The "passive virtues" of the U. S. Supreme Court : postpone the judicial resolution of constitutional issues, permitting the political process to address the issues first. NO judicial challenge to the individual mandate until after it takes effect in 2014

.
It wouldn't be very wise of the U. S. Supreme Court to oppose the most important law that the President and Congress have passed in the last years. It would be governing from the bench.


Killing Obamacare would be a repeat of the "Four Horsemen" that opposed the New Deal from the U. S. Supreme Court in 1935 to 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt could change the court after June 1935 defeating this scheme of "Conservative Judicial Activism" and Roosevelt said that his Justice Enemies were contaminated by "Social Darwinism".


The same could happen if the court kills Obamacare and Obama is reelected. "Judicial Restraint" is when the Supreme Court allows the President and Congress People to do their jobs without partisan opposition in the Court. A new Congress and new President is possible in the Democratic Process of Election, in case that the nation does not want ObamaCare.




POLITICO.COM
Health care and constitutional Armageddon
By DANIEL CONKLE
March 21, 2012


Health care and constitutional Armageddon


Some excerpts :

So perhaps the justices should take a different course, practicing what Alexander Bickel, a noted constitutional scholar, once called “the passive virtues.” As Bickel suggested, the court is sometimes well advised to postpone the judicial resolution of constitutional issues — permitting the political process to address the issues first.

This route is open here because an obscure federal statute, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, can be interpreted to preclude judicial challenges to the individual mandate until after it takes effect in 2014. One court of appeals has so concluded — and the Supreme Court properly could agree.

To be sure, the vindication of constitutional values sometimes demands judicial leadership, not deference or delay. Desegregating schools with Brown v. Board of Education is a classic example. But in this case, the political process is neither tainted nor inadequate, and the constitutional issue is closely linked to a legitimate political debate.

Interpreting the Tax Anti-Injunction Act to preclude the individual-mandate challenge would not resolve every issue in the case. But it would defer judicial consideration of the health law’s most controversial provision until well after the 2012 election — just as “the passive virtues” would suggest.

If the justices proceed in this fashion, there may be no judicial blockbuster in June. But come November, unimpeded by judicial pre-emption, “We the People” will have the chance to speak for ourselves.

***************