Apparently believing that ObamaCare will be struck down, yesterday Mr. Obama opined about how it would be a case of “judicial activism” for “unelected judges” to overturn a law passed by a “strong majority” in Congress. A few thoughts:
–His concern over “judicial activism” is a laughable case of chutzpah. Liberals depend on judicial activism to advance their agenda when they can’t get what they want via the ballot box or the legislative process.
–It is the high court’s job–and has been since Marbury v. Madison–to rule on the constitutionality of federal statutes. How is it that the constitutional law professor doesn’t know this?
–Does Mr. Obama, who has already appointed two undistinguished (and “unelected”) judges to the Supreme Court, now propose that they be directly chosen by voters?
–Regarding that “strong majority,” ObamaCare barely squeaked through Congress, by hook and by crook, with almost zero Republican support. Not that the margin of victory matters, but I wonder what Mr. Obama considers a “weak majority”?
–If Mr. Obama wants the Court to defer to the will of the people, why won’t he? Opinion polls consistently show that a “strong majority” of voters has rejected ObamaCare.