werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
That's not a low bar, that's a parking lot stripe!
Note though that conservatives and Republicans defeated her; Democrats just snickered and watched it happen.
Note though that conservatives and Republicans defeated her; Democrats just snickered and watched it happen.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Lets see if I can quite get my arms around what amounts to the GOP position.
Activist SCOTUS Justices are liberal, and non activist Judges are only arch conservatives.
Could have fooled me, as I consider Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito as activist Justices who have done much to redefine legal doctrine and not for the better.
Activist SCOTUS Justices are liberal, and non activist Judges are only arch conservatives.
Could have fooled me, as I consider Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito as activist Justices who have done much to redefine legal doctrine and not for the better.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Coming from a fringe leftist? Buahahhahahaha....
Even the media can't hide his liberalness and yet you try to claim he's "moderate"?
Since Souter retired, yes...and makes the nomination of another catholic very unlikely.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
We are all speculating here, the ball is now on Obama side of the net, we can only wait to see who Obama nominates, and then we can re argue the same ole points.
But gasp, the R's forgot to win the Presidency in 2008, which means Obama gets to pick
the nominee.
But gasp, the R's forgot to win the Presidency in 2008, which means Obama gets to pick
the nominee.
It's sad to see that judges are now picked and nominated as if they have an (R) or (D) next to their name. Whatever happened to picking qualified mainstream judges? Lets face it, 25% of the country is left wing fringe, 25% is right wing fringe, and in the middle you have 50% of the country that is somewhat sane. We'd all be better off if the judges on the scotus reflect the 50% and not either of the 25% crazies.
Regarding activist judges: the scotus should not be making decisions based on what is fair or good for society -- that's what the legislative branch is for. The scotus should make decisions strictly based on the law. The people can vote people into and out of the legislature to reflect their wishes, but scotus judges are there for life, so no activist judge of any stripe should ever be allowed anywhere near the supreme court.
Regarding activist judges: the scotus should not be making decisions based on what is fair or good for society -- that's what the legislative branch is for. The scotus should make decisions strictly based on the law. The people can vote people into and out of the legislature to reflect their wishes, but scotus judges are there for life, so no activist judge of any stripe should ever be allowed anywhere near the supreme court.
That's basically what they do until, you know, they make a decision that one side disagrees with. People that say judges should "make decisions strictly based on the law" don't really understand the judicial process or how they can make a determination.
Actually, I understand the judicial process pretty well, thank you, and yes, judges should make decisions based on the law, not try to legislate.
A judge is like a ref in a football game. It's not up to him to apply the rules such that it's more "fair" for one or both teams, or to determine the desired outcome of the game. An activist judge is the equivalent of a ref that says "well, I could call holding on this play, but that would seriously disadvantage one team, so I'm going to call something else that's more equitable. Maybe I'll create some new interpretation of a rule to make it more fair!". I want the ref (and a judge) to apply the rules as determined by those who are supposed to create the rules. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, I realize within the scope of interpreting the constitution, one could clearly make it as broad or as narrow as one wants, so it's not black and white... but I lean on the side of a narrow interpretation of the laws, leave it up to the legislature to clarify the laws so they have the intended consequences.
Anyway, sorry, that's a sidetrack of this thread. I hope Obama nominates someone reasonable and good, but it really is sad to see this partisan bickering over nominees like they are appointees to a political office.
that's not something people really care about, is it? it's not like the catholics vote in unison on anything.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
Sounds like you're one of the rare people who actually understands what judicial activism really means.
Sounds like you're not.
First, is judicial activism always bad? Was it judicial activism when Warren fought to rally all the other justices to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and end legal segregation?
Yes, it was, and it was a good thing to overturn bad law.
The issue isn't 'activisim'. It's doing well at interpreting the constitution.
The right is terrified of someone inventing things the constitution doesn't say. But they're blind to the ways the constitution is INTENDED to have some broad rights protected for things that might not even exist yet in broad principles. The constitution's guarantees of equality can include things like protection for gays from discimination under the law based on modern advancements and understandnigs that weren't feasible earlier.
Indeed, the right who demand 'strict' interpretation that is more strict than the constitution says they should have are EVERY BIT OR MORE bad interpreters and 'activists' and 'enemies of the constitution' as those who find too many new 'rights'. They, for example, can be guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution when it comes to the protection of any of those 'rights reserved to the states and the people' they disagree with.
Those are broad amendments put their for a reason - and are not ONLY for the use of the right when they don't like something the federal government does.
If you understood judicial activism, you would understand it can be too broad OR too narrow, and it's all 'activism'.
The current right-wing justices, who all promised to be very limited in overturning precedent, have been some of the most aggressive justices at overturning it.
But you don't count them as activitsts, presumably, only 'liberals'.
The most prominent issue of 'activism' the right complains about might be the recognition of the right to privacy. And yet, the 'liberal' justices are right who protect it.
Putting Roe v. Wade to the side for a moment, it rested on the decision to protect the right of citizens to get birth control pills. Some 'socially conservative' states didn't like the social changes such pills would bring, and outlawed them. The liberals made the very valid point why the constitution, while not spelling out protection for such a thing for the citizens, had a broad spirit of freedom to it that limited the government from interfering in citizens' choices this way without some public policiy justification.
If you respect the constitution, IMO, you agree with them. If you have your own desires what you want it to say and are willing to put those over what it actually says, you are a 'judicial activist' in the worst sense of the word, of the right. Again and again this has happened - there's nothing in the constitution about Miranda rights and publically provided attorneys for poor defendants - these are 'judicial activism' that PROTECTED the intent of the constitution's spirit to actualy make the justice it called for practical.
They understood how something like a constitutional right - say, the right not to answer police - could be made into a non-right if the police could tell the suspect he had no such right even though he did. They were PROTECTING the constitution with this measure - which was the right thing to do despite its vulnerabilit for some to pander to voters to attack the justices 'putting the rights of the criminal over the victim' to gte elected.
'Judicial activism' is not a good or bad thing - interpreting the constitution well is the issue.
But to the definition that it means interpreting the consitution poorly to say it means something it doesn't, that's equally the case whether it's finding something that's not there or ignoring something that is, including the constitution's intentional broad principles.
Saying the constitution is narrower than it is is a bad judicial activism that most who use the phrase are guilty of and don't understand.
One other comment - it has to be said that this is not a black and white issue, that the constitution is a short enough document that there willl bi issues the justices have nothing more than the princuples or spirit of the constitution to follow, and they can go either way, where the issues are not ones for the legislature.
The right often likes to inaccurately pretend that everything they complain about is some clear issue settled by the document. It's not.
Brown v. Board of Education, for example, addressed an issue which an earlier court saw one way, but a later one saw differently. Where are you going to find the constitution say whether segregation was ok or not? The question was, did the constitution have a broadly implied right to equality that was violeted by 'separate but equal', or did it not?
There were those who said separate but equal did meet the constitutional requirement for equality under the law, and others said that 'separate but equal' was "inherently unequal". The latter were the 'liberals' who were following the 'sprit of the constitution' to note where the theoretical 'separate but equal' was not meeting that spirit and 'invented' the right of the minority to not be subject to it even if the government and the majority of the people wanted it. You don't find black and white (no pun intended) language in the constitution to say who was the 'judicial activist' ignoring the constitution.
In this case, most agree the justices who said 'separate but equal' was ok and ignored the practical effects on the principle the constitution has are the ones who were ignoring the constitution and the 'activists' who found more rights were right and correctly following the constitution. But don't pretend the people who prefer 'narrow' interpretations are backed up by the document.
Ignoring a broad principle in the constitution is every bit as violating of it as claiming things are there that aren't.
Last edited:
No, I don't think it's always bad. However, he seems to understand what it means.
It's funny that you produced a giant rant which I didn't even bother to read it fully though. Congrats. You and I probably have fairly similar preferences for the Supreme Court, but the only problem is that you're prone to ranting and crying a lot.
