Sorry, but that’s not an excuse to be indifferent to the Constitution, particularly when you’ve taken an oath to uphold and defend it. As Jen Rubin says, the Dems are very selective about their concerns about “judicial activism.”

Obama, of course, doesn’t care one bit about deference to legislation passed by a democratically elected legislative body. He is concerned with outcomes, namely that the Supreme Court rubber-stamp his agenda. (Strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, uphold Obamacare, etc.) As do many on the left, he is convinced that whatever legislation he likes is constitutional and whatever he strongly objects to must offend some constitutional provision. This mind-set perfectly reflects the degree to which judicial review has become a matter of subjective preferences for the left.

Ironically, Obama’s appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to discern in the administration’s argument an overreach not consistent with federal principles of preemption. Kudos to her; she seems to not be operating, as she told law school gatherings once upon a time, as a “wise Latina” but as a justice responsible for determining the meaning of the Constitution and the laws that come before her.

For too many on the left, judicial philosophy approaches deconstructionism (or postmodernism, if you prefer) — the literary, interpretative fad that posits that words have no fixed or objective meaning. In the literary realm, all that is lost is intellectual rigor. Unfortunately, in the political realm such a viewpoint leads to the disintegration of the rule of law.

They don’t want the rule of law. They want the rule of them.