Question of the week: “Was President Obama correct when he defended the Affordable Care Act against potential judicial activism by the U.S. Supreme Court?”
-Karen Anderson:“Yes. There are many other things our various levels of government require of us, including car insurance. The constitutional test is bogus.”
-Dave Appling: “Sadly, yes, given the tenor of some of the justices’ questions – clearly aimed at the political ideology of the law, not at its constitutionality. It’s ironic that the same crowd that once preached ‘Impeach Earl Warren’ for judicial activism should now be defending it. O tempora, o mores.”
-Bert Berson: “No. He was neither factually correct or politically wise.”
-Chris Bryant: “No, the Supreme Court’s job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws and just because a potential ruling goes against your agenda does not make it judicial activism. However, true cases of judicial activism must be discouraged as it subverts the checks and balances built into our government structure.”
-David Cohen: “Yes. Every president since Madison has been critical of the Supreme Court of the United States and each president since then has railed against judicial activism.”
- Dennis Kennedy: “Yes, but his timing was terrible.”
-Julian Mancias: “No. Judicial activism is based on opinion not on fact. Even if does exist, it’s best not to bring it up as a discussion point.”
- Henry Miller: “Probably not. Although everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, sometimes it is better to keep ones ‘criticism’ to ones self. Each of the three branches of government has its job to do. Maybe with less criticism of each other, better cooperation would result. Although I’m sure Nino wasn’t listening, anyway.”
-
Jeff Nunes: “No. He has never been more blatantly incorrect. Striking down laws that are unconstitutional is the clear mandate of the Supreme Court. Under the President’s interpretation of judicial activism he would have supported the separate but equal result of Plessy v. Ferguson or the internment of Japanese Americans in Korematsu v. U.S. His defense was a shameless political ploy not based in fact or law.”
-Jeff Smith: “No, he was wrong. The only one doing any activism is Obama. He should keep his nose out of the court and let them do their job. There are three branches of government for a good reason – so through a division and balance of powers some guy like Obama can’t come in and ‘fundamentally change’ America the way he wants. He shouldn’t be trying to influence the court, but then again, he does a lot of things he shouldn’t do in order to push his radical agenda, and our nation is suffering because of it.”
- Steve Staloch: “No. In stating, ‘ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ he demonstrated a naiveté about how the branches of government work. Overturning laws passed by Congress is hardly unprecedented, and in fact judges are charged with the responsibility to protect both individual liberties and unpopular minorities against what they determine – through judicial process – to be the tyranny of the majority.”
