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"?

The Most Interesting Man in the...South Carolina Primary

   [Image ©Glenn Francis, www.PacificProDigital.com]

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum this week called front-running rival Mitt Romney "bland and boring."

Would any of remaining candidates, including Mr. Santorum himself, be considered charismatic?

If you were casting for the Dos Equis beer "the most interesting man in the world" radio and TV commercials, would any of these dudes qualify?

We do know, however, that Newt Gingrich (particularly in his performance last night) is the best debater in the group.

The infighting among the the active candidates is one thing; what continues to be disturbing is the intense hostility among the commenters on the right-of-center blogs. "My candidate is perfect--your horrible candidate is fatally flawed." "My candidate is electable--your wretched candidate has no chance in November."

The actual comments aren't that polite.

If Romney is the nominee, we have no idea if he will be a good general election candidate. For one thing, in an ill-advised search for something to brag about in the 2008 presidential election, the former governor messed up bigtime by implementing RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

That being said, given the intellectually bankrupt mainstream media who will protect and push Obama at every turn, the Republican alternative--whoever he is--will have his hands full.

Only one person can get the GOP nomination. To save the country from socialism and crony capitalism, those on the right and in the middle must unite in support of that candidate in the 2012 general election.

To all those Romney bashers, as well as bashers of other candidates who seek "purity" on all issues, do you really want Obama by default spending four more years loading up the federal agencies and federal courts with radical ideologues?

Newt Gingrich Speaks Truth to Power

He may yet implode as a presidential candidate, but "good on you" (as they say in Australia, at least according to one movie we just watched) Newt Gingrich for some candor about the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Jerusalem Post columnist and Middle East expert Caroline Glick supports Gingrich's "invention" thesis:

His statement about the Palestinians was entirely accurate. At the end of 1920, the "Palestinian people" was artificially carved out of the Arab population of "Greater Syria." "Greater Syria" included present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. That is, the Palestinian people were invented 91 years ago. Moreover, as Gingrich noted, the term "Palestinian people" only became widely accepted after 1977.

Ron Prosor, Israel's U.N. ambassador, recently stated the following:

“From 1948 until 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan, and Gaza was part of Egypt.” Prosor stated. “The Arab world did not lift a finger to create a Palestinian state. And it sought Israel's annihilation when not a single settlement stood anywhere in the West Bank or Gaza.”

Despite recent anti-Israel remarks by Obama administration officials Howard Gutman and Leon Panetta, Obama vaingloriously praised himself (during yet another fundraiser) for protecting Israel's security. Given the actual track record, Charles Krauthammer says the president is delusional:

 

Prominent YouTube commentator and gadfly Pat Condell, apparently a former Israel basher (and an atheist) who has reversed course, discusses among other things in this video the "Palestinian public relations industry" otherwise known as the Western media:

Putting differing historical interpretations aside, lets say the two-state solution was implemented tomorrow. Does any reasonable person really believe that this would actually solve widespread Middle East turmoil?