Originally posted by: Bumrush99
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just because a court makes a ruling you don't agree with doesn't mean that its "activist". That crap gets spewed out by the right every time they get an adverse ruling and I'd rather the left not follow their lead.</end quote></div>
I never said I disagreed with the rulings. Activism, when it comes to the courts has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the decision. It involves courts taking precedents, which are used to create laws, and overturning them, especially in cases where multiple rulings have cemented the precedent. Both LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE courts have exhibited political leanings that supersede precedents, which can only mean sweeping reforms if the current court stays in place, reforms that will overturn years of liberal leaning precedents that have been in place for many years
Actually, courts (in theory, at least) only interpret laws, not create them. The difference is huge, and that's why the framers of the Constitution limited the Supreme Court to only considering current cases and controversies, and gave them no authority to issue statements of judicial opinion on matters not currently before them.
Regarding precedent, the Roberts Court is hardly the first to (allegedly) show low regard for it, despite what the NY Times tells you.