{"id":6413,"date":"2014-07-28T01:10:05","date_gmt":"2014-07-28T08:10:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=6413"},"modified":"2014-07-28T01:10:05","modified_gmt":"2014-07-28T08:10:05","slug":"when-following-the-letter-of-the-law-is-judicial-activism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2014\/07\/28\/when-following-the-letter-of-the-law-is-judicial-activism\/","title":{"rendered":"When Following the Letter of the Law is “Judicial Activism”"},"content":{"rendered":"

     A political science professor, of course, declared in The Guardian, of course, that the D.C. court, who ruled the Obamacare subsidies for those on the Federal exchange were illegal, were engaging in “judicial<\/a> activism<\/a>” because they followed the letter of the law. In contrast, political science professor Scott Lemieux praises the 4th Circuit Court for ignoring the letter of the law and embracing an obviously acceptable extra-legal tweak that was necessary due to those evil Republicans. Because typo<\/a> or “speak-o<\/a>” or something.<\/p>\n

     Fun on Twitter resulted.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

.@LemieuxLGM<\/a> Following the law as written is not judicial activism. #Obamacare<\/a><\/p>\n

— The Political Hat (@ThePoliticalHat) July 22, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n