Definitely worth a read:
This is perfectly, perfectly put:
"Even in a short time, Roberts’s decision has not worn well. What
initially seemed wise now smacks of mere cleverness — less a judge’s
prudence than a lawyer’s trick. To find the health-care law
constitutional, Roberts reimagined it. It was outcome-based
jurisprudence, even if the intended outcome was institutional harmony.
It was an act of judicial arrogance, even in the cause of judicial
deference."
"And it raises deeper concerns. Unmoored from a reasonable
interpretation of the law, institutionalism easily becomes the creed of
the philosopher-king — hovering above the balance of powers, tinkering
benevolently here and there, instead of living within the constraints of
the system."
Judicial arrogance curses most Western nations in very significant ways.
It was my understanding that the Supreme Court justices were supposed to uphold the constitution of the United States of America. Ditto for political leaders.
How far away from this primary role can these arrogant judges and "leaders" stray before there is a return to 'constitutionalism'?
(Watch a great clip with Mark Levin on Fox here.)
Thomas Sowell calls it a national, judicial betrayal.
(Why do American Supremes get lifetime appointments anyway??)
Dennis Prager on how the media intimidates and pressures individuals beyond their breaking point.
(These "conservatives" are usually duly rewarded with cocktail party invitations and coveted spots and columns in mainstream publications-this is their prize for recanting their formerly "radical" ideas, and launching new careers based on "gee whiz, I don't know how I could have ever, ever EVAH been such a scary conservative hater before" opinion journalism.)
