Home » Activist Court?

Comments

Activist Court? — 6 Comments

  1. Yeah, I read that yesterday and it just reinforced my thinking on the subject.

    Is it possible the illiberal can more attribute to exactly what they do? They now claim the tea party will riot if Obamacare isn’t struck down? What the hell? Like what other tea party riots might you be referring to? Oh, that bad one at the capital when health care passed? That one where the “N” word narrative was trotted out.

    New info on the Zimmerman case exonerates him from his re-enactment of the incident to the fact now out that he passed a lie detector test. But what the left puts out is a one page “complaint” from someone who won’t identify themselves that GZ harassed him because he was a better salesman.

    Case after case like that.

  2. If not participating in the health care market means you are part of the market, then isn’t sleeping interstate commerce? What causes more lost productivity? Lack of sleep or bad health? I’ll guess sleep loss. More deaths? Lack of sleep especially on highways and in industrial settings. So, in the name of the welfare of these United States, let us declare 8 hours of sleep to be the minimum necessary before a person may engage in any activity and to boost the interstate commerce activity, production, and general welfare. It’s already a requirement of truck drivers and railroad engineers, under our archaic notion that interstate activity meant, you know, activity. So the expansion of the requirement to every citizen is really in line with past precedent.

  3. The left is busy criticizing the Supreme Court as “activist” and biased in advance of any possible ruling against Obamacare.

    Great news. Some fundamental aspect(s) of Obamacare obviously have been struck down, and the Reds have gotten wind of it and are beginning to prepare the battle space.

    Judicial activism? Hoist. Petard. Gotta love it.

  4. The illiberals don’t know their history very well or they wouldn’t condemn “activist” courts. The Warren Court, which ruled 9-0 for Brown v. Board of Education leading to the Civil Rights Act, was “activist.” Brown had to overrule Plessy. With Obamacare, Wickard doesn’t need to be overruled; therefore, there is less “activism” needed than Board required. So, for certain rulings “activism” is best for the nation. Who would now argue that granting Brown was wrong?

  5. So let’s see, if SCOTUS rules the mandate unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision it’s an activict politicized court. If, however, it rules Obamacare constitutional in a 5-4 decision it’s an enlightened court. Yeah, that’ll fly.

    Here’s hoping that ACA goes down in flames in a 6-3 ruling w/ Sotomayor joining the majority. That’ll shut ’em up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>