In preparation for a possible Supreme Court ruling overturning ObamaCare, the Left is already hysterically screaming about the Supreme Court’s judicial activism. The Wall Street Journal will have none of this, and provides a simple, elegant definition of what constitutes actual judicial activism:
Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.
The rest of the article is worth reading too.Email This Post To A Friend
3 Responses to “A beautiful definition of what constitutes judicial activism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.