Mark Levin, who gave a lackluster and disappointing address at the Federalist Society Lawyers convention, consistently rails against the “activist judiciary.” In fact, he wrote a book titled Men in Black, that was a denouncement of the role of the Courts to conduct any meaningful judicial review.
Yet, despite his animosity towards judges overruling the elected branches, he is preparing a complaint to challenge the Constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution.
This just smacks of irony. When conservatives like Levin agree with Majoritarian politics, they aim to marginalize the courts. When they are out of the majority, and disagree with the work of the elected branches (even if it is really fishy in this case), they run to the courts to vindicate their rights.
I just want consistency. That is why I reject the euphemism judicial activism. I prefer the term judicial engagement. As I previously noted:
Aint it funny how Republicans want the Courts to challenge the elected branches when liberals are in charge, but want the Court to be a mere rubber stamp when it threatens a conservative agenda? This brings into focus, clearly the debate between judicial activism (a term I loathe because it has no real meaning) and judicial engagement.
The Court should consider the Constitutionality of Laws passed by both sides of the aisle. Be consistent.
It bothers me to no end that we have to rely on 5 Justices to ensure the Constitution is respected, as the President and Congress stopped caring about the rule of law and enumerated powers, long ago. But seeing that Article I and Article II went galt, so to speak, it is up to Article III to vindicate the Constitution. I’m not too optimistic.