These conservative judges certainly are activist
It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.
Justice Stephen Breyer noted that some of the issues raised by opponents of the law were about “the merits of the bill,” a proper concern of Congress, not the courts. And in arguing for restraint, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked what was wrong with leaving as much discretion as possible “in the hands of the people who should be fixing this, not us.” It was nice to be reminded that we’re a democracy, not a judicial dictatorship…
The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
All judges are in danger of floating into the activist role. Certainly the democraps don’t have a monopoly on that. The liberals do however, have a pretty firm grip on how to be the most annoying liberal progressive socialists possible.
Wolfmoon on March 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Actually, the idea is that when a liberal-run Legislative Branch creates a bill and a liberal President signs it, it’s automatcially constitutional because conservatives can’t throw the law out, since that would make them activist judges.
On the other hand, when a conservative-run Legislative Branch creates a bill and a conservative President signs it, it is perfectly fine for an activist liberal court to throw that law out as unconstitutional without violating their principals.
E.J. and other really believe only liberal Justices have the ethical right to throw out laws, because for conservative Justices to do it is a violation of their own judicial philosophy, no mater how flawed the law is. It’s a mind-numbingly stupid rationale, but is also explains why liberals like Dionne were stunned that the conservatives on the court would even challenge ObamaCare in the hearings.
jon1979 on March 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM
E.J. and other bed wetting, constantly whining liberals always seem to want conservatives and others to bend to their will. I really don’t think that is going to happen this time around.
Even if Kagan is allowed her two cents, when she should have recused herself last year. I think it’s going to come down to the whole ObamaCare shooting match is unconstitutional by a decision of 6 to 3.
Thus ensuring that Zero will lose in a land slide in November.
Jack Deth on March 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM
DUDE, the morons that passed this unconstitutional pile of nonsense did not even read it!
HELLO! That is not performing your constitutional duty. Its the opposite.
Lonetown on March 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Idiot.
Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM
+1
Dionne definitely defines sycophantic clueless liberal. Though some of that may be redundant.
ProfShadow on March 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM
Comedy gold from E.J.
ex Dem from Miami on March 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM
The libs are whining that those who want the mandate tossed because it is unconstitutional don’t care about people who do not have health insurance.
Ummm, the people the mandate targets are people who do not have health insurance and have made a choice not to buy it. The libs want to force them to buy health insurance. Ain’t that ironic?
farsighted on March 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2