or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Judicial Activism - It exists!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judicial Activism - It exists!

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Yahoo.com

Quote:
"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Pointed comments from Supreme Court justices last week during three days of compelling hearings have convinced many commentators that the court, expected to rule in June, will declare the law, dubbed ObamaCare, unconstitutional.

Such a move would electrify the White House race, puncture Obama's claims to be a reformer in the grand political tradition, and throw the US health care industry into chaos.

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

"I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden with the leaders of Canada and Mexico in his first comments on last week's hearings.

But...but...but.....judicial activism doesn't exist?!?!?!

We've been told for years by leftists and liberals that there is no such things as judicial activism. We've been told we are just uninformed idiots and that judges are supposed to do what they have been doing and that we are making things up when we are unhappy with their verdicts.

How can this be? How can the sitting president of the United States, a professor of Constitutional law use this phrase and talk about these fictional actions and concepts?

I mean next he's going to tell us unicorns are going administer Obamacare or something along those lines.

Don't endorse the hate and the ignorance President Obama. We all know judges can't be activist. Your surrogates have informed us of that for years. Just accept the court ruling if it is against you and go back and start over again. It's really no big deal to start again is it?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yahoo.com



But...but...but.....judicial activism doesn't exist?!?!?!

We've been told for years by leftists and liberals that there is no such things as judicial activism. We've been told we are just uninformed idiots and that judges are supposed to do what they have been doing and that we are making things up when we are unhappy with their verdicts.

How can this be? How can the sitting president of the United States, a professor of Constitutional law use this phrase and talk about these fictional actions and concepts?

I mean next he's going to tell us unicorns are going administer Obamacare or something along those lines.

Don't endorse the hate and the ignorance President Obama. We all know judges can't be activist. Your surrogates have informed us of that for years. Just accept the court ruling if it is against you and go back and start over again. It's really no big deal to start again is it?

My wife and I were speaking about this last night. The term that came up for Obama's conduct yesterday was "disgraceful." It's the second time he's essentially attacked the USSC in public...the first being worse as it was in the SOTU. His comments yesterday were just...silly. What was supposed to be an economic summit was turned into a circus. Even Felipe Calderon jumped on the ObamaWagon to sell the virtues of Universal Healthcare.

It looks like Obama's really, really, bad, terrible week might extend to another. My wife and I also wondered if he's just going to lose his shit one of these days in public....just totally lose his temper at the American people, the courts. Maybe he could could quote his books.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 27
You can see the flop sweat on his face.
post #4 of 27
SDW, do you really think it's unprecedented for presidents and politicians to attack the Supreme Court in public? One of the most common bits of conservative rhetoric for the past 50 years has been doing just that.

BTW, I do think you had a good point about this in the other thread. If Obama says something to the effect that a Supreme Court shouldn't overturn a law that was passed by a majority of congress and a president (how else is a law passed?), then that's just wrong.

What he should say is that there was never any doubt about the constitutionality of the individual mandate when conservatives believed in it, and never any doubt about it among constitutional scholars, and there is no good precedent for it being unconstitutional. But it's not true that being passed protects it from the Supreme Court - that's just silly, and I assume he just misspoke.
post #5 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

SDW, do you really think it's unprecedented for presidents and politicians to attack the Supreme Court in public? One of the most common bits of conservative rhetoric for the past 50 years has been doing just that.

Yes, but the point you fail to acknowledge there is that when Republican presidents do this it is ignorance because it is only case law the courts are crafting and that there really is no such thing as judicial activism. It is made up nonsense, a conservative meme, a talking point.

Those were the criticisms thrown at those Republican presidents. Will they apply now?

Quote:
BTW, I do think you had a good point about this in the other thread. If Obama says something to the effect that a Supreme Court shouldn't overturn a law that was passed by a majority of congress and a president (how else is a law passed?), then that's just wrong.

Of course it is stopping tyranny of the majority whenever the courts overturn such laws. Again apparently that criticism is mute here.

Quote:
What he should say is that there was never any doubt about the constitutionality of the individual mandate when conservatives believed in it, and never any doubt about it among constitutional scholars, and there is no good precedent for it being unconstitutional.

There has been plenty of doubt all along. There has been talk about the ever increasing use of the commerce clause in all sorts of absurd manners for decade now. There is plenty of precedent for it being unconstitutional which is why it is at the Supreme Court in the first place on appeal having been ruled against numerous times now.

Quote:
But it's not true that being passed protects it from the Supreme Court - that's just silly, and I assume he just misspoke.

