Gerry Connolly (D, VA-11) hates judicial review.

This is the precise quote (Politico has the video):

It’s not really up to the Supreme Court to second-guess the legitimate decision made by the elected representatives of the people, and if people want to change that law, they can do so by changing the legislators.

Three – no, four – observations on that, with the most pragmatic observations first:

  1. Rep. Connolly seems to have forgotten the 2010 elections, where the American people flipped the House, decimated the Senate Democratic caucus, and put in numerous state legislators and officials – all of whom pretty much ran on the explicit promise that they would collectively hold down Obamacare and stake it through the heart.  One would assume that such a repudiation might have served as a hint to someone whose own 2010 vote margin was less than a thousand, but perhaps Connolly thinks that he’s politically bulletproof.  It’s about at the right point in his career arc for such delusions to sprout, after all.
  2. As for jobs… wouldn’t Rep. Connolly agree that it’s the job of Congress to pass a budget? – And Connolly can’t pretend that he weren’t told this by then Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, either.  Or that the only movement on passing a federal budgets that’s taken place since Connolly became a Representative has been by the new Republican House majority.
  3. The ability of the Supreme Court to review – and when necessary, overturn – legislation to see whether it passes Constitutional muster has been an established duty of the judicial branch for over two hundred years.  I understand that Connolly is merely repeating the nonsense that the President spouted, but that’s not exactly what one would call smart.
  4. Question that should be asked Rep. Connolly, but will never, ever be asked him (because the reporters that Connolly likes wouldn’t dare, and the reporters that would dare, Connolly won’t like): does this stance on the the proper responsibilities of the US Supreme Court mean that Rep, Gerry Connolly, Democrat from Virginia, feels that Loving v. Virginia was decided incorrectly[*]?

I think that this pretty much covers it.  Except to note that VA-11 Republican candidate Chris Perkins is pretty much by definition more knowledge about the US Constitution than Connolly is. But people probably knew that already.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

[*It’s been pointed out to me privately that Loving v. Virginia overturned a state law, not a federal one.  Which is true, but not really helpful to Connolly: if he attempted to weasel out of his bizarre position on judicial review vis a vis drawing a distinction between state legislatures and the federal one then the immediate next question should be “Do you support having the US Supreme Court overthrow the Defense of Marriage Act?”  Which is also not a question that Gerry Connolly would willingly answer.]


  • […] Lane (crosspost) Sponsored Content Category: gerry connolly, judicial review, va-11, […]

  • Doc Holliday says:

    Gerry Connolly is a Fairfax County Corruptocrat. The Democratic machine in this area produced the likes of anti-semite Jim Moran and powerful, corrupt interests such as the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Basically all of these “authorities” are Democratic Machine t.m. carpetbagging entities that want to ignore Richmond and rule a fiefdom.

  • Spegen says:

    As usual judicial review only applies to laws that conservatives pass. How many abortion laws have been struck down?

  • Phil Smith says:

    And a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

  • Skip says:

    Although if he were consistent he’d actually have a point, Loving v Virginia is my counter-example when progressives throw out the canard that ‘judicial activism just means a decision you don’t like’. While it very well may mean that to them, it doesn’t to me. Prior to Obamacare my definition pretty much was restricted to cases where the court employed rational basis review to overturn a law, explicitly substituting their judgement for that of the legislature. And that includes a bunch of cases where I like the outcome, Loving v Virginia being one of them.

    Obamacare gives me another one – there are three possible outcomes here – 1 – declare it unconstitutional and throw the whole thing out. Not activism, most likely, depending on the actual decision. 2 – Declare the mandate unconstitutional and sever it and some other stuff creating a frankenlaw that Congress did not pass – depending on the end result I may or may not like it, but regardless, absolutely judicial activism. 3 – Declare the whole thing constitutional. Not what I agree with, but not judicial activism.

  • Aarradin says:

    Due to redistricting, this imbecile is now my representative.

    I will do everything in my power to change that between now and November.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com