Senator suggests Supreme Court overturn of Obamacare would be “conservative activism”

Oh no it won’t. There is a huge difference between judicial activism, where a judge or court provides a ruling based on their own feelings or opinion, and a proper judicial review when a court makes a decision based on the Constitution.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and many others on the left are setting the stage for the political and media “attacks” on a “radical” Supreme Court.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral argument but before its ruling. “I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch,” the Democrat declared on the Senate floor. “The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”

He added that, “Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce.”

The elite liberal press has followed with pointed warnings that Mr. Roberts has a choice—either uphold ObamaCare, or be portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the New Deal and a century of precedent. This attack is itself clearly partisan, but it’s worth rehearsing the arguments to show how truly flawed they are.

Why do I even bother with Leahy? He’s a senator and has the ear of the media that’s why. I ask Leahy and any Democrats/liberals out there this one question. What recent Supreme Court cased during the last 20 years would be an example of conservative activism?

I really do want to know, so provide your answer in the comments section below, or if you’re shy, send us an email. I’ll give you a few days and post your examples before the weekend.

By the way, I’d be perfectly fine repealing the New Deal and a century of precedent with the full understanding the states have the ability – per the United States Constitution – to step in and provide many of the products and services now provided by the federal government.

As I have said before, Article 1, Section 8 seems very clear to me. It provides specific directives concerning the powers of Congress and therefore the federal government. The 10th Amendment affirms Article 1, Section 8 by again reminding everyone we are the United States of America, and powers not delegated to the United States (the federal government) by the Constitution are the exclusive realm of the states.

This is our fight for the next 50 years, get that into your heads. Yup, it will take a lot of time, but we must start today.

More on the Supreme Court’s possible overturn of Obamacare and the mandate at Volokh Conspiracy.

13 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    No, ramming it through with no Republican input or support, unread by even its supporters prior to the vote on its passage, and buying/blackmailing resistant DEMOCRATS, was purest LIBERAL activism.

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      Ramming it through indeed- with “Stretch” Pelosi saying things like, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” which essentially tells us that she KNEW it wouldn’t survive if it was known what? it contained- and the unconstitutional over reach that radical liberal activists put in spelling the beginning to the end of the free market by requiring through government mandate that individuals purchase a service.? If Obamacare is upheld by the SCOTUS then as a free society, we’re through… we might be done for anyway by the way things seem to be going.?

  2. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    At the end of the day, who cares what he says?? It’s so far beyond that.? There is no ‘for the good of the country’ anymore (although I do think that most Republicans speaking against the debt bomb?and crushing Constitutional issues presented by Obamacare are altruistic).? The last vestiges were stamped out during Monicagate, as Democrats decided that rallying around a bad cause was worth ‘saving’ thier daily meal ticket (aka, the Democrat Party).? Since that time, the face of their Party?has been one of bald-faced lies with no recourse (thanks MSM).?

  3. Marilyn
    Marilyn says:

    Judicial Activism would be in not repealing, the Affordable Health Care Act…………………….

  4. dairyair
    dairyair says:

    Oh, boo-freakin’-hoo! Isn’t it hilarious how bent out of shape the Dems get when things don’t go their way? The SCOTUS had better be alert for union goon thuggery!

  5. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    “?…it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce…?…? says Mr. Pat Leahy.?
    NOT !! ?-? SCOTUS?defers to the Constitution, not to the Congress.?
    Congress should have defered to the Constitution as well, seeing as they swore and oath to support and defend it.
    Think of the?time that would have been saved?and put toward a real solution.?

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      If not for the liberal record of overreaching and otherwise ruling against the will and best interests of the working class there would be no need for such so-called “conservative activism”.

  6. JBS
    JBS says:

    I personally don’t care what Senator Liberal has to say to the MSM. Somehow, I trust that the SCOTUS won’t listen to the heckling of a partisan CongressCritter. This is why the Justices are given working-lifetime appointments, isn’t it?
    Where are the health-care industry / insurance companies on ObamaCare? Are they looking at this as a win-win situation in which they will benefit from short-term increases in profits if this thing passes or just increase everyone’s premiums if this thing goes down in flames? Either way, they have to be very wary, and weary, of the mandates being imposed on them.
    There was a story recently about how benefits are evaporating, premiums are rising and people who have health insurance going into debt because of medical bills. Something does need to be done but, Obama’s socialist approach is not the answer.
    Premiums by the pound??

  7. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    Liberal Con Law dorks would say the 2000 election, Citizens United, the lack of gun control, and the reining in of affirmative action.? It is all disingenuous and misses the point.? This is about the power of Congress to make law in a vacuum. The truth is that there are limits on that power set forth in the Constitution and THAT is the point.

  8. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    I distrust their agenda and do not particularly believe that THEY believe what they’re trying to tell us? Convoluting an interpretation of the founding father’s document to cast a certain light on an ongoing deliberation of their legislation is effectively tampering with the SCOTUS.? It appears to me that politics is being played in the hope that doing so would help to effect a decision more convenient to the agenda either of the so-called liberals or those whose deep pockets helped to enable the liberal coronation.? Whatever the case, the urgency behind the need to vote them out of office couldn’t be more critical.
    Framing criticism of the current establishment on the premise that they intend well is itself misinformation that does us almost as much a disservice as the working class looting being performed on the premise that economic justice is being pursued- which itself is little more than populist rhetoric designed to keep an ignorant middle class at bay until the money and power grab campaign is complete and a repair of the system is all but impossible.? Obamacare is just a centerpiece of it all- called the “Affordable Health Care Act”… I wonder if they kept a straight face while dreaming that…

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      (finishing- character limit exceeded)
      … I wonder if they kept a straight face while dreaming that label up.? If any of these policies reflects any sort of concern for the working poor of the country (formerly the middle class) then I’m the Lindbergh baby.

Comments are closed.