Rush Limbaugh had quite a bit to say about Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court Justices possibly striking down his ObamaCare law. This post concerns mainly the aspect of “judicial activism.” Remember that this White House and this DOJ are still in Contempt of Court in Louisiana. Here’s what Rush had to say, and this morning I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano say Rush nailed it.
Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law. ~ Rush Limbaugh
The following is some of Rush’s commentary (I’ve shortened the length of some paragraphs for easier reading):
There’s nothing judicial going on here. There’s nothing legal. This isn’t even really about the Constitution. This is about politics, pure and simple, and Barack Obama’s reelection. It’s all it is. But he says things in these sound bites which you’ll hear coming up and they’re chilling to me.
“The court has to understand…” ”
The court must understand,” is one of his sound bites. No, the court must not — does not have to — listen to you. What is this, “The court must understand”? That is a threat!
How many of you think it possible that Obama will make a trip to the Supreme Court before the vote, before the final vote? Can you see it happening? I can.
I’m not predicting it. (interruption) You’re shaking your head. You don’t think it would ever happen? Why would he be…? Why would Obama visiting the Supreme Court between now and June be any more unconscionable than what he did yesterday? (interruption)
It’s a visual? No! He’s just going up to say hi to Kagan. He’s going up to say hi to Kagan and Sotomayor, to see how they’re doing. (interruption)
He called ‘em out of the State of the Union right to their face. Remember that with Justice Alito? Anyway, let me take a break. We’ll come back and we will get into some of these sound bites and we’ll tear this down as it happened sometimes line by line. Mike, be prepared when I say, “Stop.” There might be some frequent stops and starts as we go through this.
Here’s the pertinent part (it’s all pertinent, but here’s the most pertinent part):
Everybody knows that judicial activism is not what Obama is explaining it to be. Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law.
What Obama is trying to say here is that the court will be engaging in judicial activism if it judges the law according to the Constitution. That’s not what judicial activism is.
I know exactly what they’re doing. They’re trying to take this term, and they’re trying to redefine it publicly to fit their needs and redefine the language (as they constantly are).
But, folks, I’m gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it’s even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar.
This is a man, Barack Obama, who was once paid to teach law, constitutional law, and he doesn’t even know the meaning of the term “judicial activism.” No one ever accuses any judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution!
Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law. This is basic knowledge.
Now, maybe this is why we’ve never seen Obama’s grade transcripts, if he really doesn’t know the difference. But I suspect that he does know the difference, and I suspect that he’s trying to redefine terms here to fit. Because this has become a template argument for the left.
We have thugs running the country, as Rush pointed out. In the wake of Obama’s not-so-veiled threat to SCOTUS, a Fifth Circuit Court Judge (see linked below) demanded a three page, single spaced, specific paper from the DOJ to explain whether or not the DOJ believes the Supreme Court does not have the authority to strike down unconstitutional laws. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals covers portions of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Obama and the DOJ is STILL in Contempt of Court for ignoring Court orders in Louisiana, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the area.
Related and Background: