r3volution 3.0
01-16-2015, 12:54 AM
I was more than a little surprised to see this at National Review.
Not only is it unequivocally pro-Rand, it's actually an interesting and intelligent analysis of the issue.
Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) acknowledged that he was making a “tough sell.” He was, after all, seeking to persuade a room full of conservatives that the “judicial restraint” long championed by the Right was born of Progressivism and helped saddle the nation with Obamacare. But supporters of limited government would do well to heed Senator Paul’s advice to a conference hosted by Heritage Action on Tuesday. Judicial restraint — an approach to judging in which judges adopt a “deferential” attitude toward the political branches, and thus hesitate to void acts of government on constitutional grounds – is a policy that has done nothing to promote constitutionally limited government. It has, in fact, done precisely the opposite.
Continue Reading (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396416/rand-paul-right-judicial-restraint-wrong-evan-bernick)
Not only is it unequivocally pro-Rand, it's actually an interesting and intelligent analysis of the issue.
Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) acknowledged that he was making a “tough sell.” He was, after all, seeking to persuade a room full of conservatives that the “judicial restraint” long championed by the Right was born of Progressivism and helped saddle the nation with Obamacare. But supporters of limited government would do well to heed Senator Paul’s advice to a conference hosted by Heritage Action on Tuesday. Judicial restraint — an approach to judging in which judges adopt a “deferential” attitude toward the political branches, and thus hesitate to void acts of government on constitutional grounds – is a policy that has done nothing to promote constitutionally limited government. It has, in fact, done precisely the opposite.
Continue Reading (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396416/rand-paul-right-judicial-restraint-wrong-evan-bernick)