As we noted on last Sunday’s edition of the Teri O’Brien Show, now that the Supreme Court is considering the Constitutionality of Obamacare, our Dear Reader, along with his foot soldiers in Congress and the media, has begun a full court press to try to ensure the survival of his “signature achievement,” the Affordable Care Act and the resulting destruction of individual freedom and the limited government architecture of the Constitution, so prized by the Founders. Basketball he knows. The Constitution? Not so much. In the defense of this ridiculous product of kickbacks, bribes and back room deals, he and his mouthpieces have trotted out an argument that has become one of their favorites in recent years, the accusation that striking down this mess would constitute the “judicial activism” that conservatives have been complaining about for decades. Sen. Chuck Schumer and Terry Moran, a “journalist” at ABC, dutifully recited it on the Sunday shows this past week. Bill Clinton added his voice to the chorus yesterday. Here he is lying AGAIN, this time about the Supreme Court’s consideration of Obamacare.
Then, in the most disgraceful and embarrassing presentation of this pathetic assertion, the One himself did so yesterday.
This argument has some merit; specifically, it makes you think, and thinking is good. When any attempt to role back the Left’s agenda, usually imposed by unelected judges because it could never have survived the ballot box, meets with that silly “judicial activism” whine, it makes me think “MMM. . . (a) are they just projecting again, (b) do they really believe this garbage, or (c) are they just saying it because they think the low-information people that they like to con into supporting them will?”
Correct answer: for the apparatchiks who are working to “remake” America, c. The Left’s latest attempt to twist the meaning of simple words in the service of political expediency is nothing new. Nothing they do is new. They have been surviving on the rotting corpse of Karl Marx for over 100 years. Their tactics are insufferably predictable. Deception and distortion are the tactics that they use to win support from the afore-mentioned low-information voters, many of whom haven’t the slightest clue what the phrase “judicial activism” means and why it was coined. To begin their education, I point them to Griswold v. Connecticut, the infamous “penumbra” case. Justice Douglas that found a “right of privacy” right there in the Constitution that no one had seen before! Shazam! Eventually, the Court used that “right” to enact the “trimester” scheme imposed on the states to restrict their right to regulate abortion. I use the word “enact” purposefully because anyone who can read Roe v. Wade and claim it’s anything other than legislation is fooling himself.
That is judicial activism; that is, where a court on its own initiative decides a case in pursuit of a particular public policy that it deems desirable. Where the Court compares the language of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders with a piece of legislation, finds that it the law in question violates the Constitution, and strikes it down, that is not judicial activism. That is simply the Court doing its job under the system of separation of powers conceived by the Founders.
When the Left attacks traditional institutions, like marriage, and persuades judges to impose the liberal agenda on an unwilling American public, by destroying them, that is activism. When courts, committed to abiding by the Constitution and the essential system of separation of powers that it includes, restore those institutions and set things right, the Left can call it activism all day long, but that doesn’t make it so.