Obama Redefines 'Judicial Activism,' Then Turns His Sights On 'Compromise'

April 4, 2012 - 1:26 PM
It's enough to make one's head spin.

Just one day after showing his ignorance of the constitution by declaring that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn an unconstitutional law passed by a slim congressional majority, Barack Obama has today tried to paint himself as a defender of Ronald Reagan's legacy.

And just two days after his administration presided over the increasing of the U.S. corporate tax rate to the highest in the world, Obama is out on the campaign trail complaining that Republicans won't "compromise" and agree to his demand for higher taxes.

President Barack Obama said Tuesday Republicans want to force a "radical vision" on the nation, accusing the opposition party of moving so far to the right that even one of its beloved figures, Ronald Reagan, could not win a GOP presidential primary. Republicans "will brook no compromise," Obama told news executives at the annual meeting of The Associated Press. "Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who as I recall was not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases," Obama said. "He did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today."
Yes, he could.

Because Republicans know the truth: Under Reagan, while some taxes did go up, overall, taxes went down - and the economy boomed. Republicans also know that Reagan would never have agreed to a health care plan with an "individual mandate," given his commitment to individual liberty.

As for compromise, Obama's definition of it is, "agree to do it my way or you're not compromising."

It's much like the Left's definition of "judicial activism." To the Left, it isn't judicial activism of a liberal court makes up new law, but it is judicial activism for the Supreme Court to do its constitutional duty and overturn an unconstitutional law if it's a law the Left likes.