Judicial Activism - It exists!

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?

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.

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.

Ignore BR. He doesn't address the topic. He can scream at the voices in his head all he wants.

CBSNews.com


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.

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.


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.