He is using a tactic the left has long used, misusing language.
"Judicial activism" has been used by conservatives to complain about judges making up law under the guise of it being constitutionally required. Examples are the many cases kicking religion out of schools and public life, the invention of a right to an abortion, the miraculous discovery of a constitutional right to gay sex, and the astounding determination that a statewide referendum (can we say "strong bipartisan support, Mr. President?") banning gay marriage was in fact unconstitutional.
Liberals don't have a problem with any of these. Their examples of judicial activism include Bush v. Gore, despite a long line of cases approved by liberals where the federal courts insinuated themselves into state elction matters; and Citizens United, which overturned restrictions on free speech put into place by pols who didn't want their records exposed to the public by well-funded groups. Now this, a case in a long tradition of cases interpreting the reach of the Commerce Clause.
Anyone who has studied Constitutional Law knows that Commerce Clause cases are difficult, largely because of the absurd interpretation put on it by the New Deal Supreme Court to justify FDR's socialist schemes. For Obama to suggest that this is an open and shut case is very disingenuous, not that that would be a new thing for him.
What is disturbing is his disrespect for the Court. It is improper for the president to try to pressure the Court by making irresponsible claims about the effect of a decision. What if George Bush had made wild claims that the Court would endanger national seccurity if it ruled against him in the anti-terrorism cases? The media and democrats would have gone nuts.
"Judicial activism" has been used by conservatives to complain about judges making up law under the guise of it being constitutionally required. Examples are the many cases kicking religion out of schools and public life, the invention of a right to an abortion, the miraculous discovery of a constitutional right to gay sex, and the astounding determination that a statewide referendum (can we say "strong bipartisan support, Mr. President?") banning gay marriage was in fact unconstitutional.
Liberals don't have a problem with any of these. Their examples of judicial activism include Bush v. Gore, despite a long line of cases approved by liberals where the federal courts insinuated themselves into state elction matters; and Citizens United, which overturned restrictions on free speech put into place by pols who didn't want their records exposed to the public by well-funded groups. Now this, a case in a long tradition of cases interpreting the reach of the Commerce Clause.
Anyone who has studied Constitutional Law knows that Commerce Clause cases are difficult, largely because of the absurd interpretation put on it by the New Deal Supreme Court to justify FDR's socialist schemes. For Obama to suggest that this is an open and shut case is very disingenuous, not that that would be a new thing for him.
What is disturbing is his disrespect for the Court. It is improper for the president to try to pressure the Court by making irresponsible claims about the effect of a decision. What if George Bush had made wild claims that the Court would endanger national seccurity if it ruled against him in the anti-terrorism cases? The media and democrats would have gone nuts.
