What Judicial Activism Means

After a Florida judge struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, the Administration and every jackass politician with a D after his name started attacking the judge for “judicial activism.”  I thought it would be a good idea to briefly discuss what “judicial activism” is. 

The talking heads and talk show hosts say that judicial activism means a judge has an opinion that is in disagreement with your own opinion.  In other words, if you think a piece of legislation is needed and you ignore the Constitution when you draft it, if a judge actually reads the Constitution and interprets it properly, then finds out that your legislation oversteps the bounds of what the Constitution allows the government to do, the judge is a judicial activist.  By interprets properly, I mean that the judge takes into account what the words mean as well as what the original authors of the Constitution MEANT when they wrote it.  What was their intent when they drafted the document?  To tell government what it is NOT allowed to do.  Look at the bill of rights.  It expressly says what the government CANNOT make you do, what it CANNOT do.  It cannot make you testify against yourself.  It cannot abridge your freedom of speech, or of religion, or of the press.  It cannot take away your guns.  It cannot search your property without a warrant.  It cannot take your property in time of war.  And, most importantly, if the Constitution does not expressly grant the government the power to do something, the rights to do that thing rest with the states or the people directly.  This is what the authors meant. 

The Democrats will say that the courts that have heard cases on Obamacare have overwhelmingly found the law constitutional.  This is an exaggeration of facts.  The law has been ruled on by sixteen judges.  Fourteen times the court has found the law constitutional, or dismissed the case.  Twice the courts have ruled it unconstitutional, or found some part of the law, the mandate, unconstitutional.  But, twelve of the fourteen courts dismissed the case due to procedural errors, ie, technicalities.  Only twice have courts found it constitutional.  So, in terms of fact, the score is tied on constitutionality.  Whenever Anthony Weiner (D-NY) says the courts are overwhelmingly for the law based on these numbers, he’s exaggerating the facts by not telling the whole truth.  This is important because the Democrats need for you to not know the whole truth or you might take to the streets with a Tea Party group.  It’s one of their favorite tactics.  Keep this in mind when a Democrat speaks. 

Now, to a Democrat, it is NOT judicial activism when a judge says that the federal government should decide if an unborn child deserves to live, or if the mother’s need to get rid of a baby so her life isn’t impacted in a negative way is okay.  It’s not judicial activism for a judge to determine that a large company should pay millions of dollars to a careless customer when they hurt themselves using the company’s product in a stupid way.  It’s not judicial activism for a judge to declare a sanctuary city in direct violation of our nations immigration laws. 

It is judicial activism if a judge finds an overreaching law unconstitutional.  If the legislators don’t put a clause in the law that says if one part is found unconstitutional the rest is still okay, then any one part of the law found to be unconstitutional can strike down the whole law.  The Florida judge determined this was the case.  Still, Democrats called names and lost their minds over the ruling. 

There are three branches of government.  They are the legislative, executive and judicial, unless you are Chuck Schumer (D-NY).  Each branch has limited power over the actions of the other branches.  The legislative branch cannot put a law into place that violates the Constitution.  If the legislative and executive branches disagree, the president can veto a law.  If the legislative branch is in enough agreement, they can override the veto.  The only branch whose actions are untouchable by the other two is the judicial.  If the judicial branch rules on a case in a way that violates provisions of the Constitution, which in theory should NEVER happen (but it has in the past), there is no recourse for the legislative or executive branches, except to draft and pass a new law that includes provisions to counter what the judicial branch has done.  This rarely happens because the judicial can then rule on the law if a case is brought before it. 

It’s important to understand these things, especially when the healdines are what they are these days.  If you read and understand our founding documents, then hear some idiot politician say something that violates those documents, you should really call them on it with a firestorm of phone calls, letter, and e-mails. 

Don’t get caught up in mainstream media’s name calling on this judge.  He did what he thought was right, and I happen to agree with him.  I wonder if Ginsburg would do the same?  Or would she apply her left leaning views to a case brought before her?  Would she let her personal feelings come into play when deciding on a case like this? 

You can read opinions online.  You should.  Of course, you can do nothing about these judges, since they are appointed, and it’s a lifetime appointment.  Can’t fire them, unless they get caught with a stripper in a Vegas casino, and then only if the stripper is not a union stripper. 

I hope this has cleared up what judicial activism actually is.  When you hear these phrases uttered, engage the old gray matter and understand exactly what the speaker means.  Then remember that when you step into the voting booth. 

Your vote is the only thing they actually need from you.  How they get it needs to be explored by the voting public.  And remember, these guys appoint judges.  Your vote has consequences, so consider carefully whom to vote for before you touch the screen on election day.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: