The Judiciary is stopping the U.S. Government from FORCING commerce. The Commerce Clause only allows for the regulation not the initiation of commerce. This was nothing more than an attempt by authoritarians to seize nearly 20% of the U.S. economy.
Judicial activism is legislating from the bench. This doesn't qualify as creating legislation. This is determining whether existing legislation passes Constitutional muster. The primary reason that the Supreme Court exists is to maintain Constitutional checks and balances on the other two branches of our federal government, and one of the ways that they do that is by determining the Constitutionality of the laws that the Congress creates and the President enforces. It's the MAIN thing that they are there to do..!
The people have spoken. Barack Obama ran in 2008 on a platform that would reform health care. The people elected him and his Democratic allies, knowing that he would help reform health care. Now, the Supreme Court is trying to go against the will of the people. Tisk tisk.
But he's done a GREAT JOB for islamist jihadists! Thanks at least in part to Obama, they now have control of two of the most modern militaries in the mideast! Great Job, Barack!!
This country...to the utter dismay of leftists...is a Constitutional Republic...and not subject to mob rule. My guess is that when Obama and his dispicable band of communist minions are vanquished from DC, you'll REALLY appreciate their right wing replacements being constrained by the Constitution.
Right, and Obamacare was so very popular that the majority of people were all for it, and the Democrats didn't need to do any backroom deals, or bribe anyone, and Obamacare passed Congress with large majorities and no legislative trickery at all. Does that sum up the position of liberal fantasyland...?
Though in some regards this is worrisome news, I will reserve panic for the day that Obama plainly states that it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says.
Well believe me I'm sure he is not threatening the likes of Kagan or Sotomayor...he's threatening the more conservative SC Justices...I have news for him, they could give a (*)(*)(*)(*) less what he thinks.
Perhaps some here can educate themselves about their own party's stance on Judicial Activism, and the history of Presidents criticizing SCOTUS decisions. Even St. Ronnie did it. You know that whole goose gander thing? http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2134/ Interring the Rhetoric of Judical Activism For decades, leaders of the Republican Party have decried “judicial activism” and championed “judicial restraint.” For much of that time, Republican politicians have equated judicial restraint with a commitment to judicial deference, asserting that “activist” judges disrespect the will of popular majorities. More recently, as the Republican Party has solidified its control of the federal courts and made its own claims on the Constitution, Republican politicians have tended to define judicial activism in potentially conflicting ways, mixing deference frames with claims about the autonomy of law from mere politics or personal beliefs. In this Article, I examine these two ways of understanding the Republican rhetoric of judicial activism, and I show that each of them is problematic. Bush Criticizes Activist Judges, Fails to Note That His Own Appointees Have Made Activist Rulings Our Founders gave the judicial branch enormous power. It's the only branch of government whose officers are unelected. That means judges on the federal bench must exercise their power prudently, cautiously, or some might even say, conservatively. (Laughter.)... A lot has happened since 2000. Yet I can still remember the heated debate over the kinds of judges Presidents should appoint. One group said that judges ought to look at the Constitution as "a document that grows with our country and our history." This concept of a "living Constitution" gives unelected judges wide latitude in creating new laws and policies without accountability to the people... . Constructive Criticism: Presidential Opposition to Supreme Court Rulings JURIST Guest Columnist William G. Ross of Cumberland School of Law, Samford University, says that although a president should naturally be careful to avoid demonstrating disrespect for the Supreme Court.... George Bush, state of the Union 2004 Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage What Does GOP Now Want? Why, Activist Judges Of Course! The week's headline (from The Hill, no less) says it all: "Republicans see the courts as the last line of defense vs. Democrats Agenda"
The will of the people is 65% against Ubamacare...where the hell have you been and what flavor Kook-aid are you drinking?
Yes, it certainly is.... but does it really surprise you? It doesn't me. Obama's arrogance and narcissism has always flown right off the charts......
This guy never seems to do the smart thing. Opens his mouth about things before he knows what he's talking about or comes out and threatens the SC before they have rendered a decision. This will only harden the ones on the court who already oppose his "signature policy." I think he knows it's a loser.
He's prolly threatening them because he knows they passed it and it will look like they were scardadeeeeeeeee of him...LOL
Perish the thought... *shiver* Anyway... On a more serious note, I think Obamacare is toast because of the remarks that Kennedy has made. Since he is the likely swing vote, I'm betting the entire mess gets thrown out, especially since arrogant Dems in the Senate didn't put in a severability clause for the original passage...
LOL!!! Well, they kind of screwed themselves... They didn't put in a severability clause in the Senate version because they thought that it showed confidence in the constitutionality of the mandate. They always intended to add one in the final passage, and the House DID add one... But then the "unthinkable" happened, and they lost Ted Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, so they had to force the bill through using reconcilliation, which didn't allow for them to add severability before sending the bill to Obama. Dem's dirty tricks backfiring on them is such a joyful thing to behold!!!
dont underestimate the power of the insurance lobby to get severability language pulled.....I always wondered how they got lieberman on board
That's actually a good point... The insurance lobby would never have gotten on board without the mandate, and they would definitely be out of business a lot quicker if the rest of the bill were to stand without it.
That's what the bill is designed to do, even with the mandate... But it looks like there is a good chance the entire thing will get tossed, anyway.
