Rand Paul shows how judicial restraint got us obamacare and segregation, and how judges must strike down laws against freedom more often

Rand Paul Goads Conservatives on Judicial Restraint
ARTICLE
COMMENTS (1)
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
JUDICIAL BRANCH
RAND PAUL
 5 7  4
By JANET HOOK
CONNECT

Sen. Rand Paul (R. Ky.) addresses the 2015 Conservative Policy Summit at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 13. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) prides himself on being a gadfly in the Senate and the GOP, and Tuesday he brought his gadfly routine into the heart of the conservative movement.

In a 15-minute speech at the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Paul – a libertarian-leaning Republican who is considering a presidential bid in 2016 – challenged the audience to rethink a piece of conservative gospel: opposition to judicial activism.

More In Rand Paul
Will Voters Choose the ‘Nixon’ Candidate in 2016?
10 Moments From 2014 Likely to Influence 2016 Presidential Campaign
Moran’s Support of Cuba Thaw May Signal Broader Farm-State Support
Marco Rubio Criticizes ‘Obama-Paul’ Policy on Cuba
Rand Paul Trolls Marco Rubio in #Cuba Row
Many conservatives are rigorous proponents of judicial restraint because they oppose court rulings advancing socially liberal values such as limits on religious practices in schools or those defending abortion rights.

Instead, Mr. Paul argued that he opposed judicial restraint in some cases – such as when the court refused to strike down major elements of the 2010 health-care law because it would override the will of the majority — and supported judicial activism when, for example, the court struck down racial segregation.

“It’s not as simple as we make it sound,” he said. “I don’t want judges writing laws.” He does want judges “to take an activist role in the defense of liberty.”

He acknowledged it was a tough argument to make in the small audience of conservatives at Heritage. Indeed, only a single person clapped when he argued in favor of the “presumption of liberty” as the starting point of assessing court rulings rather than knee-jerk support for judicial restraint.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s