lawrocket 3 #26 November 2, 2005 QuoteHistorically, conservative justices are much more likely to go against laws passed by Congress. Doesn't mean that's wrong or right, but they are more likely to be 'activist' by most people's definition. Actually, a judge who overturns legislation due to constitutional challenge is neither an activist nor a practitioner of judicial restraint. A judge who overturns legislation is simply doing his job. An "activist" is a judge who eithergoes against established interpretation and jurisprudence to overrule it, or defines new rights where no previous right was defined. I other words, activists rule in a way that prescribes NEW public policy, which is a political question to be determined by the legislatures. Overturning legislation can really only be viewed as "activist" if the legislation has already been established as Constitutionally sound. You need some history of "Activism." Almost universally regarded as the worst decision in SCOTUS history, the Lochner decision found implicit in the Constitution a right to contract, which threw out a law that limited working hours. Thsi was activist - there ain't no freedom of contract in the Constitution. This decision is mainly despised by liberals because it was a firmly anti-progrssive decision. The Warren Court of the 1960's is regarded as probably the most activist court ever by using implicit rights to find Constitutional Protections for civil rights. Personally, I don't mind these decisions, as I agree politically with most of them. Still, it was some pretty shoddy logic that led to them. (Aside - Rehnquist wrote in a recent opinion that there is no right in the Constitution as defined by Miranda, but because it's been so well established now he is unwilling to overturn it. THAT is judicial restraint). The activists are typically viewed as those who believe in the "Living Constitution." Their reasons for this are that the Constitution doesn't cover everything we see in today's society, and therefore it must change. The problem that I see is that it means that judges rewrite the Constitution to find these new rights, and each judge may see things differently. This also makes it unworkable to provide any notice to the population what rights the Constitution gives, since we dont' know about these rights until some judge has found it. Ironically, the constuctionists would now be considered the activists. After all, to get the Constitution back to its original intent and text would mean overruling at least 50-100 years of jurisprudence. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #27 November 2, 2005 NY Times has a good piece on him. (Requires registration / BugMeNot) He seems like a fairly balanced and reasonable guy so far. Probably not perfect for either side, but certainly not a bad choice either. This of course won't stop any side from "going through the motions"HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #28 November 2, 2005 QuoteYou need some history of "Activism." Almost universally regarded as the worst decision in SCOTUS history, the Lochner decision found implicit in the Constitution a right to contract, which threw out a law that limited working hours. Thsi was activist - there ain't no freedom of contract in the Constitution. This decision is mainly despised by liberals because it was a firmly anti-progrssive decision. The Warren Court of the 1960's is regarded as probably the most activist court ever by using implicit rights to find Constitutional Protections for civil rights. Personally, I don't mind these decisions, as I agree politically with most of them. Still, it was some pretty shoddy logic that led to them. (Aside - Rehnquist wrote in a recent opinion that there is no right in the Constitution as defined by Miranda, but because it's been so well established now he is unwilling to overturn it. THAT is judicial restraint). The activists are typically viewed as those who believe in the "Living Constitution." Their reasons for this are that the Constitution doesn't cover everything we see in today's society, and therefore it must change. The problem that I see is that it means that judges rewrite the Constitution to find these new rights, and each judge may see things differently. This also makes it unworkable to provide any notice to the population what rights the Constitution gives, since we dont' know about these rights until some judge has found it. Just out of curiousity, how do you square all this stuff about previously non-existent rights with the 9th amendment? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #29 November 2, 2005 >Actually, a judge who overturns legislation due to constitutional challenge > is neither an activist nor a practitioner of judicial restraint. A judge who >overturns legislation is simply doing his job. Oh, I agree completely. I just think it's funny that so many people use the term 'activist judge' to slam judges who do their jobs. It's like calling a doctor who really pushes diet and exercise for his more obese patients an 'activist doctor.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #30 November 2, 2005 >NY Times has a good piece on him. Hell, if the NY Times likes him, we damn well better look into this man. Almost like Satan liking Hitler...tell me its not so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #31 November 2, 2005 QuoteAlmost like Satan liking Hitler...tell me its not so. I'm not American, so I can't tell if you are serious. I don't know the reputation of the NY Times.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 November 2, 2005 QuoteJust out of curiousity, how do you square all this stuff about previously non-existent rights with the 9th amendment? Quite easily. The judges finding these rights do not use the 9th Amendment. They use the 14th and 5th Amendments to find these rights. If the judges would simply say, "The 9th Amendment states that there are other rights out there that are not expressly stated and we think this is one of them" then I would not take such issue with it. But they don't. You can't say, "What about the 9th Amendment" if it's not what's used. If they used the 9th Amendment, then your argument would be meritorious. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #33 November 2, 2005 QuoteYou can't say, "What about the 9th Amendment" if it's not what's used. If they used the 9th Amendment, then your argument would be meritorious. I agree completely, however you've refuted an argument that I wasn't making. I was just wondering what role *you* consider the 9th to serve, without consideration to those specific decisions. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 November 3, 2005 I personally think that the 9th Amendment was designed to serve an important purpose as a basis to prevent the government from abusing the rights of citizens. This actually serves to put me in the position of being a waffler - I disagree with the idea of judges making political decisions. On the other hand, we have an amendment that explicitly auhtorizes it. In practice, however, the 9th has fallen the way of the 3rd Amendment. It's just never invoked. