|
by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 12/21/2011, 5:06pm PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mischief Maker wrote:
To paraphrase a professor of mine, Judicial Activism is another term for Legislative Ambiguity. No, not really. That would imply that "judicial activism" was judges acting properly to try and respond to badly written legislation. I've never heard of anyone using the term to mean anything but making decisions in a way they did not like. In the case of conservatives, it's basically used as a swear word.
Perhaps a public confrontation between judges forced to interpret vague laws and the legislators who write them could be positive for the country under the right circumstances. It might be, if we can get better legislation, but what we usually tend to see are the laws mostly written to support whatever is the most well-monied group and to hell with everyone else. E.g. since there are not too many rich abortion clinic chains, Republicans are more-or-less against abortion because there's no big money interest in it. Were there a national chain of abortion clinics with expensive lobbyists, state restrictions on abortion during the 1st trimester would be completely locked by federal legislation and Republicans would be talking about how important the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was, just like the liberals are ready to puke their guts out at how much they hate Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The political landscape has changed drastically since Andrew Jackson's presidency. There has been no greater proof of the Supreme Courts power in modern times than the universal compliance with the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000. No, again, it's the respect the Supreme Court has that causes its decisions to be complied with. The Supreme Court has no power but the power of the pen. The Supreme Court does not have its own military to enforce its decisions.
I for one would very much like to see the Supreme Court held to some greater accountability than it currently faces, especially in terms of conflicts of interest. The justices generally tend to disqualify themselves if they think they might have a conflict. I listen to both Fox News and MSNBC and neither side has made any comments where they've seen a justice they felt should have recused themselves from a case or should from an upcoming one who hasn't. Unlike the nasty case it had to decide of Caperton v. Massey Coal Company where Justice Benjamin of the West Virginia Supreme Court failed to recuse himself and decided in favor of Massey Coal, even though Don Blankenship, the president of Massey Coal, was the main conduit for raising more than 1/2 of the funds for Benjamin's election to the state Supreme Court.
Not that I think Newt would do this the right way. In return for a return from political irrelevancy, his lips have been permanently attached to James Dobson's asshole, Human Centipede-style. Did you see the episode of South Park where they did that? Attach one person to another's asshole, I mean. Comedy Central even had a special about that episode - ran just before it - showing how it takes almost right up to broadcast time to get an episode of the show done. They actually turn over episodes in a single week, compared to The Simpsons which can take two to six weeks per episode to get it in the can.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Newt Gingrich is dangerous, or rather, his ideas are by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 12/21/2011, 10:30am PST 
"Activist judge" is a legitimate concept by Vested Id 12/21/2011, 10:46am PST
Also, wrong forum NT by Vested Id 12/21/2011, 11:26am PST
Arguably it's an interesting hypothetical concept by Lizard_King 12/21/2011, 7:47pm PST
Re: Arguably it's an interesting hypothetical concept by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 12/21/2011, 9:13pm PST
No idea is dangerous. Even stupid ideas can spark useful conversation by Mischief Maker 12/21/2011, 11:06am PST
Eugenics NT by Worm 12/21/2011, 2:06pm PST
The IDEA isn't harmful, even though the resulting ACTIONS are harmful... NT by Pedantic Faggot (redundant) 12/21/2011, 2:48pm PST
Resulting action: Star Trek II script. YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH NT by laudablepuss 12/21/2011, 3:10pm PST
Re: Eugenics by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 12/21/2011, 9:31pm PST
Re: Eugenics by Souffle of Pain 12/21/2011, 10:59pm PST
It's not a character, it's a wish-fulfilment audience. NT by The Hapiness Engine 12/22/2011, 8:29am PST
"Ideas can't be dangerous! I'm a liberal! I'm a humanist!" NT by The Lovely Liberal Humanist Homosap 12/21/2011, 4:52pm PST
Capitalism. Dangerous idea or dangerous practice? NT by Marl Karx 12/21/2011, 4:53pm PST
I'm feeling lazy... by Mischief Maker 12/21/2011, 9:14pm PST
Re: No idea is dangerous. Even stupid ideas can spark useful conversation by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 12/21/2011, 5:06pm PST
Re: No idea is dangerous. Even stupid ideas can spark useful conversation by Mischief Maker 12/21/2011, 7:30pm PST
But I was the best part of Star Trek 5 NT by Life is not a dream 12/22/2011, 9:13am PST
Newt Gingrich's only idea is "I would like to be on TV some more." NT by Fullofkitttens 12/21/2011, 12:49pm PST
Well Said! As noted many places, Gingrich is basically a bomb thrower NT by Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) 12/21/2011, 5:22pm PST
|
|
