Curbing Judicial Activism

[Disir]

This is not something you get to flip on to someone else. I'm not asking to discuss the merits. Just a yes or no.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is not something you get to flip on to someone else. I'm not asking to discuss the merits. Just a yes or no.

You may pin the tail on yourself now.

 

[Disir]

Wrong answer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Why do judges pretend that their expertise is necessary in understanding the Constitution? Isn't their job simply to apply the law as written?

It is, after all, written in the language that most of us use, and, even the most careful analysis requires no more than looking at the way the language was used when the document was written.

That is known as 'originalism,' and it's application prevents totalitarians of every stripe from altering the correct application of laws.



If originalism not applied, then we become a society not of law and justice, but more akin to this:
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Joseph Stalin)
To paraphrase Stalin, it is not the law that counts, it is the pretenders who change what the law says.



As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Randy Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’


a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi




10. The bottom line, here, is simply that activist judges who eschew linking their decisions to the law, the Constitution, should be treated as counterfeiters, as tradesman who provide short weight, pharmacists who adulterate their drugs so as to earn more from less....

....they should be deprived of the right to earn a living in the career that they have dishonored, and besmirched.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I asked you to consider the reverse.

Why the fear of responding to same?

Simple question, PC.

Still afraid to respond to the scenario that your doom your worldview?


As Theodore Roosevelt said of William McKinley, you have “no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.”

The leftist worldview is a collection of slogans bottomed on a regiment of self-righteousness . . . though it be morally bankrupt, an endless stream of lies and corruption, an unrelenting assault on the rule of law. The issue for them is not what any given person has the right to do or say or be; the issue for them is what a person may legitimately do or say or be.

The paramount article of the leftist's faith is that no one has the right to be left alone. That's false consciousness, an affront to social justice. The collective good, the collective will: these things are everything.

Tolerance is conformity. Acceptance is uniformity. Diversity is a gaggle of emotionally damaged goods all saying the same thing.

Hence, when you ask a leftist moon bat about his double standard, he immediately changes the topic with some irrelevancy or another: a torrent of epithets or some counter-interrogative. Either way, it's an accusation.

Leftists are pods who grow up to be that grating screech and the pointed finger in the body snatchers.

 

[Disir]

Simple question, PC.

Still afraid to respond to the scenario that your doom your worldview?


As Theodore Roosevelt said of William McKinley, you have “no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.”

The leftist worldview is a collection of slogans bottomed on a regiment of self-righteousness . . . though it be morally bankrupt, an endless stream of lies and corruption, an unrelenting assault on the rule of law. The issue for them is not what any given person has the right to do or say or be; the issue for them is what a person may legitimately do or say or be.

The paramount article of the leftist's faith is that no one has the right to be left alone. That's false consciousness, an affront to social justice. The collective good, the collective will: these things are everything.

Tolerance is conformity. Acceptance is uniformity. Diversity is a gaggle of emotionally damaged goods all saying the same thing.

Hence, when you ask a leftist moon bat about his double standard, he immediately changes the topic with some irrelevancy or another: a torrent of epithets or some counter-interrogative. Either way, it's an accusation.

Leftists are pods who grow up to be that grating screech and the pointed finger in the body snatchers.

You aren't intelligent enough for this conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Have you seen this? Do you find it bothersome?

Part of the secret to Scalia's success, his critics say, is the makeup of the DC District Court and DC Circuit Court, which have been controlled by conservative judges. "This right-wing group in the DC Circuit is one of the worst cases of judicial activism," Frank says. "They pretend judges should be restrained, but you have several cases of them substituting their economic judgment and making decisions that affect public policy rules." After Senate Democrats changed the filibuster rules last December, Obama's long-blocked nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals were finally approved, tilting it to a 7-to-4 liberal-conservative split. But consumer advocates shouldn't pop the champagne too soon: It was an earlier Obama appointee who wrote the decision overturning the commodities rule.

That could be a sign of what's to come, particularly as Scalia sets his sights on the Volcker rule, a cornerstone of Dodd-Frank that is designed to keep banks from becoming "too big to fail" by limiting their investments in hedge funds and other risky activities.

