Liberals Were For Judicial Activism Before They Were Against It

After ObamaCare fared poorly in last week's Supreme Court hearing, the sanctimonious left-wing media echo chamber is campaigning to intimidate the Supreme Court into going along with the unconstitutional, one-size-fits-all individual mandate.

(Separately, while no one knows how the Court will rule, some liberals are putting out the pathetic nonsense that the individual mandate's demise would help Obama's reelection.)

The left is even sounding a lot like Newt Gingrich, astutely observes The Wall Street Journal:

After last week's Supreme Court argument on ObamaCare, the political left seems to be suffering a nervous breakdown...The High Court's very "legitimacy" will be in question, as one editorial put it—a view repeated across the liberal commentariat...

Overturn any part of the law, the Justices are being told, and your reputations will be trashed. The invitations from Harvard and other precincts of the liberal establishment will dry up. And, by the way, you'll show you hate sick people—as if the Court's job is to determine health-care policy.

This is the left's echo of Newt Gingrich's threat earlier in the primary season to haul judges before Congress when it dislikes their rulings. Remember the political outrage over that one?

No doubt the Justices will ignore this transparent attempt at political intimidation, but someone should defend them against the claim that overturning the law would be "judicial activism." It's more accurate to say that failing to overturn the mandate would be dodging their duty to uphold core constitutional principles.

Gingrich took a lot of flak from both sides when he floated the idea of compelling judges by subpoena to explain some of their off-the-wall decisions. But what's wrong with that? Shouldn't judges be accountable--at least to the extent of public testimony?

To some degree, we have the same question about sports officials. Why can't a coach or player criticize a referee or umpire's call without getting hit with hefty fines? After all, there is no shortage of incompetent, outcome--effecting officiating in the pro leagues.It's the officiating, not the comments, that go to the heart of the integrity of the game.

What's more, why do sports broadcasters--including outspoken former players--rush to to pronounce every action by an official as a "good call." Do these broadcasters sign a blood oath of some sort to alibi for the "zebras"?