From the “now-they-tell-us” files: the Los Angeles Times reports that some Reagan-era judicial conservatives are worried that conservatives on the Supreme Court are “going too far” and practicing “judicial activism.” Why, the idea!
Former Solicitor General Charles Fried is among those who are “concerned”:
If the court were to invalidate the healthcare law, “It would be more problematic than Bush v. Gore,” Fried said in an interview, referring to the case that decided the 2000 presidential race. “It would be plainly at odds with precedent, and plainly in conflict with what several of the justices have said before.”
Oh noes! There’s more:
“The vehemence they displayed was totally inappropriate. They seemed to adopt the tea party slogans,” he [Fried] said.
Oh my! How very inconvenient!
But just so we’re clear . . . Bush v. Gore? No biggie. Striking down the ACA, however? Hey, that’s totally different!
If the court were to invalidate the healthcare law, “It would be more problematic than Bush v. Gore,” Fried said in an interview, referring to the case that decided the 2000 presidential race. “It would be plainly at odds with precedent, and plainly in conflict with what several of the justices have said before.”
I have to say, the innocence of these political babes in the woods is precious. I mean, who could have predicted that packing the court with extremist conservative activists could ever have resulted in a court that runs roughshod over precedent and makes extremist conservative rulings?
Fried, btw, is an adviser to the Federalist Society. I suspect the real reason he and some other conservatives might be worried about the health care ruling is that striking down the mandate would be very, very bad for the health insurance industry, since the mandate basically guarantees them a big new consumer base.
(H/T CR)
