David Harsanyi: The right kind of judicial activism

Here's a splash of common sense from the Denver Post's David Harsanyi:

For discussion's sake, let's just concede that every four years or so the American public is fooled into voting for a demagogue who's mastered a pleasant-sounding, market-tested populism. Let's then imagine — this is for discussion only — that this person's resulting
agenda, cheery but mildly authoritarian, passes with public support.

Does the federal court system exist to rubber stamp legislation? Should they check in and see if it's cool with the public? Or, do we have courts to decide the constitutionality of laws? Do we insulate judges from democracy for a reason? Do we have a Constitution to keep a check on government or to bend to the constant predilections of the electorate?

The White House's position is clear. When U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled this week that Obamacare was unconstitutional — due to its individual mandate — the White House's first reaction was to call the ruling "out of the mainstream," as if it were remotely true or
that it even mattered.

The decision, you may not be surprised to hear, is also a case of "judicial activism" and an "overreach."

Technorati tags: news politics health universal health care socialism obamacare denver post Barack Obama Obama law legal