In his recent column ("Razing the JFX, lowering O's expectations," April 3), Dan Rodricks continues his attacks on the Supreme Court for asking the tough questions of the lawyers presenting the Obama administration's case for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Rodricks refers to the observation of The Sun's Eileen Ambrose's that two years after the law's passage, most Americans don't know what it does. Mr. Rodricks fails to mention that the Democratic Congress failed to know this also but voted for it anyway.
Then Mr. Rodricks refers to Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried's comments about the "vehemence" in the tone of questioning by Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts directed at the Obama Administration's lawyers. Like many liberal commentators with short memories, Mr. Rodricks fails to recall the scathing attacks by Sen. Charles Schumer and other Democrats on those two justices as well as President Barack Obama's embarrassment of the Supreme Court at his second State of the Union address in front of a national audience.
Isn't it enlightening to find commentators such as Mr. Rodricks on the left who advocate "judicial activism" over "strict constitutionalism" but only when the results conform to their views?
Charles Herr, Perry HallCopyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun