Wednesday, April 04, 2012


I haven't heard anyone in the media mention the significance of Obama not understanding the difference between judicial review and judicial activism. The former is taking a law and weighing it through the words of the constitution and the latter is deciding a law should be written in a way that suits a court. Roe v. Wade was classic judicial activism because it found a federal right to abortion notwithstanding the 10th amendment.

For this to be judicial activism the court will have to mandate a single-payer plan or some other form of healthcare law they approve of in place of the current law. Striking it down isn't activism but review. If they can't do that then for what reason do we even need a supreme court?

Obama's presentation of this issue is significant because he became president with no personal life accomplishments. When I pointed it out it was argued that he was a respected law professor at the University of Chicago. So his most important life accomplishment reflects his inability to explain Marbury v. Madison to his students.

He's a pilot that can't land a plane. But he sounds great calling it in to the air traffic controller.


Dr. Saunders said...

I think he understands it. I just think he believes it's a good wedge issue to campaign on for the unwashed.

African Mango Reviews said...

I'm not a political analysts but i understand some of the conversation made ..
and i totally agree with Dr. Saunders thoughts

Post a Comment