Supreme Court as “activist” and biased in advance of any possible ruling against Obamacare.
Great news. Some fundamental aspect(s) of Obamacare obviously have been struck down, and the Reds have gotten wind of it and are beginning to prepare the battle space.
Judicial activism? Hoist. Petard. Gotta love it.
The illiberals don’t know their history very well or they wouldn’t condemn “activist” courts. The Warren Court, which ruled 9-0 for Brown v. Board of Education leading to the Civil Rights Act, was “activist.” Brown had to overrule Plessy. With Obamacare, Wickard doesn’t need to be overruled; therefore, there is less “activism” needed than Board required. So, for certain rulings “activism” is best for the nation. Who would now argue that granting Brown was wrong?
What?
Everyone holding their breath and can’t talk?
No worries.
Tomorrow the tea party will be Susan Boyle at minute 5:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=VSrAJsWvEIc
Hallelujah.
So let’s see, if SCOTUS rules the mandate unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision it’s an activict politicized court. If, however, it rules Obamacare constitutional in a 5-4 decision it’s an enlightened court. Yeah, that’ll fly.
Here’s hoping that ACA goes down in flames in a 6-3 ruling w/ Sotomayor joining the majority. That’ll shut ’em up.