Last edited:
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Looks to be on par with Kagan. Zero real experience - heavy on the liberal activism.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,684
- 2,438
- 126
John Paul Stevens is a life long Republican who was appointed by a Republican president. I was in law school when he was nominated and followed his entire Supreme Court career. Lots of his decisions I don't agree with, but they are consistently well thought out and reasoned.
Righties have a tendency to label anyone who is not a rabid anti-abortionist/bring us back to the 18th century an activist judge. The fact of the matter is Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (ugh) are truely activist judges and they are bound and determined to force the rest of the country into following their revisionist views of the Constitution.
Obama gets it. Constitutional law and the Supreme Court is right up his alley. And despite what Palin et al say, the fact of the matter is pretty much a centerist politician, much the way Clinton was. I'm confident he will nominate a capable, smart jurist for the role. In fact it is one of my secret desires that Obama (like Taft before him) eventually serve on the Supreme Court himself.
Righties have a tendency to label anyone who is not a rabid anti-abortionist/bring us back to the 18th century an activist judge. The fact of the matter is Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (ugh) are truely activist judges and they are bound and determined to force the rest of the country into following their revisionist views of the Constitution.
Obama gets it. Constitutional law and the Supreme Court is right up his alley. And despite what Palin et al say, the fact of the matter is pretty much a centerist politician, much the way Clinton was. I'm confident he will nominate a capable, smart jurist for the role. In fact it is one of my secret desires that Obama (like Taft before him) eventually serve on the Supreme Court himself.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
Well, I'd like to think he'll chose a nominee based on their qualifications.
But I'm doubtful. I suspect more identity politics and other PC concerns like last time, and stuff like what constiuency does he 'owe'? These days seems like most everything in Washington is based around re-election concerns. With elections upcoming I have trouble believing that won't play a role.
Fern
But I'm doubtful. I suspect more identity politics and other PC concerns like last time, and stuff like what constiuency does he 'owe'? These days seems like most everything in Washington is based around re-election concerns. With elections upcoming I have trouble believing that won't play a role.
Fern
Exactly. There was a court of a normal balance, where this Republican with a 98-0 approval vote - a fine Republican nomination was on the court with other great Justices.
Enter in the radical right establishing enough power to put radical rigt-wing justices who are at odds with the history of the constitution in our country, and now he's 'the left'.
Anyone from the 'normal' Supreme Court before the Federalist Society types gained seats isn't 'the court', it's 'the liberbals'. The whole court, right and left, becomes 'the left'.
The opposite, to help people understand, might be if some other radical ideology gained power - communists, Shia Law - and the whole current court because 'the other side'.
Suddenly, simply normal, reasonable legal opinions become 'the liberal opinions' in contrast to the radical right who have the Federalist agenda (friendlier to the 'Unitary Executive' etc.)
There are two basic models: the normal model who is well qualified, and the Federalist Society radical rigt agenda judges.
Within the normal model, there are ones who are further to the right - who appear to be the front runners for Obama and to the right of Republican Stevens - and ones more center or left. Unfortunately, Obama has shown no inclincation to actually appoint actually liberal judges, in contrast to his nice statements.
The Court has been one vote at best shy of a radical turn to the right, with a stream of 5-4 decisions, and any weakening of the normal side will see a radical shift to the right.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nice try but you're not even close. Stevens changed and became a liberal(in today's sense) - he lost sight of the Constitution and how it is a cage. Remember Kelo? Yeah, exactly... he bought into the gov't = power BS the leftists have been pushing for.
I'd agree. Yet another reason why having the senate be held by the "other side" of whomever is holding the white house is a good thing. Reagan nominated Stevens. He could not nominate some arch-conservative, because he was facing a democrat senate. Stevens turned out to liberal for my taste, but he always applied solid reasoning, not political ideology, and I respect that.
These days it doesn't appear to be about getting qualified people on the court, it's more about "which group of the electorate do I make happy", or "which group needs more representation on the court?".
When your idea of a "liberal" is someone just left of Stalin or Castro, then no, indeed he hasn't. However, if you're a sane person like most of the rest of us, you have a more normal view of left/right/mainstream.
Last edited by a moderator:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter