Thanks to the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman debacle, the Supreme Court’s toiling about ObamaCare has seemingly lost its media flare. I guess because racial media propaganda is more consequential than protecting individual freedom. But Obama’s confident, because striking down a government mandate that forces Americans to purchase a product would be a form of “judicial activism.”
Oh, and it’s constitutional, he says. “We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference Monday.
“I think it is important and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” he continued.
I know Obama would differ, but there seems to be a contradictory job description between the conservative judges and the liberal judges — and activism is the key differential. The job description for Supreme Court justices is explicitly simple: Protect U.S. law by evaluating the Constitution. That’s it.
Forcing Americans to buy health insurance is blatantly unconstitutional. Striking down ObamaCare — particularly in its entirety — as Obama and the Democrats put it, would be immoral. They incessantly make that assertion (observe the bolded quote from above).
And if that’s not “judicial activism,” than I don’t know what is.