Suddenly, Liberals Have A Problem With Judicial Activism

Well, in their defense, they also had a problem with it after the Bush v. Gore decision.

And now they seem to have a problem with it as they read the handwriting on the wall regarding ObamaCare. It appears that the Supreme Court justices are likely to strike down the unpopular law - or at least the individual mandate.

The problem is: Judicial activism doesn't apply in the ObamaCare case, and it didn't apply in Bush v. Gore.

Writing for the The Washington Post: E.J. Dionne sums up the left-wing sentiments properly: "Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee."

No. What they are doing is determining whether or not Congress has, under the Commerce Clause, the power to compel Americans to enter into a market. This type of oversight is what the Judicial branch is all about. For more information, see Marbury v. Madison.

But the appalling inconsistency of the left in this matter should not escape our notice.

Consider the crowning achievement of left-wing judicial activism: Roe v. Wade. This is a case that decided, based on the Fourth Amendment, that a woman has a fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy up to 26 weeks. And after 26 weeks if her life or health is at stake.

Again: The Supreme Court decided this based on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Did you read anything in that Amendment about pregnancy? About 26 weeks? About the personhood or citizenship of an unborn child? About the life or health of the mother?

You didn't. Because it isn't there. Yet the Supreme Court twisted the interpretation of that Amendment in such a way that it carved out a "right" for a woman to destroy the life of her unborn child.

Then there's Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court case which struck down prayer in school. That case cited no precendents.

Liberals haven't had a problem with those clear examples of judicial activism. Probably because their ox wasn't getting gored.

And regarding Bush v. Gore: the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, appointed by a Democrat, predicted that the United States Supreme Court would do exactly what it did. The High Court prevented Florida from changing the rules after the election. Oh, by the way, that Chief Justice said this while voting in favor of Bush.

There really is judicial activism. But it doesn't seem to be coming from the right.

---