Judicial Activisim.
To a conservative, it’s writing new law from the bench.
To a liberal / neosocialist? It’s upholding the Constitution.
Joe Doakes from Como Park writes:
President Obama said:
“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Judicial activism. You keep using that phrase. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Which is true. But the real point is, just watch; this’ll be the opening salvo of an effort by the Administration, Media Matters and the left and media (ptr) to reframe “Judicial Activism” as a synonym for “Originalism”.
Mitch, sometimes it’s more complicated. Most recently, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court acknowledged Constitutionally protected free speech, for corporations (as has apparently been the case for unions) but these two types of organizations are not defined to be “persons” by the Constitution. That “personhood” came after the Constitution in subsequent laws.
So, which form of judicial activism was it in that case?
I don’t think that is right, Leslie. That is, I don’t think the Sc found that corporations were “persons”. I believe they decided that people acting as a group had the right to unrestricted political speech. It is difficult to think os a principled reason why New York Times Corporation gets to make all the political speech it likes while Exxon Corporation does not.
The Constitution does not define “person.” Legislation enacted by Congress and states defined “person” to include both natural-born flesh-and-blood persons and also juridical entities – entities that have no natural life but exist solely because the law says they do (examples: corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies). Legislation gave rights to juridical entities, not judicial activism.
Since Congress and various states defined juridical entities as persons and gave them rights, the Court found no reason why certain persons should be denied the right of freedom of speech. That’s proper judicial action, interpreting statutes in light of the Constitution as intended by the authors.
Improper judicial action – judicial activism – is inventing reasons to strike down otherwise Constitutional laws. Judge-ordered homosexual marriage, forced bussing of schoolchildren and taxpayer-funded partial birth abortion on demand are examples where the Courts had no Constitutional basis for the decision but made it anyway.
So according to Obama, Texas V. Johnson was judicial activism? I wished someone would have asked him that. FYI that was the the Flag Burning SCOTUS decision that invalidated LAWS PASSED by 48 of the 50 states making flag burning not only a crime, but a felony I believe. As a libertarian, I salute this decision to this day and while I find the act disgusting and despicable I believe our founders would want it protected under the 1st amendment. The first amendment was made so unpopular and unappealing speech would be protected. Also, I’m pretty sure the interstate commerce clause cannot possibly make this act constitutional. If we are allowed to buy health insurance the way we buy car/home/life insurance rates will drop dramatically.
When do we get to talk about how poor a student of the constitution Obama is?
He was a part-time lecturer at UC law school. He never published and academic work. He was president of HLR without ever writing a single article for HLR.
His law career post Harvard was with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. The “Davis” part of that went on to first be a business partner with tony Rezko, then appointment to the Illinois State Board of Investment by Rod Blagojovich.
While at DMB & H, what did Obama do? Know one knows, though from what I can tell, DMB & H liked to sue various state & city housing agencies on behalf of its slum-dwellers. The settlement involved building new low income housing, all arranged — for a fee — by Rezko and Davis. The new construction was unlivable. Rezko is now in prison for soliciting kickbacks.
The course Obama taught at UC — as far as I can tell — was a clinical course on how civil rights lawyers could argue for an expansive view of the 14th amendment to result in a court deciding that a community must make invest in minority communities, through people like Rezko and Davis.
He doesn’t know squat about separation of powers or how and why the founders wrote a constitution gave the federal government limited, enumerated powers. His understanding of the constitution is that it is a tool to take from some and give it to others.
This is the kind of “constitutional law professor” the media rammed down America’s throat.
Terry, with all due respect (of which a great amount is due IMO), I think you’re wrong about one part of your post:
He doesn’t know squat about separation of powers or how and why the founders wrote a constitution gave the federal government limited, enumerated powers.
I disagree. He DOES know about separation of powers and why the founders wrote the limited, enumerated powers. It is his (and his handlers’) singular goal to undo all of that.
I refuse to give him the benefit of doubt any longer. He is not stupid. He is Marxist. The whole paradigm of him being stupid is incorrect, because that assumes while he is stupid, he doesn’t want to destroy this country. Clinton is a liberal democrat and he was for the expansion of government, but I don’t believe he had it as a goal to utterly destroy our capitalist economy and representative government. Obama does.
The conspiracy theorist in me sometimes alternately wonders and marvels at the depth and breadth and duration of the behind the scenes “movement” (or “operation”, if you will…) to get him elected to president. I think it goes FAR back, much earlier than 2008 or even 2006. I think he’s been groomed for this for decades.
And if we are successful in defeating him, I have to wonder “What’s/Who’s next?”
Bill C, there are other things to watch besides GBTV.
Too many unforced errors these days for the rise of Obama to be a conspiracy. Obama reached his peak competency when he was a state congressman. The breaks stopped falling his way on 20 January 2009.