When liberals don't like judges

Have you ever noticed the way liberals love judges who arbitrarily rule in their favor, without regard to the will of the people or the rule of law, but detest judges who use the Constitution as their guide to decisions?

It's really quite interesting – and can best be illustrated by the reaction to the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

Vinson ruled the law unconstitutional and offered a declaratory judgment calling on the executive branch of government to adhere to his decision – in other words, to stop implementing this illegal legislation.

Now, normally, liberals love sweeping judicial rulings with not even the slightest or tenuous connection to actual law as long as they are supportive of the progressive agenda.

An essential resource for anyone interested in the founders' intended role for the American judicial system: David Barton's "Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion"

TRENDING: Is this what you voted for, America?

Let me remind you of a few:

• The federal judge's decision overruling Proposition 8 in California that simply defined marriage as an institution between one man and one woman;
• Lawrence v. Texas in which the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overturned all laws against sodomy in every state;
• Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overturned all laws against abortion in every state.

These were all acts of wanton judicial tyranny – again, with no support from the Constitution, other laws or even legal precedent. They were also certainly not popular. But liberals lectured us all that we had to accept them as law because one or more high priests in black robes declared them to be so.

So what was the reaction to Vinson's decision on Obamacare?

I almost couldn't breathe when I saw Barack Obama's White House label the decision "a plain case of judicial overreaching."

When was the last time you heard that expression from the people who love to stack the bench with activists for the purpose of ruling against the existing law of the land and the will of the people?

Furthermore, the White House declared it intends to proceed toward implementation of the law regardless of the decision.

Keep in mind, the new House of Representatives has already expressed its intention to seek a complete overturn of the law, but the administration still plans to spend billions of taxpayer dollars working toward implementation of the law everyone knows is headed eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court for adjudication.

Meanwhile, Americans and U.S. businesses are trying to make financial decisions in anticipation of the mandates the law places on them all.

But Obama doesn't care about any of that.

He's determined to force his will on the people, requiring them, for the first time in American history, to buy a service they may or may not need or want or face a penalty from the federal government.

It's a law that most rational people understand has one purpose – to destroy the greatest health-care system in the world so it can be scrapped in favor of a state-run socialist system.

Obama will fight all efforts to deprive him of this legacy – his crowning achievement in what promises to be his one-term presidency.

However, forget all that for a moment.

What we have seen here in Obama's reaction to a sensible, logical judicial ruling based on the Constitution and sound legal precedent is "overreaching."

Obama signaled he was going to be this kind of president during his campaign, when he explained that the Constitution was a living document – one that actually changed in meaning over time and one that is completely open to re-interpretation by political activists masquerading as judges.