In the wake of the latest in a series of cases on the Affordable Health Care for America Act–Obamacare to its detractors, the Holy Grail of legislation to its defenders–the pejorative of “judicial activism” has been leveled at Judge Roger Vinson and his ruling striking down the law.
While the White House avoids using the term judicial, they disagree with the ruling. Attacking the merit of the ruling, the White House appeals to the strength of numbers, saying that“This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion.”
Despite the appeal to numbers, the constitutionality of an act of Congress isn’t really dependent on a majority.
In reality, upholding the U.S. Constitution’s limits on governmental authority is a proper exercise of judicial authority. Indeed, the doctrine of judicial review has been recognized ever since the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. And Judge Vinson’s ruling is far from an abuse of that authority.