Here is a column about yesterday's Obamacare ruling. Key passage:
For generations, conservatives have championed “judicial restraint.” If judicial restraint means anything, it means deferring to the Congress on matters of policy preference—like, for example, whether it’s better to run a national health insurance system with a system of regulated private insurance (which is what people will get with the Affordable Care Act) rather than via a single-payer, government-run plan (which is what the elderly already get with Medicare).
The author is confused. Judicial restraint is not merely deferring to Congress on matters of policy; it is deferring to Congress on matters of policy when the issue is one of policy. Judges need not and should not defer to Congress on matters of constitutional principle, and that's what the case in question was about: whether the Commerce Clause has a limit. If Congress has the power to coerce individuals into purchasing a commodity that they don't want and don't need, then the Commerce Clause has no limit. Congress could mandate that everyone eat at least one serving of vegetables per day. Judge Vinson acted as a judge, not as a legislator.
Addendum: Here is a remarkable paragraph:
Of course, I can't be sure about these things. It’s hard to tell the difference between partisan bias (i.e., issuing rulings that favor one party) and ideological bias (i.e., issuing rulings that bend the law to one’s philosophical preferences on policy). And, to be quite clear, I'm not one of those people who thinks "bias" is necessarily a bad word anyway. I don't think the constitution has some unambiguous, values-free meaning, particularly when applied to lawsuit [sic] like this one.
The author all but admits that the Constitution means whatever someone thinks it means. This turns every question of principle into a question of policy. By the author's reasoning, therefore, no judge should ever strike down an act of Congress, lest he or she engage in judicial activism. Can you imagine anything more absurd? Someone buy this clown a clue.
Addendum 2: Jennifer Rubin nails it. Progressives hate it that the Constitution limits their utopian dreams. Judges who strike down progressive legislation are invariably said to be engaging in "judicial activism." What this means, in Progressive Speak, is that the judges are enforcing constitutional principles. Progressives hate principles. A fortiori, they hate judges who enforce principles. To progressives, the end justifies the means. Anything (such as the Constitution) that stands in the way of their ends is to be ignored, evaded, or destroyed; any person (such as Judge Vinson) who stands in the way of progressive ends is to be vilified, smeared, and delegitimated. Countdown to the vilification: five, four, three, two, . . .
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 