Did You Know That Antonin Scalia's Son Is Sabotaging Wall Street Reform? | Mother Jones

That you're quoting fucking Mother Jones as though it's meaningful, relevant, and something that should be taken seriously? Yeah, that's bothersome. I flush more intelligent and interesting content than they publish.

 

[Ravi]

In your opinion, was the Hobby Lobby case decided correctly?

Consider the following.

The decision in question states that religious folks do not have to participate, against their conscience, in providing a method that can be abortive.


Imagine the reverse scenario: a court that decided that an employer had the right to demand that his employees read the Bible, as long as he paid for it.


Would you agree to such a decision?

That's almost what the court decided. It decided that an employee must follow the employer's religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In your opinion, was the Hobby Lobby case decided correctly?

Consider the following.

The decision in question states that religious folks do not have to participate, against their conscience, in providing a method that can be abortive.


Imagine the reverse scenario: a court that decided that an employer had the right to demand that his employees read the Bible, as long as he paid for it.


Would you agree to such a decision?

That's almost what the court decided. It decided that an employee must follow the employer's religion.

You really didn't understand the decision, did ya'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still afraid to respond to the scenario that your doom your worldview?


As Theodore Roosevelt said of William McKinley, you have “no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.”

The leftist worldview is a collection of slogans bottomed on a regiment of self-righteousness . . . though it be morally bankrupt, an endless stream of lies and corruption, an unrelenting assault on the rule of law. The issue for them is not what any given person has the right to do or say or be; the issue for them is what a person may legitimately do or say or be.

The paramount article of the leftist's faith is that no one has the right to be left alone. That's false consciousness, an affront to social justice. The collective good, the collective will: these things are everything.

Tolerance is conformity. Acceptance is uniformity. Diversity is a gaggle of emotionally damaged goods all saying the same thing.

Hence, when you ask a leftist moon bat about his double standard, he immediately changes the topic with some irrelevancy or another: a torrent of epithets or some counter-interrogative. Either way, it's an accusation.

Leftists are pods who grow up to be that grating screech and the pointed finger in the body snatchers.

You aren't intelligent enough for this conversation.

The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.

 

[eagle1462010]

In your opinion, was the Hobby Lobby case decided correctly?

Yes............

Even though you didn't ask me.

The Gov't has no right to tell private owners of a business to go against their religious beliefs. The employees may disagree with it, but they don't own the business.

 

[kaz]

Consider the following.

The decision in question states that religious folks do not have to participate, against their conscience, in providing a method that can be abortive.


Imagine the reverse scenario: a court that decided that an employer had the right to demand that his employees read the Bible, as long as he paid for it.


Would you agree to such a decision?

That's almost what the court decided. It decided that an employee must follow the employer's religion.

You really didn't understand the decision, did ya'?

Nor does she care. Only an idiot or an ideologue would believe that in a free country that the right to follow one's own beliefs comes with the right to infringe on someone else's beliefs.

Idiots and ideologues are not mutually exclusive groups...

 

[kaz]

In your opinion, was the Hobby Lobby case decided correctly?

It wasn't broad enough. Government has no enumerated authority to say anything about employer sponsored healthcare, therefore by the 10th amendment, the entire law is Unconstitutional and should have been struck down as the Constitutional abomination that it is.

Here's a thought, Hobby Lobby offers the benefits they want, and employees take the job they want. Wow, what a concept.

 

[whitehall]

Judges like to be liked. That's why they come out with opinions that are designed to appear more caring than the stodgy old Constitution would permit. The only thing they fear is outrage by the people and other than storming the gates the only outrage in modern times comes from the media. Since liberals control the media there is little outrage for liberal unconstitutional opinions.

 

[Disir]

How about Kelo v New London, PC?


Simple question, PC. Yes or no.

 

[Disir]

Have you seen this? Do you find it bothersome?

Part of the secret to Scalia's success, his critics say, is the makeup of the DC District Court and DC Circuit Court, which have been controlled by conservative judges. "This right-wing group in the DC Circuit is one of the worst cases of judicial activism," Frank says. "They pretend judges should be restrained, but you have several cases of them substituting their economic judgment and making decisions that affect public policy rules." After Senate Democrats changed the filibuster rules last December, Obama's long-blocked nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals were finally approved, tilting it to a 7-to-4 liberal-conservative split. But consumer advocates shouldn't pop the champagne too soon: It was an earlier Obama appointee who wrote the decision overturning the commodities rule.

That could be a sign of what's to come, particularly as Scalia sets his sights on the Volcker rule, a cornerstone of Dodd-Frank that is designed to keep banks from becoming "too big to fail" by limiting their investments in hedge funds and other risky activities.

Did You Know That Antonin Scalia's Son Is Sabotaging Wall Street Reform? | Mother Jones

That you're quoting fucking Mother Jones as though it's meaningful, relevant, and something that should be taken seriously? Yeah, that's bothersome. I flush more intelligent and interesting content than they publish.

What you should be thinking about is how the PC ID is taking one or two lines from material and not linking to it and then string the crap together as if it's coherent and random thoughts of its own. Since that does not seem to bother you, you aren't intelligent enough for this conversation either. Go back to leaving bird droppings on threads.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about Kelo v New London, PC?


Simple question, PC. Yes or no.

You know how to keep an idiot in suspense?


Kept you for two days so far.

 

[Disir]

How about Kelo v New London, PC?


Simple question, PC. Yes or no.

You know how to keep an idiot in suspense?


Kept you for two days so far.

Let me help you out here.
Kelo v. City of New London | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Yes or no, PC. Simple question.

 

[eagle1462010]

How about Kelo v New London, PC?


Simple question, PC. Yes or no.

You know how to keep an idiot in suspense?


Kept you for two days so far.

Let me help you out here.
Kelo v. City of New London | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Yes or no, PC. Simple question.

Again you didn't ask me but I will respond anyway.

Yes based on what I've read so far, with one reservation. I don't know the compensation part of this equation for the Taking Clause. I'm not going to research this topic further. If you choose, show the compensation for the homes taken versus the data on the economic development that was gained for the property.

Kelo v City of New London

The city of New London (hereinafter City) sits at the junction of the Thames River and the Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a "distressed municipality." In 1996, the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had been located in the Fort Trumbull area of the City and had employed over 1,500 people. In 1998, the City's unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was at its lowest since 1920.

These conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London, and particularly its Fort Trumbull area, for economic revitalization. To this end, respondent New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity established some years earlier to assist the City in planning economic development, was reactivated. In January 1998, the State authorized a $5.35 million bond issue to support the NLDC's planning activities and a $10 million bond issue toward the creation of a Fort Trumbull State Park. In February, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. announced that it would build a $300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbull; local planners hoped that Pfizer would draw new business to the area, thereby serving as a catalyst to the area's rejuvenation. After receiving initial approval from the city council, the NLDC continued its planning activities and held a series of neighborhood meetings to educate the public about the process. In May, the city council authorized the NLDC to formally submit its plans to the relevant state agencies for review. Upon obtaining state-level approval, the NLDC finalized an integrated development plan focused on 90 acres of the Fort Trumbull area.

The Fort Trumbull area is situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility (Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres). The development plan encompasses seven parcels. Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a "small urban village" that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian "riverwalk" will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses.

 

[eagle1462010]

Now that Taking Clause situation has both pros and cons. The rights of a few over the benefit of thousands. A new public park, piers, boat launches, museum, research facility, and large office spaces with a new modern subdivision for the one posted.

Now apply that to Nevada and using Judicial Justice to seize state land for the protection of the turtle forcing all the farmers basically out of business. Using the Endangered species act as justification.......................

The Cows and turtles co-existed for a very long time. The turtles even ate the cow dung. But the Gov't seized the land anyway. Saying it was to protect the species, that they later killed for their own good.

That would be a more suitable subject. Or the indian gals who lost their land, horses and cattle after the Gov't seized the property. Can't remember their names offhand now but could google it again........The Gov't starved their horses and cattle in the process.

Do you agree with these situations disir?

A simple yes or no, please.