 |
| Opinion/Editorial |
Well we know whats has been the main story coming out of our nations capitol this past week the US Supreme Court and its ruling on the Constitutionality of Obama Care.Well this mornings second lead OPED in the New York Times is trying to define the High court just by their ruling on Obama care.
The rant begins "For anyone who still thought legal conservatives are dedicated to judicial restraint, the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the health care case should put that idea to rest. There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.This should not be surprising. Republican administrations, spurred by conservative interest groups since the 1980s, handpicked each of the conservative justices to reshape or strike down law that fails to reflect conservative political ideology.
When Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were selected by the Reagan administration, the goal was to choose judges who would be eager to undo liberal precedents. By the time John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. were selected in the second Bush administration, judicial “restraint” was no longer an aim among conservatives. They were chosen because their professional records showed that they would advance a political ideology that limits government and promotes market freedoms, with less regard to the general welfare."
Well excuse me NYT what do you think a liberal led court would do last I knew liberalism/socialism is not good for as the NYT put it "general welfare" the NYT trying to sound Constitutional.
All this because Obama care is on the table on the courts docket this week.It needs to be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL period NYT read the Constitution you will understand oh wait thats right you cannot properly interpret the Constitution and if you did you would try to form and shape it into a shape to fit your warped political ideology.
The truth will set you free
No comments:
Post a Comment