Law Dogs

In what is obviously a concerted effort by Dummycrats to play politics with the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare (Under Attack), President Obama once again attacked the Supreme Court.

Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare

"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".

A vote of 219–212 in the House doesn't constitute a "strong majority" and the scientific community is united in that fact.

The President also warned that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism".

I'm no constitutional scholar, but in my mind "judicial activism" is when the judiciary writes something into the Constitution or law that isn't there.

Such as Roe V. Wade when the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."


Granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in this country by citing the 14th Amendment.


Or when a federal judge ruled the Treasury Department must change currencies so blind people can use them citing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Ruling on the constitutionality of a law is what the judicial branch does, and the Supreme Court of the United States has been doing since 1803.