creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh
25 Nov 2014
Bad News Continues to Roll In for Obamacare Nightmare

Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be distracted from the continuing nightmare of Obamacare by the … Read More.

21 Nov 2014
Obama's Amnesty Lawlessness Demands Accountability

Time and time again, President Obama demonstrates his contempt for the Constitution and for the American people,… Read More.

18 Nov 2014
Obama Denies Gruber, but Facts Deny Obama

Do President Obama's adamant denials that he misled the American public on various important aspects of … Read More.

Obama Has It Backward; Striking Down Obamacare Would Protect Our Republic

Comment

Is President Obama such a die-hard leftist ideologue that he can't get it right on judicial review, despite having time to reflect and regroup after his impertinent comments designed to intimidate the court?

As everyone knows, Obama said Monday, "Ultimately, I'm 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." That, he said, would be "judicial activism."

For a man who promised to upgrade the dignity of the office and held himself out as a model of bipartisanship, this president manages to insinuate himself into every imaginable issue and incident on which he has a strong opinion, from the Cambridge police to Trayvon Martin to Las Vegas tourism. If he wants his administration to engage in Chicago-style political street fighting, couldn't he at least delegate the task to one of his surrogates?

What business does he have calling out the Supreme Court while a major case is pending before it (the Affordable Care Act) and issuing an implied threat that the justices had better not defy him?

Please don't protest that I'm making an unwarranted inference. It's not as if he hasn't done something like this before.

Do you remember when he looked down on members of the Supreme Court at a joint session of Congress to rebuke and ridicule them for their decision in the Citizens United case to lift limits on corporate spending on campaigns? He said, "The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

In his weekly radio address, he said that the court "handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists" and that "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself."

This public assault was so outrageous that the normally unflappable Chief Justice John Roberts told University of Alabama law students, "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think, is very troubling."

Obama has received similar blowback from his remarks on the Obamacare case, though not directly from any member of the court. While acknowledging the court's power to declare laws unconstitutional in theory, he remains defiant about the impropriety of the court's doing so in this case.

It seems that when the court overturns a law liberals like or upholds a law they oppose — irrespective of whether it conforms to the Constitution — they cry judicial activism.

Thus, Obama and liberals go berserk when the court, exercising its constitutional prerogative to pass on the constitutionality of laws, properly strikes down laws that are incompatible with our fundamental law — when liberals support those laws.

But that's not judicial activism; it's upholding the integrity of our structure of representative government.

Judicial activism is when courts uphold laws inconsistent with the Constitution or overturn laws that are consistent with it — mostly to achieve a certain policy result. It's when courts act as super-legislatures, making up their own laws or substituting their political judgment for that of the democratically elected legislative branch in cases in which neither statutory nor constitutional interpretation warrants it.

Judicial activism is objectionable because it strikes at the very foundation of our government, which is not a "democracy" as Obama said, but a constitutional republic. If the court upholds or rejects laws based on nothing but its own political preferences, we have a government not of laws, but of nine robed men.

If the Supreme Court were to overturn Obamacare, it would not be engaging in judicial activism; it would be reining in a renegade president and Congress from their lawless power grab and reinforcing the integrity of the Constitution — and thus our very republican form of government and its attendant liberties.

If the court were to uphold Obamacare, it would be thrusting another long knife in our ailing Constitution and, once again, violating the Constitution's scheme of limited government, which grants expressly enumerated powers to the legislative branch — which do not include, even when coupled with the necessary and proper clause, the right to force people to purchase health insurance.

The irony is that ordinarily, liberals don't have any problem with true judicial activism; they've long been saying that the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the court must often rewrite it to keep it in step with our "enlightened" modernity.

If President Obama wants to prevent assaults on what he inaccurately calls our "democracy," he should refrain from efforts to intimidate the court.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

15 Comments | Post Comment
I don't understand why Obama and other big time liberals are suddenly attacking the Supreme Court if they are confident it will rule in their favor. Do they know something we don't? The way I understand it, the court has already made its decision, but will wait until June to announce it. Why? Why wait so long for something this important? Unless there is something I'm missing.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Apr 6, 2012 9:21 AM
I wouldn't characterize his statements as attack, I read the transcript of his speech, but he did do something not politically correct by addressing his remarks to a current case before the Supreme Court.
Speaking of Supreme Court decisions, I'm sure all Conservatives are rejoicing about today's Supreme Court decision. Are you aware, in another 5-4 decision the Supreme Court just gave the right to every law enforcement person throughout the country to strip search any individual for something as minor as seat belt violation or unpaid tickets or any minor infraction of the law? ...." The Supreme court has given its blessing to strip searches of people who are charged with minor crimes -- even if the government has no specific reason to believe they are concealing anything."
Think about it Mr. McCoy, naked, lifting your genitals and squatting and coughing before male or female police officers because the traffic ticket you did pay but they show you didn't gives them the right to strip search you.
I'd say how are you liking the Conservative Supreme Court majority now, but today the wind has left my sails as it did when they allowed that corporate power was more important than peoples rights, overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations by saying "government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections." Quite a mouthful to describe another Conservative Corporate America victory.
If this is the America you Conservative Republicans want, well enjoy your victory, wallow in your joy. But don't cry your rights are being violated, they're not. Didn't like being scanned at the airport, just wait. Conservative Republicans have power. You asked for it and by these recent rulings, you're gonna get it.
Today I'm grateful for my advanced age as the country I love will be gone within a few short years.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Steve
Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:17 AM
Steve, thanks for bringing this recent ruling to our attention. I was not aware of it and it disturbs me a great deal. I am very much concerned about the rapid loss of civil liberties, but am not so quick to blame one party and not the other. What has Obama done to repeal all the Bush atrocities? Has he repealed the (un)patriot act? No! He doubled down on it by passing the much worse NDAA. There are very few politicians left that would champion the Constitution. Were we to reembrace its outline of limited government and only engage in declared wars, this country could still return to greatness.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:45 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

"The way I understand it, the court has already made its decision, but will wait until June to announce it. Why? Why wait so long for something this important? Unless there is something I'm missing."

This is standard procedure for the Supreme Court. Shortly after oral arguments in a case, the Justices meet and take a preliminary vote to see where everyone stands. Then the Chief Justice assigns the writing of the majority and minority opinions. The Justices assigned to write those opinions then get their clerks to come up with enough research to support their opinions. Only after the opinions are complete, and the final vote has been tallied (which does sometimes change as a result of Justices reading the opinions) is the ruling announced.

That's why it takes so long.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:06 PM
Thanks Jeff. That clears things up a lot.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Sat Apr 7, 2012 6:46 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

David said:

What business does he have calling out the Supreme Court while a major case is pending before it (the Affordable Care Act) and issuing an implied threat that the justices had better not defy him?
Do you remember when he looked down on members of the Supreme Court at a joint session of Congress to rebuke and ridicule them for their decision in the Citizens United case to lift limits on corporate spending on campaigns


Typical Rush and David Limbaugh speak, obfuscate, word play, and convolute. The President did not say that they better not defy him. What he did imply was don't pull the same s**t you pulled when you selected Bush, and fed the RNC Citizen's United with unlimiter corporate cash. The Supreme's majority sold the court decisions to the party that they owed for their appointments. The Supremes stopped a legal recount and chose the President, they also allowed unlimited cash to purchase the Presidency, and now Obama is afraid that they are ready to give the decision about Obamacare to the majority party that installed them. They do not preside over justice, they are stacked whores for the GOP. Obama put them on notice that he and the world are watching. It would be just as wrong as if they were chosen by a Democratic majority, their job is to instill constitutioanl justice, not return Quid Pro Quo to their benefactors.


I am watching, Citizen's United and the Bush Presidency selection were outrageous, we should all be watching. I don't care if you are Liberal or Conservative, this country is not for sale.


Conservative Mantra: I've got mine, screw you
Comment: #6
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Sat Apr 7, 2012 7:24 AM
Ms. Bloom Hilda you've expressed the honest sentiments of many, both Liberal and Conservative and those of Democrats throughout the country. Those among us who have no problem calling a spade a spade admit the truth of your words. We wholeheartedly agree and are watching too. "I don't care if you are Liberal or Conservative, this country is not for sale."
Unfortunately, the argument is moot. The cynical and opposing views will argue Obama has sold the country, we say Bush sold the country, personally, I say Reagan sold the country. It's a draw, no win. We need to deal a new hand or change the rules of the game.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Steve
Sat Apr 7, 2012 9:57 AM
Re: Jeff Gunn

