I have to say that this op-ed left me a little more than dismayed. The author
is noted as a conservative, and we know that conservatives have been railing
against activist judges for several decades. Now that the activism has switched
to being in their favor, the argument that conservatives are using has
completely reversed. I would have expected more consistency from Mr. Smith as
he was around when the tables were turned. This relativism is disheartening.
It is yet another example of how many of the "principles" on which
conservatives stand are actually political and self-serving. I find it amazing
that Gingrich, a man who gets very little respect from me, is actually the one
who is consistent to the principles of judicial activism, no matter what the
issue. President Obama is playing the same tug of war separation of powers game
that all Presidents have done since the early 19th Century. For that he can be
forgiven if kept in proper context. But for Smith to not condemn the
hyper-activism of the current Supreme Court leaves me more cynical than ever
about the principles, or lack thereof, of the right.
Over my lifetime I believed the Supreme Court to be a friend to the people.
That notion was largely based upon the isolation from party politics and private
influence by the lifetime appointment policy. In the last few years
that notion seems to no longer be true. The growth of business
influence has reached into the Supreme Court and we have rulings like
“corporations are people” and businesses owned by churches are
protected from civil law under the notion of “freedom of
religion”.The author’s seemingly distain for majority
rule, indicates to me that he is a part of group wanting business interests to
take over our government.
Oh my gosh, what a silly letter. It's getting to the point where the
phrase "constitutional scholar" essentially just means "right-wing
gasbag."Ever since the founding of our nation, politicians have
criticized judges, and the Republic still stands. While they're at it,
Congress people have criticized Presidents, Presidents have criticized Senators,
and the whole pack of 'em have joined together to criticize journalists.
And let's not even get started on the things people say about baseball
managers! In fact, I take issue with the phrase 'attacked the
Court.' Attack implies an act of violence. All the President did was
offer some criticism. Like, oh, every President ever.The funniest
moment in this whole insane column was this phrase: "Obama articulated his
view that rights are mere accommodations that may or may not be granted by the
democratically elected branches of government." Really? Where, when, in
what forum did he say this? That actually WOULD be extreme, if the President
had ever said it, or anything like it. But of course, he didn't, What he
did do was say employers have to provide appropriate and responsible health care
for women. And the Republic still stands.
It's getting to the point now that anything that benefits the people, is
considered unconstitutional... while anything that might help some corporation
or rich guy is considered completely constitutional.The Affordable
Patient Care Act= Unconstitutional, because it helps millions of Americans and
prevents insurance companies from instituting death panels for their
"pre-conditions."The Citizens United= Completely
Constitutional because it essentially legalizes the buying up of legislation and
representation for CEOS, lobbyists, and rich people.
There is a remedy for Obama's dictatorial desires and Romney has the
prescription. The liberals need to pay closer attention to the polls starting
the end of June. What Obama needs is the "Occupy Wall Street"
protesters to rally for him.