Image 01 Image 03

Now they want judicial restraint?

Now they want judicial restraint?

From The NY Times Editors on why the Supreme Court should leave the Obamacare mandate alone:

All of these issues are best resolved in the political system, not the courts. The Supreme Court ought to show judicial restraint, adhere to precedent and uphold the constitutionality of health care reform.

What a strange, convenient notion of judicial restraint.  Should that restraint also apply when the next Congress passes the guns and tobacco mandate?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



I wonder what precedent the Court would be upholding? Even the courts that have ruled in favor of the mandate have cited the lack of any authority for such wide-sweeping Congressional power. Those fools can’t even be honest about it.

[…] SCOTUS Focus On POTUS Hocus Pocus Update: Recusal is a red herring indeed. Neither Thomas nor Kagen are going to recuse themselves from this case. This fight will be fought by all sides without restraint. […]

DINORightMarie | November 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm


So, by their definition, “judicial restraint” means not examining whether the law violates the US Constitution?

And, since there is NO precedent for an individual mandate to purchase a product or service – and, actually, in this case, redefining terms so that to NOT purchase something equals “engaging in interstate commerce” – just what precedent(s) are they supposed to follow?!?! Hmmmm…..??? Pray tell us, oh wise, brilliant, omnipotent NYT!?!!

Bah!! Not even the federal government could find a relevant precedent, you morons!

Just the typical leftist progressive claptrap trying to tell everyone to do things that they want, the way they want it; and, when the possibility exists for things to go a different way, put on the oh so “reasonable” and “rational” “restraints” act. What a farce!

Too late, chums. We are on to you. What the SCOTUS does, they will do; you don’t have any control over it.


Personally, I’m just waiting for the “Great Coca-Cola/PepsiCo Compromise” where Congress divides up the states that will only get Pepsi products from those which only get Coke products.

… of course to be followed by the “José Cuervo Proclamation” mandating that the only Tequila brand used in all of the US is tequila produced by Tequila Cuervo La Rojeña.

You would think the NYT was affirming that marriage statutes were the domain of legislatures and that restraint should apply to the Defense of Marriage Act and to the various state marriage laws overturned by judicial circumvention of the political process.

Charles Curran | November 15, 2011 at 5:08 pm

I’m hopeing that 5 of them show as much restraint as Barry O did at last years State of the Union address.

Imagine it’s 1973 and the last three words are “anti-abortion laws.” Me neither.

This is classic question-begging. It boils down to Since we already know that the law is constitutional, the Supreme Court should uphold its constitutionality.

But what if it isn’t? Article 6 of the Constitution requires all judicial officers to be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. If the law is not constitutional, then the justices should recognize that it is not.

tomesnyder was faster, but he’s right – the left never despised Judicial Restraint with Roe v Wade.

Today’s Fortune Cookie:
“What’s good for the Goose, is good for the Gander”

At the same time, I would like to see more questions to Newt Gingrich regarding his apparent hostility towards the federal judiciary. He seems so against the individual mandate, and yet his comments on Face the Nation would suggest that he’d be disappointed if the Supreme Court invalidated the Congress’ will regarding health care.

Here’s a little more “ammo” for your guns and tobacco mandate scenario.

Guns and Tobacco mandate? You mean a gun mandate like this one? See , the Militia Act of 1792. Was this ever declared unconstitutional?

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. … That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Let me tell you something, folks – a lead ball that weighs 1/18 of a pound is a .637 caliber ball. That’ll ruin your day. Let’s have every citizen (not just the white and male ones) be required to have a .64 caliber rifle. I think that’s a heck of an idea.

To RonF, From Wikipedia:

The militias were divided into “divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies” as the state legislatures would direct.[5] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act.[6] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[7]
These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.