Curbing Judicial Activism

[Cecilie1200]

In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.

if you're concerned about judicial activism, you should probably have a little chat with your guys scalia, et al, since activism is ignoring over two hundred years of precedent to make up nonsense out of their butts.....

Riiiiight. It's judicial activism to reign in prior judicial activism and cleave back to the actual Constitution.

Only in the leftist mind.

 

[mamooth]

It's raging judicial activism to claim corporations have religious beliefs. Even the 5 cranks said as much, being they threw in one of their "Our decision is such brazen partisan nonsense, it should not used for precedence" clauses.

And you, Cecile, kiss the asses of those judicial activists. Just making it clear where we both stand. Like most on the right, you gleefully shit on the Constitution whenever the shitting helps you grab power.

And if you disagree, just point to the part of the Constitution that says corporations can have religious beliefs. Or that money is free speech, another fine example of raging judicial activism from the right.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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?

Ironic considering Hobby Lobby's owners claim Christianity is the religion against abortion when the Bible's fine with it. ...If you dispute it, google it. Can bury you with chapter and verse but am lazy

 

[Disir]

In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.

if you're concerned about judicial activism, you should probably have a little chat with your guys scalia, et al, since activism is ignoring over two hundred years of precedent to make up nonsense out of their butts.....

Riiiiight. It's judicial activism to reign in prior judicial activism and cleave back to the actual Constitution.

Only in the leftist mind.

Judicial activism, nitwit, is the view point taken by anyone who did not get their way.

You talk about the Constitution. You have failed at any given time to demonstrate knowledge of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

if you're concerned about judicial activism, you should probably have a little chat with your guys scalia, et al, since activism is ignoring over two hundred years of precedent to make up nonsense out of their butts.....

Riiiiight. It's judicial activism to reign in prior judicial activism and cleave back to the actual Constitution.

Only in the leftist mind.

Judicial activism, nitwit, is the view point taken by anyone who did not get their way.

You talk about the Constitution. You have failed at any given time to demonstrate knowledge of it.

True.

And the same applies to the OP.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's raging judicial activism to claim corporations have religious beliefs. Even the 5 cranks said as much, being they threw in one of their "Our decision is such brazen partisan nonsense, it should not used for precedence" clauses.

No, it's raging retardation to pretend that corporations are just empty robotic machines, utterly divorced from the living, breathing, BELIEVING human beings who own and run them. And it's blatant religious bigotry to try to deprive those human beings of their rights on the sophistic grounds of "But it's only when you're working, and only involves your WORK money", and to expect everyone else to lobotomize themselves so that they can view the world from your pie-eyed perspective.

And you, Cecile, kiss the asses of those judicial activists. Just making it clear where we both stand. Like most on the right, you gleefully shit on the Constitution whenever the shitting helps you grab power.

And you, Mamooth, can kiss MY ass. Just making it clear where we both stand. You wouldn't know Constitutionalism from your left ass cheek, primarily because you don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution unless you think you can twist it to pretend that it meets your ends. Much the same way you spout disdain for the Bible, and then try to quote it to support your bullshit, now that I think about it.

And if you disagree, just point to the part of the Constitution that says corporations can have religious beliefs. Or that money is free speech, another fine example of raging judicial activism from the right.

And if you disagree, just point to the part of your head where the brain surgery scars are. That way, we'll understand why you're so piss-stupid you can't understand that it's the humans who own and run the corporations who have rights. Or that supporting a candidate is every bit as much free speech as burning a flag is. Another fine example of raging, retarded hypocrisy from the left.

 

[mamooth]

You have to be intelligent to pull off the condescending routine. I can do it, you can't.

Meanwhile, normal people still understand that money and free speech are totally different things, despite your PC revisionism, rejection of common sense and embrace of judicial activism.

And thanks for blowing such a huge hole in the corporate veil, by saying that the people are the same as the corporation. We'll be using those wildly inconsistent and hypocritical judicial activist decisions you adore so much here to start suing the actual people instead of the corporations.

 

[DGS49]

1. Most lliberals can't imagine a situation where a law is a good idea, and yet unconstitutional. In their tiny little minds, if it seems like a good idea then a little thing like the Constitution is just something to be danced around in order for the Good Idea to come to fruition.

2. The more pages it takes for a Supreme Court opinion to make its point, the more likely that it is 180 degrees out of sync with the actual Constitution. Roe v. Wade could have filled a good sized pamphlet; it was totally made-up law, having nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.

3. There is no "right of privacy" in the U.S. Constitution. The people who wrote the Constitution were personally aware of dozens of laws that were in existence at the time that violated what we now believe is a "constitutional right of privacy."

4. It is an accurate "litmus test" of anyone analyzing the "powers" of Congress under the Constitution if they use the "general welfare" clause in their analysis. They don't know what the fuck they are talking about. No one knowledgeable about the Constitution even considers those words to have significant, independent meaning.

5. A "living document" would only make sense if the Constitution did not clearly provide the means of modification within itself. Thus, there is no rational argument that can be made to support the proposition that, for example, Congress has the power to create a compulsory retirement program for all working Americans. That power simply does not exist without a Constitutional Amendment creating it.

6. Liberals consider it "judicial activism" any time a court corrects a previous mistake.

 

[regent]

1. Most lliberals can't imagine a situation where a law is a good idea, and yet unconstitutional. In their tiny little minds, if it seems like a good idea then a little thing like the Constitution is just something to be danced around in order for the Good Idea to come to fruition.

2. The more pages it takes for a Supreme Court opinion to make its point, the more likely that it is 180 degrees out of sync with the actual Constitution. Roe v. Wade could have filled a good sized pamphlet; it was totally made-up law, having nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.

3. There is no "right of privacy" in the U.S. Constitution. The people who wrote the Constitution were personally aware of dozens of laws that were in existence at the time that violated what we now believe is a "constitutional right of privacy."

4. It is an accurate "litmus test" of anyone analyzing the "powers" of Congress under the Constitution if they use the "general welfare" clause in their analysis. They don't know what the fuck they are talking about. No one knowledgeable about the Constitution even considers those words to have significant, independent meaning.

5. A "living document" would only make sense if the Constitution did not clearly provide the means of modification within itself. Thus, there is no rational argument that can be made to support the proposition that, for example, Congress has the power to create a compulsory retirement program for all working Americans. That power simply does not exist without a Constitutional Amendment creating it.

6. Liberals consider it "judicial activism" any time a court corrects a previous mistake.

If the Court decides it has a power not given to the Court in the Constitution, is that judicial activism?

 

[DGS49]

Regent Person:

Yes, that's the crux of it, isn't it? There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the USSC has the power to overturn duly-enacted laws because the USSC deems them "un-Constitutional." This is why Marbury v. Madison is the foundation upon which all of this rests. It's not the Constitution itself, but an appendage of the Constitution that was created by the USSC itself.

For most of our history, the Court recognized that it had powers that were quite limited. They could not make any rulings, for example, that required the expenditure of funds (only Congress can spend money).

But then the Warren and Burger courts invented things like "Affirmative Action," and issued rulings requiring school districts to provide enhanced transportation to facilitate what the Court felt was required by various words and phrases in the Constitution. Now the court makes all sorts of rulings that require legislatures to fund things, and nobody gives it a second thought.

What would really make things interesting would be legislatures and executives who occasionally say, "Bullshit," and refuse to go along.

My personal favorite for a test case would have been in Massachusetts, where the state supreme court ruled that it was "unconstitutional" for the Commonwealth to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Not only that, but they did it in such a way so that if the legislature wanted to pass a law or constitutional amendment to overturn the Court's ruling, it would have taken years to do it - because of the requirements for modifying the Massachusetts constitution. So potentially hundreds or thousands of people could have gotten married pursuant to the Court's decision, while the legislature and governor (and the PEOPLE, by the way) were powerless to do anything about it.

The Governor (one Mitt Romney) should have said, "Bullshit. We won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the legislature has had time to act on it."

And what would the court have done? Issued another ruling? WGAS?

But alas, the Governor lacked the balls to act.

And the rest is history. Because of the Full Faith and Credit clause, not only could sexual preeeeeverts get married in Massachusetts, but every other state had to recognize those marriages.

Fucked up, ain't it?

 

[jwoodie]

I believe CJ Roberts sided with the Liberals on the Individual Mandate decision in order to write an opinion limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause and to impair Obama's reelection chances. Now he will vote with the Conservatives to undo as much of Obamacare as he can. Is this judicial activism?

 

[Agit8r]

Compare Brennan's idea that judges know what is best, no matter what the law says, to Chief Justice Robert's at this nomination:

"WASHINGTON — Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an “obligation to the Constitution” and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.
“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.” Roberts says he's not an ideologue - US news - The Changing Court | NBC News


Th[at] is the only correct view of one properly called a judge.

So you agree with him about the taxing power?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Compare Brennan's idea that judges know what is best, no matter what the law says, to Chief Justice Robert's at this nomination:

"WASHINGTON — Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an “obligation to the Constitution” and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.
“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.” Roberts says he's not an ideologue - US news - The Changing Court | NBC News


Th[at] is the only correct view of one properly called a judge.

So you agree with him about the taxing power?

I haven't seen you around for a while.....

....and now you come back sounding like a dope.


The 'dope' niche is already filled by NYCarb.


So....you can shoot for imbecile, or you can agree with my post.

 

[JFK_USA]

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

Apparently you haven't read the constitution.

The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed. That's why they have lifetime appointments so they don't have to play politics.

Oh and it's specifically states in the constitution that a judge can't be punished for his or her decision nor have their pay decreased during their term. For the constitution lover you say you are, you sure do have a lack of understanding of what's in it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Apparently you haven't read the constitution.

The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed. That's why they have lifetime appointments so they don't have to play politics.

Oh and it's specifically states in the constitution that a judge can't be punished for his or her decision nor have their pay decreased during their term. For the constitution lover you say you are, you sure do have a lack of understanding of what's in it.

Worse, she's ignorant of its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Federal judges can't just pull an opinion out of thin air and claim it's a 'valid' ruling, they must base their opinions on the precedent that is Constitutional case law, explain why the cited case law is guiding precedent, and ensure the case law is applied consistently to future similar cases.

For example, with regard to the many Federal judges who have invalidated un-Constitutional state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights concerning marriage, those rulings are predicated on settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence whereby when the states desire to deny citizens access to a given state's law, the prohibition must be rationally based, it must be justified by objective, documented evidence, it must pursue a proper legislative end, and it must not have the effect of disadvantaging a particular class of persons motivated solely by animus toward that particular class of persons (See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)).

Judges are consequently bound by this jurisprudence, and when they invalidate state measures denying same-sex couples access to a state's marriage law, they do so in accordance with their oath to defend the Constitution and obey its case law, having nothing to do with 'judicial activism.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Apparently you haven't read the constitution.

The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed. That's why they have lifetime appointments so they don't have to play politics.

Oh and it's specifically states in the constitution that a judge can't be punished for his or her decision nor have their pay decreased during their term. For the constitution lover you say you are, you sure do have a lack of understanding of what's in it.

1. "Apparently you haven't read the constitution."

a. It seems you have made the most aggrevious misjudgments: a belief that you know more than I.....or even as much!!!!

Here are the two things you must remember: never write a post as dumb as this again, and Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.

b. As though the very idea isn't uproarious enough....you have shown the following ignorance:
" The “Constitution,” referring to the US Constitution, is capitalized."
Capitalization, Titles : In the phrase ?federal constitutional law,? should the ?c? in ...





2. "The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Unless you can quote the section that includes the word "INTERPRET" in the Constitution, you will have been identified as a dupe of the Progressives, willing to bend the knee and lower the head to the decrees of the corrupt and self-aggrandizing individuals disguised in black robes.



Shall I wait....or plan to go on with my life.




3. "As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor 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: A Quarter-Century of Debate by Steven G. Calabresi and Antonin Scalia




I find it disheartening that so many are unable to think for themselves...e.g., you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Apparently you haven't read the constitution.

The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed. That's why they have lifetime appointments so they don't have to play politics.

Oh and it's specifically states in the constitution that a judge can't be punished for his or her decision nor have their pay decreased during their term. For the constitution lover you say you are, you sure do have a lack of understanding of what's in it.

Worse, she's ignorant of its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Federal judges can't just pull an opinion out of thin air and claim it's a 'valid' ruling, they must base their opinions on the precedent that is Constitutional case law, explain why the cited case law is guiding precedent, and ensure the case law is applied consistently to future similar cases.

For example, with regard to the many Federal judges who have invalidated un-Constitutional state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights concerning marriage, those rulings are predicated on settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence whereby when the states desire to deny citizens access to a given state's law, the prohibition must be rationally based, it must be justified by objective, documented evidence, it must pursue a proper legislative end, and it must not have the effect of disadvantaging a particular class of persons motivated solely by animus toward that particular class of persons (See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)).

Judges are consequently bound by this jurisprudence, and when they invalidate state measures denying same-sex couples access to a state's marriage law, they do so in accordance with their oath to defend the Constitution and obey its case law, having nothing to do with 'judicial activism.'

Any who acquiesce to " case law" identify themselves as unable to understand the Constitution....and, as a corollary, the English language in which it is written.

You, dolt, are a "case" in point.

 

[JFK_USA]

Apparently you haven't read the constitution.

The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed. That's why they have lifetime appointments so they don't have to play politics.

Oh and it's specifically states in the constitution that a judge can't be punished for his or her decision nor have their pay decreased during their term. For the constitution lover you say you are, you sure do have a lack of understanding of what's in it.

Worse, she's ignorant of its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Federal judges can't just pull an opinion out of thin air and claim it's a 'valid' ruling, they must base their opinions on the precedent that is Constitutional case law, explain why the cited case law is guiding precedent, and ensure the case law is applied consistently to future similar cases.

For example, with regard to the many Federal judges who have invalidated un-Constitutional state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights concerning marriage, those rulings are predicated on settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence whereby when the states desire to deny citizens access to a given state's law, the prohibition must be rationally based, it must be justified by objective, documented evidence, it must pursue a proper legislative end, and it must not have the effect of disadvantaging a particular class of persons motivated solely by animus toward that particular class of persons (See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)).

Judges are consequently bound by this jurisprudence, and when they invalidate state measures denying same-sex couples access to a state's marriage law, they do so in accordance with their oath to defend the Constitution and obey its case law, having nothing to do with 'judicial activism.'

Any who acquiesce to " case law" identify themselves as unable to understand the Constitution....and, as a corollary, the English language in which it is written.

You, dolt, are a "case" in point.

You obviously didn't go to law school because you would be 100% wrong if you studied it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Worse, she's ignorant of its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Federal judges can't just pull an opinion out of thin air and claim it's a 'valid' ruling, they must base their opinions on the precedent that is Constitutional case law, explain why the cited case law is guiding precedent, and ensure the case law is applied consistently to future similar cases.

For example, with regard to the many Federal judges who have invalidated un-Constitutional state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights concerning marriage, those rulings are predicated on settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence whereby when the states desire to deny citizens access to a given state's law, the prohibition must be rationally based, it must be justified by objective, documented evidence, it must pursue a proper legislative end, and it must not have the effect of disadvantaging a particular class of persons motivated solely by animus toward that particular class of persons (See, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)).

Judges are consequently bound by this jurisprudence, and when they invalidate state measures denying same-sex couples access to a state's marriage law, they do so in accordance with their oath to defend the Constitution and obey its case law, having nothing to do with 'judicial activism.'

Any who acquiesce to " case law" identify themselves as unable to understand the Constitution....and, as a corollary, the English language in which it is written.

You, dolt, are a "case" in point.

You obviously didn't go to law school because you would be 100% wrong if you studied it.

Did you miss this, dope?


2. "The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Unless you can quote the section that includes the word "INTERPRET" in the Constitution, you will have been identified as a dupe of the Progressives, willing to bend the knee and lower the head to the decrees of the corrupt and self-aggrandizing individuals disguised in black robes.



Shall I wait....or plan to go on with my life.



Or, is this the coward's way of beating a hasty retreat?

 

[JFK_USA]

Any who acquiesce to " case law" identify themselves as unable to understand the Constitution....and, as a corollary, the English language in which it is written.

You, dolt, are a "case" in point.

You obviously didn't go to law school because you would be 100% wrong if you studied it.

Did you miss this, dope?


2. "The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Unless you can quote the section that includes the word "INTERPRET" in the Constitution, you will have been identified as a dupe of the Progressives, willing to bend the knee and lower the head to the decrees of the corrupt and self-aggrandizing individuals disguised in black robes.



Shall I wait....or plan to go on with my life.



Or, is this the coward's way of beating a hasty retreat?

You bitch about judicial activism on the left yet ignore the judicial activism on the right making corporations into people with deeply held religious beliefs that they can force onto their employees.