WashPost Laughably Insists Obama 'Used Conservative Arguments Against Judicial Activism' In Rose Garden Press Conference
"President Obama used conservative arguments against judicial activism to urge justices to uphold the law," a teaser headline on the bottom of today's Washington Post front page notes, directing readers to page A4 for the story by staffer David Nakamura.
Nakamura dutifully opened his story noting that Obama said in a Rose Garden press conference yesterday that if the Court overturns ObamaCare in the HHS v. Florida case, that it would "amount to an 'unprecedented, extraordinary step' of judicial activism." Yet nowhere in the 18-paragraph story did Nakamura lay out exactly how Obama's argument was conservative in nature nor did he cite a single conservative constitutional or legal expert to agree with Obama.
What's more, Nakamura failed to note how Republicans and conservatives would object that striking down the individual mandate -- an unprecedented abuse of federal government power to compel Americans to buy a service from a private contractor -- is legitimate given the Court's authority to toss out legislation that passes beyond the Constitution's limits on federal power.
In its section on the federal courts, the 2008 Republican Party platform notes that (emphasis mine):
Republicans will insist on the appointment of constitutionalist judges, men and women who will not distort our founding documents to deny the people's right to self-government, sanction federal powers that violate our liberties, or inject foreign law into American jurisprudence.
The individual mandate, conservatives and Republicans argue, is a classic violation of individual liberty through the overextension of federal power. What's more, it's difficult to argue that the Framers of the Constitution intended that federal regulation of commerce would include the mandating of commercial transactions by private parties as ObamaCare envisions.
Yet at no point in President Obama's rebuke of the Court yesterday did the former constitutional law professor lay out how exactly he believes the individual mandate is constitutionally valid or conservative in nature. Indeed, all the chief executive did was gripe that his signature legislative achievement would be tossed out by the Court despite having been "a duly constituted and passed law."
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Conservative Arguments??
Submitted by Samaritan01 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:21pm.
Sociopaths are known to use anything at their disposal to get their way, Obama is no different. For the Left there is no right or wrong there is only the "right friggin now" and nothing else....for them the truth carries no weight.
The problem is that they are intentionally LYING...
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 2:28pm.
When Conservatives talk about "judical Activism" its really never been about the Supremes. Conservatives respect them and while at times while not happy with some of the decisions they make, direct claims of "Judicial Activism" have never been made against the supreme court. Where Conservatives make the majority of the claims of "Judicial Activisim" is in the Federal District Courts and US Court of Appeals (Especially the 9th circus court) What obama has done in this speech was to tell the liberals on the court that they had better vote the way HE WANTS! However the problem for obumbles is that there is NO WAY for him to have these guys taken off any of these "UNELECTED" Justices taken off the bench if they don't vote his way. REMEMBER obumbles the appointment to the SUPREME COURT IS FOR LIFE!!!
What are you talking about.
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 8:53pm.
What are you talking about. Conservatives have always considered Roe v Wade and its precedents (Griswold, etc) to be judicial activism, as well as the school busing decision (Swann) since it went beyond interpreting the law to allowing a specific legislative solution from the bench.
The media nowadays is sort of confusing the issue, saying that judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder and that different people have different interpretations of whats in the Constitution (including some personalities on Fox News like Brit Hume), but there was actually a very vocal argument from the left for a long time that being activist was the right thing to do, because interpreting the Constitution was a subjective matter and you can't discern the founders intent, so you had to create a positive, progressive interpretation, and that you had to legislate from the bench to be effective. This is kind of being swept under the rug, as if liberals always always agreed there was an objective way to interpret things and its just a matter of liberals and conservatives disagreeing.
There's a reason that Roe was based on penumbras of penumbras of emanations , etc., etc.,
I think conservative activism is possible when the conservative judges knowingly call for a "broad interpretation" , rather than a strict one, which I think they did in Citizens United, but the whole discussion is being obfuscated to make it look like judicial activism is a matter of point of view.
The lib media doesn't know the definition of judical activism
Submitted by frank14 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:21pm.
They also think Marbury vs Madison was a movie starring Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep.
Apparently, neither does Obama
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:33pm.
He's having a little meltdown, and trying to re-define the meaning of the word.
It's not going to work, of course.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Obama is a liar; the MSM is obtuse
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:40pm.
Obama's explanation of "judicial activitism" can't possibly stem from ignorance. He and his circle are desperate.
But the MSM, in addition to serving as the echo chamber, is absolutely stupid, as it has been throughout the crafting, passing, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
The pro argument they seem to be posing is that if legislation does "good" (and that's in the eye of the beholder) it is Constitutional.
It's awfully easy to get
Submitted by forest on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:26pm.
It's awfully easy to get these stooges to jump on board isn't it? Just misuse some conservative terminology, and just like that it's a "conservative argument".
New definition of "Constitutional"
Submitted by sherlock1 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:26pm.
New definition of "Constitutional": whatever the President and the media want to do at any particular moment.
I'm sure glad they are so expert at Constitutional scholarship... just ask them.
One way to think of this is...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:34pm.
One way to think of this is that the demomediacademiawood institutions need to manufacture idiots as fast as the can to stay in business. We need to do the opposite to put them out of business.
Liberal Argument brought lawsuit then
Submitted by Buckeye27 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 12:59pm.
Since the argument Obama is making is "Conservative" then the argument the 26 Attorneys General brought must be "Liberal" since they are in direct opposition. I gather then that Obama has moved to the right and the Republican AGs have shifted left, by demanding smaller less intrusive government. Good luck with that argument.
This man embarrassed himself yesterday and is digging himself and watching his allies dig him deeper. Let it go. Obama's a "scholar" flew out the door yesterday, it's not coming back. Even those of us who aren't lawyers, but took Constitutional Law courses in college know he's full of bull. He sounded more like a dictator yesterday than a President and by no means sounds intelligent. Marbury v Madison in Constitutional Law terms is akin to learning your vowels. You can't understand anything else without it.
Moral Equivalence: "Unelected Judges vs. Barry Obysmal's Czars"
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 1:41pm.
Dear Barry,
Have I mentioned that I despise the ground you walk on?
Have I mentioned that I cannot take another lecture from your empty brain to your fat lips?
Shut up, biotch.
Shut the F%$%&CK Up, you Zero.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Not Until Obama
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 2:22pm.
Have I ever been afraid of the President of the United States. This man is dangerous.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
The Meaning of Judicial Activism
Submitted by libBuster on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 2:33pm.
Judicial Activism refers to judges making new public policy in the guise of "constitutional" interpretation. Two easy examples are the 9th Circuit Perry v Brown ruling on gay marriage and Roe v. Wade. In both of these decisions a activist courts constructed from whole cloth new "rights" that were not even a blip on the horizon when the relevant parts of the constitution were framed.
On the other hand, slapping back a President intent on a power grab is not judicial activism. It is a constitutional responsibility. The commerce clause was never designed to give the executive limitless power to control intra-state businesses.
Why is it that only conservatives need to compromise?
Submitted by BarneyFrankenstein on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 3:21pm.
Im really tired of this story being reported through the prism that only conservatives are partisan or hypocritical here.
Ask yourself this question: why is it that the four liberal justices are in lockstep, yet no one questions if they have bias involved? Why couldnt Sotomayor flip and make it 6-3 against? she certainly had her moments when she was questioning the individual mandate too. Yet when 4 liberal justices vote consistently with an ideological agenda, its never as "contentious" as when the conservatives agree.
Then, if conservatives are being hypocritical for advocating for judicial activism, then couldnt the same be said for liberals? Isnt it hypocritical for them to start talking about "not legislating from the bench" when for years liberals have embraced things like prop 8 being struck down be the 9th circuit court of appeals?
Liberals were dancing in the streets in February when "judicial activism" won over state approved law. Now, when its works against them...NOW its a problem. but yeah, WE are the hypocrites right?
Activism?
Submitted by giatn on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 4:41pm.
Nothing Obama says should shock me any more, but claiming it is activism to honor
the "enumerated powers" clause is disturbing. The remarks he made about an
"unelected group" daring to question something Congress passed shows willful blindness
to the law. Even a third grader knows that judging the constitutionality of legislation is exactly what the Supremes are intended to do. I know the left is desperately removing civics
and history from the schools but hopefully there are still enough of us left who are familiar with the Constitution. When the mandate fails, the responsibility will lie fully with Obama. His
refusal to honestly call the mandate a tax will be its undoing. I think I figured out another reason that "penalty" was used instead of tax. Congress' power to tax depends on the tax being applied uniformly which would defeat Obama's clear intention of transferring wealth through health care. What I wonder daily is how can the media continue to ignore the lies and partisan garbage that flows routinely from his mouth.
Leaking SCOTUS, Sinking Obamacare
Submitted by berlet98 on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 1:13am.
Leaking SCOTUS, Sinking Obamacare
(Late Tuesday, Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals demanded that the Department of Justice immediately produce a letter of explanation regarding the president’s recent criticism of the United State Supreme Court “stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review.” He added, “The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific.” The demand was reported by Fox News and on ABC’s blog but nowhere else in the mainstream media.)
There’s only one rationale for President Barack Hussein Obama using the occasion of a visit by heads of state to try to intimidate the Supreme Court into deciding that Obamacare is constitutional: He got a tip that the Court will trash the Individual Mandate, if not the entire 2700 page mess that is the “Affordable Care Act.”
Canada’s Stephan Harper and Mexico’s Felipe Calderon attended a presser at the White House on Monday to discuss NAFTA, trade, security, etc. and were treated to an exhibition of Chicago-style bullying against the highest court in the land by their “constitutional scholar” host. It must have made them think Obama had gone off the deep end when he launched into a pre-emptive attack on SCOTUS’ authority and integrity.
The president’s salvo was replete with distortions and outright lies comparable to the distortions and lies that have surrounded the ACA ever since the law was first proposed and narrowly passed by a highly partisan Democrat Party.
The bill was pushed through the Senate on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2009, 60–39, with every Democrat voting in favor and every Republican voting against, and passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting nay.
Based on the president’s Monday bullying, you would think Obamacare had passed in a landslide vote and that the American people loved the legislation when the precise opposite is the truth.
As Obama said, “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
“Confident?” Not bloody likely or he would have kept his mouth shut! ”Unprecedented?” SCOTUS overturns unconstitutional laws every session! “Strong majority?” The bill squeaked through the House and passed in the Senate only because Senate Democrats marched in lock-step with Obama after heavy-handed cajoling and bribery!
Obama went on to another major distortion, alleging that conservatives had been arguing for years over the “unelected” Supreme Court’s judicial activism, i.e., making rather than interpreting laws. In the Obamacare matter, SCOTUS is doing just that–interpreting, not making law.
In a tone remniscent of the Chicago politics . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=20605.)