In 1832 the Supreme Court decided in Worcester v. Georgia that a Georgia law that prohibited entry onto Indian lands without a state-issued license was unconstitutional.
|Chief Justice John Marshall,|
inventor of judicial review
Commentators on all sides are saying the last three days were disaster for the Obama administration during the Supreme Court's hearing on Obamacare. Suddenly, Democrats are against judicial review! Suddenly, the justices just don't know their place! Suddenly, the very reputation of the Supreme Court itself is at risk! Oh, the humanity! Good Prof. Jacobsen indicates why:
The lifeboats are in the water for Obama and the Democrats as the ship goes down, with Democrats planning to blame the Supreme Court, Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down:Conservatives have been complaining for years about judicial activism from the bench. How amusing then to read liberal columnist's E.J. Dionne's piece today headlined, "Judicial activists in the Supreme Court."
“This court would not only have to stretch, it would have to abandon and completely overrule a lot of modern precedent, which would do grave damage to this court, in its credibility and power,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.”
Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.But of course, Roe v. Wade - well, that was just judicial common sense and Constitutional centrism, eh, Dionne? Suddenly, from the Left - the Left mind you - comes this startling observation:
It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.Then we have Jonathan Chait at the ultra-lib NYT gasping in horror at "Conservative Judicial Activists Run Amok." Chait does not object to judicial activism itself, mind. He acknowledges, after all, that "for decades, judicial activism had been primarily associated with the left" and, incredibly, admits that "the notion that the Constitution requires the right to an abortion is quite a stretch of judicial activism."
It's presumed judicial activism from the Right that simply can't be tolerated: "The spectacle before the Supreme Court this week is Republican justices seizing the chance to overturn the decisions of democratically-elected bodies."
Excuse me, I must reach for a hanky to dry my crying eyes.