What BS Jeff, I have a very strong hunch, that the Supreme's are voting based on who got them into the court. We didn't have to have a trial, it was already decided, the procedure is nothing but a sham for the public. The decision was made before the trial. I have a strong feeling Obamacare will fail or be gutted, both a tragedy for our 46 million uninsured people.
This court is nothing but political cronyism, they are no longer Supreme Court Justices, Just like when they selected Bush, the conservative judges are bought and sold whores, they've sold their soul for power.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Sat Apr 7, 2012 1:35 PM
Hey Broom sounds like sour grapes to me. Funny how you accuse conservative judges of being whores yet you make no mention of liberal judges who will vote to uphold this clearly unconstitutional law for political reasons. Do you realize that you come across as a complete partisan hack? So cronyism, corruption, payoffs, threats, illegal acts, etc. are ok as long as it promotes your agenda? Also, if i took a Constitutional law class taught by Obama, I would demand my money back as he either has no respect for the Constitution or doesn't have the slightest clue of what it means.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Thetruth
Sat Apr 7, 2012 7:05 PM
Re: Bloom Hilda

You're entitled to whatever ill-informed opinion you wish as to how particular members of the Supreme Court are going to vote on a particular case. All I did was explain the mechanics of why it takes so long for a ruling to be announced. Since I learned about it from a former clerk for a Supreme Court justice (a liberal one, at that) I'm pretty sure that what I outlined is accurate and not "BS."

By the way, whatever effect the ruling may or may not have on those "46 million" people you're so concerned with is not supposed to be a factor before the Supreme Court. The Court rules on matters of law, or at least it's supposed to. That's the real problem with having left-wing activists on the Court. They're only interested in the law as a means to achieve their desired outcomes.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Sat Apr 7, 2012 9:48 PM
theTruth, if ObamaCare were as you say, "clearly unconstitutional", it would not be before the Supreme Court and the experts who already have reviewed its Constitutionality would not be so divided. It is so unclear that both Liberal and Conservative judges throughout the country have debated and not reached accord. Some Conservative judges have found it Constitutional other Conservatives found it Unconstitutional. The same with Liberal judges. Whichever decision the Supreme Court reaches it will be considered historic for many reasons, not the least being the argument pro or con of the Commerce clause and Constitutional rationale on which ObamaCare will be approved or overturned. My hunch is the debate will not be over even after their ruling.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Steve
Sun Apr 8, 2012 7:52 AM
Bloom why would you call Jeffs explaination BS. I wanted to know why we can't have the decision now and he explained the facts without any bias. Your comment however was totally slanted. If Jeff has the facts wrong, then correct him and explain to me how the process really works. I just want to get the facts straight, I don't want anyone elses spin.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Sun Apr 8, 2012 9:32 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

Chris, he did explain, very well, in fact, about how it is SUPPOSED to work, the problem isn't the procedure, the problem is in the pre-determined outcome. Judges are supposed to be fair and impartial, that is why we have the lenghthy process, so all sides can be considered. The judges are not supposed to go through the motions to look like they are impartial when their decision has already been made. Steve made an excellent point, the constitutionality of Obamacare will be argued forever, it is not clear to even the experts. Cases come before the Supremes because the law is unclear. States rights, vs. federal rights, ie., segregation. Right or wrong is not clear, the judges are prohibited from being partisan and partial. In the selection of Bush and Citizen's United they were both. Obama is warning them that the world is watching, do not vote your party on Obamacare, however it is clear from everything I am reading that under Robert's (Bush's) tutelage, the vote was decided long before the trial. That means that this country is up for sale, Supreme's can be bought with power, shame, shame, shame.


Conservative Mantra: We own the majority Supremes, we will have our way, screw America
Comment: #13
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Mon Apr 9, 2012 8:10 AM
Bloom as long as you're willing to keep that position even when the court rules in your favor, I'll accept that explaination.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Apr 9, 2012 9:18 AM
Re: Bloom Hilda

"Obama is warning them that the world is watching, do not vote your party on Obamacare, however it is clear from everything I am reading that under Robert's (Bush's) tutelage, the vote was decided long before the trial. That means that this country is up for sale, Supreme's can be bought with power, shame, shame, shame. "

The issue before the Court in this case has nothing to do with anyone's party. It has to do with whether or not there are any limits to the federal government's power over us as individual citizens.

The Commerce Clause has been stretched beyond all imagination as a justification for the ever-expanding power of government, and it's time for it to stop. It's not an exagerration to say that this may be the single most important case to come before the Court in at least a generation.

If the "individual mandate" is upheld, we are no longer citizens, but subjects.

Comment: #15
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:10 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Limbaugh
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 1 Dec 2014
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 29 Nov 2014
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 28 Nov 2014

1 Jan 2008 Time to Step Up, Fred

8 Jul 2014 America -- Imagine the World Without Her

9 Jul 2010 States Fight Back Against Federal Tyranny and Abuse