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #35 November 3, 2005 Quotelibertarian without the wierdness Good luck finding that combo I agree with a lot of libertarian party lines, but man, everyone of the very involved card carrying members that I've met have been coocoo for crazy puffs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #36 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuotelibertarian without the wierdness Good luck finding that combo I agree with a lot of libertarian party lines, but man, everyone of the very involved card carrying members that I've met have been coocoo for crazy puffs. Why have the libertarians I met gotta be so crazy about the mari-ja-wana? ummmkay? Look, I understand you want it legalized but for christ's sake, tone that shit down and focus on something the majority cares about. You can slip that in AFTER you win.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 November 4, 2005 QuoteWhy have the libertarians I met gotta be so crazy about the mari-ja-wana? I haven't met you, but I'm libertarian, and I've never touched the stuff. I just don't get bitter at others who don't. Let em, so long as the keep the smoke outta my face. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #38 November 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhy have the libertarians I met gotta be so crazy about the mari-ja-wana? I haven't met you, but I'm libertarian, and I've never touched the stuff. I just don't get bitter at others who don't. Let em, so long as the keep the smoke outta my face. Don't get me wrong. I am all for the legalization, but it really should not be a selling point of your party and the ones I have met tend to use it as such. If I meet you, I can say different. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #39 November 4, 2005 QuoteLook, I understand you want it legalized but for christ's sake, tone that shit down and focus on something the majority cares about. 54% of Denver voters approved a measure to legalize possession for people over 21 yesterday. Is that a majority? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #40 November 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteLook, I understand you want it legalized but for christ's sake, tone that shit down and focus on something the majority cares about. 54% of Denver voters approved a measure to legalize possession for people over 21 yesterday. Is that a majority? The country dude. Not Denver. Colorado is right up there at the top of marijuan usage, so that is not suprising. And once again, I am FOR leagalization.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #41 November 4, 2005 QuoteOh, I agree completely. I just think it's funny that so many people use the term 'activist judge' to slam judges who do their jobs. It's like calling a doctor who really pushes diet and exercise for his more obese patients an 'activist doctor.' that's because there's no such thing as an activist judge. An activist judge is someone who does something you don't agree with. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #42 November 4, 2005 QuoteThe country dude. Not Denver. Colorado is right up there at the top of marijuan usage, so that is not suprising. It's the "Mile High City", dude, what would you expect? I think more people shy away from the Libertarians because they want drugs in general legalized, not just pot. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #43 November 4, 2005 My biggest problem with the Libertarian agenda is the open borders policy. That scares the hell out of me, and did way before 9/11. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #44 November 4, 2005 Why do open borders scare you? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #45 November 4, 2005 I was going to edit, because I figured that question would come up. It's not open borders per se. But unrestricted immigration. I don't think our economy can handle it. Not to mention the risk of allowing mass emigration of other cultures into the US. Look at the current riots in France (which I haven't seen a thread about yet for some odd reason....been waiting to see if anyone else mentioned it.) A well organized, systematic immigration policy is good and necessary. But it needs to be controlled and gradual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #46 November 9, 2005 Good article from reason.com Alito and abortion Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #47 November 9, 2005 QuoteGood article from reason.com Alito and abortion That is a pretty good article. I found this sentence interesting. QuoteIt's also worth noting that while spousal consent for vasectomies is not mandated legally, it is required by many doctors. Think some doctor somewhere got sued by a wife for denying her the ability to procreate without her consent? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #48 November 9, 2005 I think this was much more succinct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #49 November 9, 2005 QuoteI think this was much more succinct. But I think THIS is the most important quote: "Let's clear something up: Just because Alito voted to uphold this law doesn't necessarily mean he agreed with it, only that he concluded it was constitutional. In his dissent, he based this conclusion on a meticulous analysis of the standard set down by Sandra Day O'Connor to determine whether an abortion regulation imposed an ''undue burden" on the woman. He did not use his dissent as a platform to attack Roe v. Wade. Overall, Alito's record does not suggest that he is a zealot who would put ideology above the Constitution and judicial precedent."Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #50 November 14, 2005 I'm kindof surprised that this thread didn't explore more of Alito's opinions themselves...he's a lot more radical than you think. So I'm bumping the thread. He had held that lawyers who don't read their clients' files and who don't listen to their clients' allegations in death penalty proceedings are not guilty of ineffective assistance of counsel - look up the Romilla case. It was later overturned by the Supreme Court 5-4, with O'Connor as the 5th vote. He has held that women have to notify their husbands before they can have an abortion, a case which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in the Casey decision, with O'Connor writing the majority opinion and as the 5th vote again. He has a track record of discriminating against unmarried people when it comes to asylum in the US, which is troubling considering the amount of civil rights and gay rights legislation coming up for consideration this term. Any other thoughts? Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
