Barack Obama lashed out at the supreme court yesterday (based on what some speculate is a leak from his former Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, that the court has found some or all of the bill unconstitutional), stating that the overturning of ObamaCare would be an act of judicial activism. Now, either Obama does not know judicial activism, or (more likely) he is purposely redefining it to suit his purposes. The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws, balance claims against those laws, and balance the laws passed by Congress against the Constitution, which is the governing document of our republic. Obama states on judicial activism: And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the largest 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. By that logic, no law passed by Congress could be deemed unconstitutional. So what would the function of the court be? You see, the left’s definition of judicial activism is when the court overturns liberal policies. The right’s definition of judicial activism is when the court invents new laws and finds enumerations and penumbras in the Constitution that don’t exist. Roe. v. Wade, for example, was an exercise in judicial activism because it overturned abortion laws throughout the country on the basis of a Constitutional “right” that was nowhere in the Constitution. Kelo v. City of New London expanded eminent domain beyond what was specified in the Constitution. In this case, the judges are trying to determine if Congress has the power (in the enumerated powers of the Constitution) to force people to buy a service. If the court overturns ObamaCare on these grounds (as they should) it will be because Congress overstepped its Constitutionally-provisioned powers. By Obama’s logic, Congress has no limit to its powers. If Congress chose to pass a law that stated that Hispanic Americans could no longer vote, by Obama’s logic, that would represent a “duly constituted and passed law” and it would be a “lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” if the Court overturned it. Our government functions as a system of checks and balances. Congress makes the laws, the President must sign or veto the laws, and the Supreme Court checks (when a case is presented) whether that law is within the bounds of what the Constitution says is necessary and proper. For the last 30 years, the left has constantly praised the court whenever it overturned a Conservative law that they didn’t like on dubious grounds, or invented new laws or 500-part tests. Now, when Congress is presented with a law that has dubious Constitutional implications, they weep foul. Luckily, ObamaCare is not that well loved, and if it is overturned, the American People will breath a collective sigh of relief.
