Go Back   hailRedskins.com Fan Board > hR General Discussion Forums > Potomac hR Political Air Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

The real judicial activists
  #1  
Old 11-01-2005, 08:25 AM
Spence's Avatar
Spence Spence is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Posts: 23,823
Default The real judicial activists

Who are the real judicial activists? Read on and find out. This is the sort of thing you're not supposed to know.
Quote:
Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court's decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.
Source
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:09 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,615
Default

I think the wording of the article is attempt to skew the facts. Of course the more conservative judges will shoot down NEW laws. They're new, they're different, they're not things conservatives go for. Liberal judges love new laws. They are often stretching the interpretations of the constitution or are laws on top of old laws and are not needed. The judicial activists that are normally spoken of are the ones who like to twist the meanings of current laws to fit their agenda. I think striking down new laws is anything but activism.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:24 AM
CNYSkinFan's Avatar
CNYSkinFan CNYSkinFan is offline
hR Staff Writer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 27,392
Default

this all in the eye of the beholder. Personally I find the whole judicial activism charge a bunch of crock on both sides. Of course I am not a strict constructionist and I believe the beauty of the constitution is the ability of it to conform to many different viewpoiunts. The free and open discussion of all ideas without strict adherance to a dgomatic view of the constitution but at the same time keeping in mind the basic tenaments of the constitution, can serve as barometers of what is right and wrong.
__________________
Yeah...it sucks to be right sometimes

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/...light=shanahan
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:26 AM
Ibleedburgundy's Avatar
Ibleedburgundy Ibleedburgundy is offline
Chief
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,827
Default

It all depends on what laws they strike down. My definition of an activist judge would be based on whether or not they agreed with my interpretation of the constitution rather than a percentage of when they agreed with congress.
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:11 AM
Spence's Avatar
Spence Spence is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Posts: 23,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave
I think the wording of the article is attempt to skew the facts. Of course the more conservative judges will shoot down NEW laws. They're new, they're different, they're not things conservatives go for. Liberal judges love new laws. They are often stretching the interpretations of the constitution or are laws on top of old laws and are not needed. The judicial activists that are normally spoken of are the ones who like to twist the meanings of current laws to fit their agenda. I think striking down new laws is anything but activism.
Here we see how terms like "judicial activist" have come to mean nothing. By every single traditional definition of the term, a judicial activist is a judge who intrudes upon the powers reserved for the legislative and executive branches of the government. Now, Dave redefines a judicial activist to be someone who strikes down old laws. Striking down new laws is, apparently, okay. I guess that means if a liberal Supreme Court started striking down one law after another passed by the GOP Congress and signed by President Bush, that would be okay. After all, those are new laws, right? So the liberal judges striking down those new laws would not be judicial activists -- at least by Dave's definition. Of course, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Dave, the article says nothing about the age of the laws being struck down. The Supreme Court, as currently composed, has considered laws from the 19th century and the 20th century. How does one even define a law that is new, a law that is old, and a law that is middle-aged? Judges like Scalia and Scalito want to strike down laws passed by Congress in the 1930s as part of the New Deal. They don't want to strike down laws passed by the GOP Congress in the 1990s. Again, by Dave's own definition, that would make Scalia and Scalito 'judicial activists,' since they despise laws passed 70 years ago, but respect laws passed seven years ago.
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:22 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,615
Default

Nice try Tom. The article was an attempt to skew the term activist judge from the lefties who stretch and mangle current laws to the Supreme Court who decides whether the laws are constitutional. I know, I know, you'd like to take all the terms used by conservatives and throw them back in their faces but sometimes it doesn't work.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:33 AM
Spence's Avatar
Spence Spence is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Posts: 23,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave
Nice try Tom. The article was an attempt to skew the term activist judge from the lefties who stretch and mangle current laws to the Supreme Court who decides whether the laws are constitutional. I know, I know, you'd like to take all the terms used by conservatives and throw them back in their faces but sometimes it doesn't work.
Dave, I've never heard the argument that striking down statutes is unconnected from judicial activism, not even from Republicans, but you're working it. The Bush admin missed out when they didn't hire you to sell the Iraq War.

The evidence before us demonstrates clearly that the more conservative a judge is on the current Supreme Court, the more likely he is to strike down a law. According to 40 years of received wisdom from movement conservatives, this was evidence of judicial activism. Now, you say, it no longer is. There is a new standard because the previous standard proved to be...uh...filled with inconvenient facts.

So provide evidence of how liberal judges are more likely mangle laws to suit their "judicial activism" than conservative judges. I mean, I know we've got your word for it, but...do we have anything else?
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:45 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,615
Default

Oh please, judges who use their bench to tell us that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, judges who rule that Christmas displays are somehow a violation of separation of church and state, judges who tell us that same sex marriages are equal to traditional marriages and the like.

The difference is these judges are not on the Supreme Court, thank GOD. They are scattered around the country in their little cabals against mainstream America. They're fringe lunatics on benches.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:48 AM
Axegrinder's Avatar
Axegrinder Axegrinder is offline
2006 and 2010 Fantasy NASCAR Champ!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Great Dismal Swamp of VA
Posts: 13,672
Default

Why don't you like labels?
Remember Flip-Flop... Flip-Flop?

Liberals can define conservatives the same way that the opposite occurs.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:50 AM
Spence's Avatar
Spence Spence is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Posts: 23,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave
Oh please, judges who use their bench to tell us that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, judges who rule that Christmas displays are somehow a violation of separation of church and state, judges who tell us that same sex marriages are equal to traditional marriages and the like.
Some of the things you enumerate above don't involve striking down laws or even reinterpreting them. They're simply doing things you don't like. And there we have the correct definition of a judicial activist: Someone who wears a black robe to court and does things I don't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinsDave
The difference is these judges are not on the Supreme Court, thank GOD. They are scattered around the country in their little cabals against mainstream America. They're fringe lunatics on benches.
Actually, publicly-funded religious displays of Christmas have been struck down by the Supreme Court, too. Always with the vote of at least one -- usually several -- judges appointed by Republican presidents.
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:53 AM
RedskinsDave's Avatar
RedskinsDave RedskinsDave is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lawn Guyland, NY (my heart will always be in Arlington, Va)
Posts: 25,615
Default

Quote:
"To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch," Judge Napolitano said. "To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing the things the Legislature wants to do." Many legal experts agree that accusations of judicial activism are nothing more than political name-calling, and that judges are supposed to interpret the law and rule according to their own interpretations.</SPAN>
I guess that's something we can agree on.
__________________
The future is now.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 PM.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |