Our Descent into Orwellian Language

On April 1, President Obama remarked that a Supreme Court decision striking down the health care law would be "judicial activism" because it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress."


The blogosphere exploded. As one nut-job yelled, "In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences." Never mind that the "consequences" this "dictator" referred to were electoral -- that's far too complex for people of this guy's intelligence level. Fox News commentators fueled the flame, of course, so people with no credentials at all could quote a powerful (but of course never "main stream") news source. 

But just 7 weeks earlier, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who I assume, have no aspirations to be "dictator," excoriated the Federal Appellate Court decision on Proposition 8. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," said Romney. Gingrich went further: "With today's decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States."

So why is it that when Republicans point out judicial activism they are guarding our liberties but when Obama does it he is tyrannical? Because the Republican Party and its mouthpieces have lost all sense of rational discourse.

And the result? Faith in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has declined (as I said it would in my last post.) This is a bad state.

Everybody needs to start talking more sanely, but by that I am really calling on Republicans, who have gone off the reservation.