The New Republic’s Badge of Honor

When the foot soldiers of the left, including those at The New Republic, attempt to smear conservative judges, they laughably use the phrase judicial activism. While the issue at hand is largely Obamacare, more fundamentally, it’s this: what can’t the government make you do?

President Obama understands these constitutional stakes. In a press conference following the health care reform oral arguments, he reminded conservative commentators “that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

TNR conveniently ignores the fact the President was universally mocked for his constitutional cluelessness following that statement (along with others such as the “unprecedented” issue of judicial review).

I know the President’s records are sealed, but did he really pass the bar? Not even in the hothouse of the faculty lounge (where Barry Oh! developed his intellectual chops) is such foolishness asserted.

The reality is judicial de-activism, rolling back bogus legislation, is the opposite of judicial activism which is the creation of new “rights” and entitlements.

So it is with great hilarity that TNR asserts this:

This, then, is John Roberts’s moment of truth: In addition to deciding what kind of chief justice he wants to be, he has to decide what kind of legal conservatism he wants to embrace. Of course, if the Roberts Court strikes down health care reform by a 5-4 vote, then the chief justice’s stated goal of presiding over a less divisive Court will be viewed as an irredeemable failure. But, by voting to strike down Obamacare, Roberts would also be abandoning the association of legal conservatism with restraint—and resurrecting the pre–New Deal era of economic judicial activism with a vengeance.

So not only does TNR have the issue of judicial activism backwards, they also fail to consider the importance of judicial review to the Constitution and American life, and they finally offer less decisive has greater importance than law itself.

Rodney King wondered why we all can’t get along. The answer is this: going along with idiocy is always a bad strategy.

(Awesome image via The People’s Cube.)


About Professor Mockumental

I enjoy almost all forms of parody, buffoonery, and general high-jinks. Satire has shown itself to be an essential societal need; I therefore humbly offer my services in such a manner. I enjoy mocking the usual suspects at the New York Times (Charles Blows, Moron Dowd, and the earth is flat guy) and Washington Post (Dana Milkbag, E.D. Dijon, and David Ignoramus). There are many others as well, but sadly, there are always too many targets and too little time.

Posted on May 16, 2012, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: