President Obama has accused the Supreme Court of judicial activism; here's something Mitt Romney said in response to that his interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News last night. Note the last bit of this in particular (emphasis added):
ROMNEY: Isn't this wonderful to finally have a liberal talking about judicial activism? I think we can come together on this. We've been concerned about judicial activism for years and years and years.
What the president's complaining about, however, is that the Supreme Court might actually apply the Constitution to the bill that he passed! And the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to make sure that Congress does not pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution.
And so judicial activism is not following the Constitution. Judicial activism is departing from the Constitution, which is what they've too often done on issue after issue.
I applaud the fact that the Supreme Court looks to be taking the responsibility of following the Constitution seriously. And if the president complains about a Supreme Court that follows the Constitution, he's coming from a very different world than the world that the founders, and frankly, that the judicial history has described for America.
It's at the end of this clip:
I'm not going to assume that Romney chose his words specifically with the birther crowd in mind. But Fox Nation knows what the money quote is as far as its base audience is concerned:
Romney may not be dog-whistling deliberately, but, if you're attuned to the pitch, Fox's whistle is as loud as a fire alarm.
2 comments:
he's after your wimmenfolk, too!
Yeah, the right has been concerned about judicial activism for, like, ever. I mean, who can even believe that Brown v. Board decision, or Lawrence v. Texas for that matter? Romney comes from a different world than the founding fathers too. Difference is, as a wealthy white male landowner, he'd have done just fine back then. He's okay with going back to the good old days.
Post a Comment