shoe, meet other foot.

The President is perturbed at the thought of an “unelected group of people” overturning a law he likes. I thought “judicial activism” was just a conservative battle cry?

I don’t know how a former professor of Constitutional Law doesn’t get the fact that the Supreme Court’s unelected nature isn’t a bug, but a feature. If you made the Supreme Court judges and their decisions subject  to the popular vote, there would be no point in having a Supreme Court. A little fuzzy on that whole Checks and Balances thing, are we?

10 thoughts on “shoe, meet other foot.

  1. Funny how he keeps creating unelected, no confirmation necessary czars to make all sort of regulations for us to follow.

    He understands what the process should be, he just doesn’t think it applies to him.

    • Marko Kloos says:

      In all fairness to Obama, the czar nonsense didn’t start with him. That particular set of shiny tools was left for him in the Executive Toolshed by a line of previous tenants at Penna Ave.

  2. Ziggy says:

    It keeps us from having REAL decisions made by someone who says “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

  3. That’s some gall, seeing as the bill itself was not allowed to be voted on by the Senate, due to… you guessed it, the election of Scott Brown.

    Instead as we all recall, the bill was “deemed” passed and signed into law without 0bama’s promised review period for non-emergency legislation.

    I would hope the fact that it did not, in it’s present state, get passed by the Senate would be cause enough to rule it unconstitutional, but there must be some legalese mischief that’s far beyond my comprehension that makes this possible.

  4. LittleRed1 says:

    I think, if one is a Harvard trained constitutional law professor, “judicial activism” means that the courts toss something you like, and “upholding the [living] Constitution of this great nation” means that the courts toss something you don’t like.

    But I’m not a constitutional law professor, nor do I play one on TV.

  5. […] currently occupying the Office of the President: that is the way the system is SUPPOSED to work. As Marko points out, if the Justices were faced with the spectre of answering to the populace over their rulings, there […]

  6. emdfl says:

    No, judicial activism means finding penumbras and such in a pretty plainly written document when you need to create law without bothering with the niceties of representative government.

  7. John Frazer says:

    I thought “judicial activism” largely stemmed from a few factors all of which show a problem in the appointment system:
    1) judges who’ve made much of the living their adult lives under partisan political graft money scene
    2) who were appointed at the behest of a politician (nominated by one of the two parties which are different sides of the same oligarchy) by swearing to obey the party line
    3) or who have a history of saying their various opinionated fringe obligations inform all their decisions.

    I’d hope that any of these factors should eliminate a party puppet from being a judge. Yes, voters put people in office based on opinion and party affiliation, but shouldn’t judges be apart from all that? Otherwise the judicial branch becomes just a playground of battling ephemeral partisan political fashion.

  8. Mike W. says:

    Oh he understands perfectly well. Obama may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he certainly understands the concept of Judicial Review.

    There’s no way he graduated law school without at least some understanding of that concept and of the role of the judiciary. He’s just using alinsky tactics to be divisive and saying this BS to appeal to the masses who don’t know any better.

  9. Tam says:

    I think a lot of people are reading way too much into what are practically pro-forma “Yay, my team! Boo, the other team!” mouth noises.

Comments are closed.