Precedent is NOT a Mandate

Recently in our current political environment, there has been a move toward trying to establish precedent for everything that could be done wrong.  Democrats claim that their massive spending is just continuing the spending policies of the last thirty years, that Bush set up Medicare Part D, and on and on.  However, precedent for bad policy does not good policy make.  A great example of this is E.J. Dionne's contention (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/01/thank_you_justice_alito_100111.html) that Obama was right for calling out The Supreme Court the way he did during his State of The Union address because both Reagan and Nixon have done the same thing before.  Aside from the fact that just because it has been done before does not mean that it is a good idea, the way in which our President did so was uncalled for.  But lets break down her examples for a minute.

"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution," Reagan wrote. "No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. ... Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a 'right' so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."

Reagan is absolutely correct in this statement.  It absolutely does not create such a right. The important thing to remember here (which many of our political class have long since forgotten or outright ignored) is that it absolutely does not take that "right" away either.  This would fall under the 10th Amendment which very explicitly state that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What the Supreme Court did with the "Citizens" decision was roll back a decade of over reach by the Federal Government and repeal the portions of a law that prohibited free speech by corporations which are in fact, private entities and, though this is an unpopular opinion, are protected by the 1st Amendment. 

There was however, an even more disturbing aspect of the show put on by the POTUS in that, he called them out in front of both houses of Congress, many of whom then stood in applause as he called for them to craft legislation to over ride the decision.  I hate to break it to you Obama, but the Supreme Court was put in place by our constitution as a check on the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch and NOT as a barrier (much the way these branches try to treat the constitution) to be skirted. 

There has long been an argument from both the left and the right that the Courts have been "legislating from the bench" but there is one huge problem with this line of thought; the Supreme Court doesn't craft legislation!  All they can do is rule on legislation brought before them.  There is no doubt, they have made errors.  Kelo vs New London is the first to spring to mind.  The only way that the Supreme Court has any chance of "legislating from the bench" is if they uphold unconstitutional laws. Sadly, many on both sides of the isle don't seem to understand the federal governments lawful place as granted it by the Constitution.