"President Obama is a lawyer by training and a former professor of constitutional law, and I am neither. Still, I can't help but think his remarks today about "judicial activism" and the Supreme Court's review of the 2010 healthcare reform law were hyperbolic." [LA Times]
The LA Times knows better. He IS neither a lawyer (he surrendered his law license in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application) nor a former "professor" (his title was "Senior Lecturer" not "Professor").
Regardless of his questionable bona fides, he is completely off base when he says
The courts practice judicial activism when they disregard the constitutional law and make judgements based on their personal views or political considerations rather than existing law. [clipper]
"Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.” ...
"But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion." [Washington Post]
The LA Times knows better. He IS neither a lawyer (he surrendered his law license in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application) nor a former "professor" (his title was "Senior Lecturer" not "Professor").
Regardless of his questionable bona fides, he is completely off base when he says
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,”This "Constitutional Law Professor" does not know, or finds it expedient to define otherwise, the meaning of judicial restraint. Macmillan defines it as:
"the principle that judges should base their court decisions on written laws and legal precedent, without considering their personal and political opinions.
The courts practice judicial activism when they disregard the constitutional law and make judgements based on their personal views or political considerations rather than existing law. [clipper]
"Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.” ...
"But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion." [Washington Post]
No comments:
Post a Comment