He isn't misspeaking. He cynically understands what he is doing and why he is doing it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #6 of 27
Pretty disgraceful for him to call out the unelected nature of the court. As if all of a sudden that should impact how the court decides cases? The previous history of the US is meaningless. Also forget the fact that he nominated two of those unelected judges.
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, but the point you fail to acknowledge there is that when Republican presidents do this it is ignorance because it is only case law the courts are crafting and that there really is no such thing as judicial activism. It is made up nonsense, a conservative meme, a talking point.

Those were the criticisms thrown at those Republican presidents. Will they apply now?

Of course it is stopping tyranny of the majority whenever the courts overturn such laws. Again apparently that criticism is mute here.

There has been plenty of doubt all along. There has been talk about the ever increasing use of the commerce clause in all sorts of absurd manners for decade now. There is plenty of precedent for it being unconstitutional which is why it is at the Supreme Court in the first place on appeal having been ruled against numerous times now.

He isn't misspeaking. He cynically understands what he is doing and why he is doing it.

I think you have a fair point. The funny thing about charges of hypocrisy in politics is that, if the accusing party has the opposite position, then the accusing party is usually hypocritical in the opposite way.

And so let me see if you'll be honest about this: If Obama is wrong and hypocritical to say that courts should not overturn this law, aren't conservatives also hypocritical for saying that they should overturn it?
post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

SDW, do you really think it's unprecedented for presidents and politicians to attack the Supreme Court in public? One of the most common bits of conservative rhetoric for the past 50 years has been doing just that.

Not like this. Not to their faces like he did in the SOTU.

Quote:

BTW, I do think you had a good point about this in the other thread. If Obama says something to the effect that a Supreme Court shouldn't overturn a law that was passed by a majority of congress and a president (how else is a law passed?), then that's just wrong.

I agree. I found that very odd.

Quote:

What he should say is that there was never any doubt about the constitutionality of the individual mandate when conservatives believed in it,

I don't know if that's true, but it is true that various conservatives supported it.

Quote:
t'd never any doubt about it among constitutional scholars, and there is no good precedent for it being unconstitutional.

I don't think you can say "there was never any doubt" among Constitutional scholars. I'm sure you'd find some that support it, and some that don't. As for precedent, that's the point. The law expands federal power in an unprecedented way. It does this under the Interstate Commerce Clause in an unprecedented way.

Quote:
But it's not true that being passed protects it from the Supreme Court - that's just silly, and I assume he just misspoke.

As he is prone to do when not using a teleprompter.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 27
A "mandate" by the citizenry does NOT trump the constitution.
If something is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if there were a "mandate" by the citizen voters or not.

If you STILL want to pursue the agenda, there is a method in place for AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. Sure, it's slow, and rarely done... but it IS DONE. (If the agenda were truly desired by the public, there should be no problem getting this done.)
Go through the process of amending the constitution to allow for your agenda, then re-introduce the legislation that was earlier deemed unconstitutional, and now you're good-to-go.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A "mandate" by the citizenry does NOT trump the constitution.
If something is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if there were a "mandate" by the citizen voters or not.

If you STILL want to pursue the agenda, there is a method in place for AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. Sure, it's slow, and rarely done... but it IS DONE. (If the agenda were truly desired by the public, there should be no problem getting this done.)
Go through the process of amending the constitution to allow for your agenda, then re-introduce the legislation that was earlier deemed unconstitutional, and now you're good-to-go.

But this is why liberals usually LOVE the courts. Their ideas will not pass at the ballot box. It's why Obama and every other Democrat outside of Vermont and the Left Coast run as moderates. It's a center-right country. Higher taxes and regulation, socialized medicine and $8 gas aren't very popular.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I think you have a fair point. The funny thing about charges of hypocrisy in politics is that, if the accusing party has the opposite position, then the accusing party is usually hypocritical in the opposite way.

And so let me see if you'll be honest about this: If Obama is wrong and hypocritical to say that courts should not overturn this law, aren't conservatives also hypocritical for saying that they should overturn it?

Obama isn't hypocritical for saying his healthcare measure is constitutional. Likewise no one is hypocritical for saying it is unconstitutional. The point is that judges can go beyond the norms of case law. Noting this isn't hypocritical. However declaring it doesn't exist that all creation of case law is appropriate and then saying the court can never be activist IS hypocritical. To have a disagreement about a position is different than to say one position or one action simply cannot exist and is made up.

Also conservatives are not asking for new law. They are simply asking for the law to be judged. The bit often posted around here regarding negative and positive rights is very relevant. You have the right to free speech. The government doesn't have the right to compel you to buy a printing press. That is very backwards. Instead of the government being a protector of rights, the government instead becomes an entity tasked with mandating you protect your own rights.

Edit: I thought about this and came up with analogous example. I support gay marriage but I do not support how the courts have gone about granting gay marriage. You don't write man and woman, and then have the court simple expand that to mean something beyond those sexes. I noted that the courts didn't interpret black to mean white. We amended the Constitution. With regard to voting they didn't interpret women to be men. We amended the Constitution. If a study were done, I would suggest the rate at which we looked into our Constitution declined in line with courts taking on a more activist role.

Now many studies have shown in a multitude of ways that marriage is good for individuals and good for society as a whole. People are suing for the right to marry but imagine if the government went a step further. Imagine if the government mandated you marry. You're going to do it at some point and it's good for you and society. Let's just declare you have to participate.

That would be very different.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #12 of 27
So all of the end runs around Roe v Wade...those are Republicans respecting the Supreme Court? Shit, I hate to see what disrespect looks like.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So all of the end runs around Roe v Wade...those are Republicans respecting the Supreme Court? Shit, I hate to see what disrespect looks like.

Which "end runs" are those?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

A "mandate" by the citizenry does NOT trump the constitution.
If something is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if there were a "mandate" by the citizen voters or not.

Exactly. This is sorta the whole point of having a Constitution...and ultimate governing document.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The bit often posted around here regarding negative and positive rights is very relevant. You have the right to free speech. The government doesn't have the right to compel you to buy a printing press. That is very backwards. Instead of the government being a protector of rights, the government instead becomes an entity tasked with mandating you protect your own rights.

Or demanding that others fulfill the right.

Examples of positive "rights" and their immediate, logical consequences:

- You have a "right" to housing: The government must take property from someone else to provide you with housing or they must force someone to give you housing.

- You have a "right" to clothing: The government must take property from someone else to provide you with clothing or they must force someone to give you clothing.

- You have a "right" to a bed: The government must take property from someone else to provide you with a bed or they must force someone to give you a bed.

- You have a "right" to medical products and services: The government must take property from someone else to provide you with medical products and services or they must force someone to give you medical products and services.

- You have a "right" to food: The government must take property from someone else to provide you with food or they must force someone to give you food.

- You have a "right" to a minimum (or "living") wage: The government must take property from someone else to subsidize your income up to the minimum or they must force someone to hire you (if they do) at no less than the minimum.

And so on.

Actually, the final extreme of these things is that since they are "rights" they cannot be denied regardless of whether you work or not. So what that ultimately means is that:

The government must take property from others to provide you with housing, clothing, a bed, medical products and services, food and a living wage* or force others to give these to you.

*What you'd need a living wage for after all these other things are being given to you I can only imagine. Perhaps to help provide for your "right": to an iPod, cell phone, XBox and HDTV with cablt TV or satellite dish.

P.S. Someone in another thread went on the record to claim that the Internet (or access to it anyway) is a "natural right" so I guess we need to add that to the list.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My wife and I were speaking about this last night. The term that came up for Obama's conduct yesterday was "disgraceful." It's the second time he's essentially attacked the USSC in public...the first being worse as it was in the SOTU. His comments yesterday were just...silly. What was supposed to be an economic summit was turned into a circus. Even Felipe Calderon jumped on the ObamaWagon to sell the virtues of Universal Healthcare.

It looks like Obama's really, really, bad, terrible week might extend to another. My wife and I also wondered if he's just going to lose his shit one of these days in public....just totally lose his temper at the American people, the courts. Maybe he could could quote his books.

Just what the hell does Obama think he is? A dictator drunk with power? What ever happened to the concept of checks and balances?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Exactly. This is sorta the whole point of having a Constitution...and ultimate governing document.

What did Obama say when taking the oath of office? "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

Here he is taking an end run around the Constitution itself. Grounds for impeachment?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Which "end runs" are those?

Oh, how about this one?

http://thedailycougar.com/2012/04/03...abortion-bill/

Quote:
In the original version of the bill there was no exception made, even if a fetus had no way of surviving outside of its mother’s womb — This would have forced women to carry dead fetuses to term.

Disgusting. And this is just one of the MANY, MANY examples that you are being too obtuse to admit exist.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My wife and I were speaking about this last night. The term that came up for Obama's conduct yesterday was "disgraceful." It's the second time he's essentially attacked the USSC in public...the first being worse as it was in the SOTU. His comments yesterday were just...silly. What was supposed to be an economic summit was turned into a circus. Even Felipe Calderon jumped on the ObamaWagon to sell the virtues of Universal Healthcare.

It looks like Obama's really, really, bad, terrible week might extend to another. My wife and I also wondered if he's just going to lose his shit one of these days in public....just totally lose his temper at the American people, the courts. Maybe he could could quote his books.

Give him some slack! I doubt if you could be president with your negative attitude you have all the time.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh, how about this one?

http://thedailycougar.com/2012/04/03...abortion-bill/

Please explain how this example is an "end run" around Roe vs. Wade? It looks to me like it is trying to work within the limited framework that Roe vs. Wade provided. Clearly it might go to far, in which case the courts will strike it down if it were passed, in other cases it may fit within the boundaries established by Roe vs. Wade.

But please explain how it is an "end run around Roe vs. Wade?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And this is just one of the MANY, MANY examples that you are being too obtuse to admit exist.

I will gladly admit what you've said is true if and when you show a legitimate example. However, just because you think something is an attempted "end run around Roe vs. Wade" doesn't automatically make it so.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 27
Thread Starter 
Ignore BR. He doesn't address the topic. He can scream at the voices in his head all he wants.

CBSNews.com

Quote:
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

It seems President Obama is really starting to lash out and attack almost anyone since so many aspects of his administration are flailing and failing. He has now added the Supreme Court and the press for this week. Prior recent targets are those damn Canadians and their oil. It all feels so full of hope and change I suppose.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 27
If Republicans can't see how far they've twisted themselves around on judges, then their vision truly is typhlotic. Or worse, they're engaging in some of the worst intellectual dishonesty since they're taunts that not funding the troops enables the enemy.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #23 of 27

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 27
George Bush had every right to criticize the bench. So did Reagan. And so does Obama.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

George Bush had every right to criticize the bench. So did Reagan. And so does Obama.

Of course he does. He also has every right to say ignorant things like:

Quote:
Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

Of course I've come to expect nothing less from such a "brilliant" constitutional law professor.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

If Republicans can't see how far they've twisted themselves around on judges, then their vision truly is typhlotic. Or worse, they're engaging in some of the worst intellectual dishonesty since they're taunts that not funding the troops enables the enemy.

Not funding the troops AFTER YOU'VE VOTED TO PLACE THEM IN HARMS WAY, does enable the enemy. If you want to make a point you make it when they are safe at home or before you've sent them there. After you've sent them there, you let them do the job you voted on. You don't play politics with their lives. Certainly you can see that unless you are engaging in some intellectual dishonesty yourself. Clinton, Kerry, Biden and other Democrats voted to send them to Iraq. Once they were there, they wanted to play politics with armor and Humvees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

George Bush had every right to criticize the bench. So did Reagan. And so does Obama.

This goes well beyond criticizing the bench and no one ever claimed Obama does not have the right to say what he has said. The point is that liberals like yourself have said that judicial activism doesn't exist. They have claimed it is a made up conservative meme to try to confuse people about judges making normal case law.

It can't be a made up conservative meme and also something Obama complains about. If he is complaining about it, then it must be a real concept. If I complain about unicorns chasing the leprechauns off my lawn, you can say I'm delusional. When you complain about unicorns chasing the leprechauns off your lawn, you can't point a finger at others and declare they are just making shit up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Not funding the troops AFTER YOU'VE VOTED TO PLACE THEM IN HARMS WAY, does enable the enemy. If you want to make a point you make it when they are safe at home or before you've sent them there. After you've sent them there, you let them do the job you voted on. You don't play politics with their lives. Certainly you can see that unless you are engaging in some intellectual dishonesty yourself. Clinton, Kerry, Biden and other Democrats voted to send them to Iraq. Once they were there, they wanted to play politics with armor and Humvees.

I'd add to that calling the CIC a "loser" and saying "the war is lost" with boots on the ground qualifies as enabling the enemy.

Quote:



This goes well beyond criticizing the bench and no one ever claimed Obama does not have the right to say what he has said.

I guess he has a right, but it's certainly unprecedented to call out the USSC like he has...twice.

Quote:
The point is that liberals like yourself have said that judicial activism doesn't exist. They have claimed it is a made up conservative meme to try to confuse people about judges making normal case law.

It can't be a made up conservative meme and also something Obama complains about. If he is complaining about it, then it must be a real concept. If I complain about unicorns chasing the leprechauns off my lawn, you can say I'm delusional. When you complain about unicorns chasing the leprechauns off your lawn, you can't point a finger at others and declare they are just making shit up.

Agreed. Honestly though, it's all bullshit. Obama knows what judicial activism is, just as he knows what Marbury v. Madison is. It's about nothing but politics and reelection. He's counting on flat out ignorance....ignorance of young people, blacks, the uneducated and even the merely stupid to buy into his line about this action being "unprecedented." He doesn't care what law professors and commentators and educated voters think (even liberal ones who have criticized him on his statement). He's going to lose, and when he does...he'll run against Five Unelected Republican Lawyers™ and Mitt MoneyBags Romney®
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Judicial Activism - It exists!