The comments of Michelle Bachman and other critics of today's Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act have given me pause and a bit of amusement.
Ms. Bachman talked about how disappointed she is that the Court declared constitutional a law that is clearly unconstitutional. Apparently, she knows better what is constitutional than do a majority of the Supremes.
Here's the thing. The courts, whether Supreme or inferior, do not evaluate a law as a matter of public policy. They don't decide if a law was a good idea. They only decide if Congress is empowered by the Constitution to enact what it did.
Chief Justice Roberts and the other four justices who voted to uphold the law realized that, and I'm sure considered whether they should strike down what a majority of both houses of Congress voted for and the president signed.
The amusement part comes in from the recollection that for years the right-wing denounced the judiciary for "activism." Now, as soon as the shoe is on the other foot, they cried out for the courts to invalidate what our elected representatives had passed.
Actually, as students of history know, the concept of judicial review is not written in the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall assumed the right of review and the courts have exercised it for the last two hundred years.
But either they don't teach that at the Oral Roberts law school or Ms. Bachman has forgotten it in the years since she matriculated.
No comments:
Post a Comment