A Spurious Accusation of Judicial Activism

Morning's Minion over at Vox Nova believes that a Virginia judge’s decision to strike down one provision, the primary provision which forces all consumers to buy a product is judicial activism. If the judge in the case had thrown out the entire health care law and not just one provision he would have been correct but Morning's Minion is wrong.  I will ask Morning's Minion one question: Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the authority or the right to force a citizen to buy a commodity?

  Morning's Minion claims that the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore was judicial activism when the truth is to the contrary.  Gore and his political team participated in political chicanery when they tried to force the vote counters to participate in some form of mental telepathy to figure out the impossible - a voter’s intent on a hanging chad and insure his victory.  Gore kept on losing, coming in second in districts, and he is the one who was the obstructionist and avoiding the reality that he had lost the presidential election.  But, after Gore gave his concession speech, changed his mind, he was in fact the person who initiated the courts into the mix and advocated for judicial activism.  If it wasn’t for Gore avoiding reality the courts would have never been involved in the first place.  George Will points out that the “U.S. high court reminded Florida's court to respect the real "states' rights" at issue - the rights of state legislatures: The Constitution gives them plenary power to establish procedures for presidential elections. Florida's Supreme Court felt emancipated from law.”


In fact Gore requested that the number of days to recount ballots be extended and the Supreme Court ended up rewriting the law to extend the deadline for certification and the court stated: "The will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions, should be our guiding principle." But under representative government, the will of the people is expressed in statutes. Adherence to statutes - even adherence stigmatized as "hyper-technical" - is known as the rule of law.


“In the end, seven of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices (and three of the seven Florida justices) agreed on this: The standardless recount ordered by the Florida court - different rules in different counties regarding different kinds of chads and different ways of discerning voter intent - violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”

Circumventing the Constitution and rule of law in the United States -- as with the immigration debate the religious Left has proven that they disregard the rule of law.