Unit 4 Judiciary
President Obama and chorus of commentators, activists and
politicians find that judicial activism is an issue. President Obama feared that
U.S Supreme Court would rule and overturn his signature law the Affordable Care
Act. The article begins to explain the ‘big
picture’ that the President and others are implying that judicial activism is
an issue are ‘painting’ that judiciary branch are “one of an imperial judiciary
routinely snatching important policy decisions out of the hands of elected
representatives.” The article goes on to explaining why this is not true and
not the issue. The first reason was that from 1954-2002 the Supreme Court ‘struck
down’ two-third of one percent of passed laws by Congress taking down two
federal laws per year. In conclusion judicial activism being an issue is ‘overblown’
and that judicial activism isn’t the problem. The real issue is “constitutionality
of legislative and executive actions, and one that leads to ever-expanding
government power.” An example the article used support this is the 11th
U.S Circuit Court of Appeals and noticing Congress going over there authority and
explaining that "the Constitution requires judicial engagement, not
judicial abdication." The article later concluded that Supreme Court striking
down the Affordable Care Act won’t do much to affect balance of power.
I agree with idea that President Obama and other people
going on with judicial activism issue are using as a substitute to avoid the
thought if the legislative and executive actions are constitutional. My reasoning
is there have been a lot of news about Congress and the president decisions
throughout being president including the decision and dramatic/serious events going on between Congress
and the President. And also in support for judicial activism is useful since
the constitution sometimes doesn’t have the answers to solving social issues.
Video of President Obama talking about judicial activism in 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment