Obama levels straight shots at Supreme Court and Ryan budget
By E.J. Dionne Jr.,
WashPost
Sunday, April 8, 7:08 PM
ELON, N.C.
Conservatives are not accustomed to being on the defensive.
They have long experience with attacking the evils of the left and the abuses of activist judges. They love to assail “tax-and-spend liberals” without ever discussing who should be taxed or what government money is actually spent on. They expect their progressive opponents to be wimpy and apologetic.
So imagine the shock when President Obama decided last week to speak plainly about what a Supreme Court decision throwing out the health-care law would mean, and then landed straight shots against the Mitt Romney-supported Paul Ryan budget as “a Trojan horse,” “an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country,” and “thinly veiled social Darwinism.”
Obama specifically listed the programs the Ryan-Romney budget would cut back, including student loans, medical and scientific research grants, Head Start, feeding programs for the poor, and possibly even the weather service.
Romney pronounced himself appalled, accusing Obama of having “railed against arguments no one is making” and “criticized policies no one is proposing.” Yet Romney could neither defend the cuts nor deny the president’s list of particulars, based as they were on reasonable assumptions. When it came to the Ryan budget, Romney wanted to fuzz things up. But, as Obama likes to point out, math is math.
(More here.)
WashPost
Sunday, April 8, 7:08 PM
ELON, N.C.
Conservatives are not accustomed to being on the defensive.
They have long experience with attacking the evils of the left and the abuses of activist judges. They love to assail “tax-and-spend liberals” without ever discussing who should be taxed or what government money is actually spent on. They expect their progressive opponents to be wimpy and apologetic.
So imagine the shock when President Obama decided last week to speak plainly about what a Supreme Court decision throwing out the health-care law would mean, and then landed straight shots against the Mitt Romney-supported Paul Ryan budget as “a Trojan horse,” “an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country,” and “thinly veiled social Darwinism.”
Obama specifically listed the programs the Ryan-Romney budget would cut back, including student loans, medical and scientific research grants, Head Start, feeding programs for the poor, and possibly even the weather service.
Romney pronounced himself appalled, accusing Obama of having “railed against arguments no one is making” and “criticized policies no one is proposing.” Yet Romney could neither defend the cuts nor deny the president’s list of particulars, based as they were on reasonable assumptions. When it came to the Ryan budget, Romney wanted to fuzz things up. But, as Obama likes to point out, math is math.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
If the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, is that 'judicial activism'? Judicial Activism is when courts - or judges in particular - act as a super-legislature, making law from the bench, usurping the function of the legislature duly elected by the people. Judicial Activism occurred in the 1890s Plessy v Ferguson case which made 'separate but equal' the law of the land turning 14th Amendment jurisprudence in to a farce. Roe in 1972 finding a 'right to privacy' in the constitution was another act of judicial activism - the word 'private' does not exist in the Constitution, yet the court found a 'right to privacy' in its decision.
Now, according to my history, the court first struck down a law as unconstitutional in 1802 in Marbury v Madison. This was hardly a case of 'judicial activism' because no laws were created. The case merely defined 'judicial review' as a legitimate function of the court. And that's what ObamaCare represents - judicial review: the chance to correct wrong decisions of previous courts in finding legislation to be unconstitutional.
Obama, sadly, is acting like a king - a dictator, actually. He has said in the past that he will act where Congress will not, despite he has no authority to act executively. Now, he's assailing the duly vetted Supreme Court for doing a job it has been doing for over 200 years - judicial review of legislation held to have been passed illegally. This could even throw out decisions such as Wickard on which Obama is relying for the court to uphold.
No laws are being made in the case of ObamaCare review therefore, this is not a case of judicial activism.
Post a Comment
<< Home