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
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.