Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 It's only simple if you choose to look at it with a simpleton's point of view. 381682[/snapback] Nope..its basically simple because...well, it's simple. have a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Nope..its basically simple because...well, it's simple. have a nice day 381825[/snapback] Rich, I've read your posts and while I disagree with you in some instances, you're posts are usually provocative and well-reasoned. That being said, we both know that the very little is simple or clear with respect to constitutional law. Even within the basic divide, there are several subsets that can play off each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Rich, I've read your posts and while I disagree with you in some instances, you're posts are usually provocative and well-reasoned. 381842[/snapback] Glad to see there's another keen observer of intellect around here. Keep your eyes open: there are only a few in Rich's category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 That "study" is utter crap and anyone with half a clue actually read that piece should have instantly picked up on that. Well, the numbers may be right. It's only their presumptions and conclusions that are crap. For me, 50% or more of the laws coming out of Congress being unconstitutional is not a stretch of the imagination. In fact, six out of nine justices would appear to agree it's at or close to 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Nope..its basically simple because...well, it's simple. have a nice day 381825[/snapback] Rich, that covers about 95% of what people argue about, when you come right down to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Well, the numbers may be right. It's only their presumptions and conclusions that are crap. For me, 50% or more of the laws coming out of Congress being unconstitutional is not a stretch of the imagination. In fact, six out of nine justices would appear to agree it's at or close to 50%. 382080[/snapback] The validity of the assumptions and conclusions can certainly be debated. What I was happy to see is that someone attempted to articulate and quantify a defintion of activism, as opposed to those who throw around the BS activist tag as a slag on certain jurists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 The validity of the assumptions and conclusions can certainly be debated. What I was happy to see is that someone attempted to articulate and quantify a defintion of activism, as opposed to those who throw around the BS activist tag as a slag on certain jurists. But it's their very attempt to quantify and (re-)define "judicial activism" that's crap. They're well aware of the difference between overturning an unconstitutional law and making up new rights that are clearly not included in the Constitution, yet they penned the article to forward their (flawed) version of the "yeah, well so are you" argument. Such a display is hardly worthy of encouragement. Overturning an unconstitutional law is what the SC is supposed to do. Maybe it's Congress that's lost sight of what their responsibilities are - any chance of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 But it's their very attempt to quantify and (re-)define "judicial activism" that's crap. They're well aware of the difference between overturning an unconstitutional law and making up new rights that are clearly not included in the Constitution, yet they penned the article to forward their (flawed) version of the "yeah, well so are you" argument. Such a display is hardly worthy of encouragement. Overturning an unconstitutional law is what the SC is supposed to do. Maybe it's Congress that's lost sight of what their responsibilities are - any chance of that? 382130[/snapback] "Re-define?" That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the Justices who Conservatives claim are activists (among others) have a very different spin on what they were doing. Besides, Liberals are entitled to their definition of activism, just as the Conservatives are, aren't they? Afterall, it is a free country This activist tag is nothing but bull**it used by those in the media to escape from thoroughly examining decisions and the respective reasoning behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 "Re-define?" That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the Justices who Conservatives claim are activists (among others) have a very different spin on what they were doing. Besides, Liberals are entitled to their definition of activism, just as the Conservatives are, aren't they? Afterall, it is a free country This activist tag is nothing but bull**it used by those in the media to escape from thoroughly examining decisions and the respective reasoning behind them. 382151[/snapback] LOL... Rehnquist just announced he won't be stepping down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 LOL... Rehnquist just announced he won't be stepping down. 382152[/snapback] LOL, responding to yourself. You really are getting good, please keep posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 "Re-define?" That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the Justices who Conservatives claim are activists (among others) have a very different spin on what they were doing. Besides, Liberals are entitled to their definition of activism, just as the Conservatives are, aren't they? Afterall, it is a free country This activist tag is nothing but bull**it used by those in the media to escape from thoroughly examining decisions and the respective reasoning behind them. 382151[/snapback] I guess if my attempt to examine decisions and the respective reasoning behind them can be dismissed as "bull**it" because I think "judicial activism" has a clearly defined context, then there's not much point in continuing. BTW, you're replying to your own posts now. That's just strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 For Pete's sake, I just saw Rehnquist was staying on and hit the button. Talk about trivial.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I guess if my attempt to examine decisions and the respective reasoning behind them can be dismissed as "bull**it" because I think "judicial activism" has a clearly defined context, then there's not much point in continuing. BTW, you're replying to your own posts now. That's just strange. 382165[/snapback] My point is your judicial activism isn't necessarily the definition that others give to it. For example, I'm guessing many Conservatives don't view the Bush-Gore decision as activism, whereas some Liberals do. That's all I'm saying..no disrespect intended towards you at all. I just hate the way people throw around labels and use them as dialogue-ending insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 For Pete's sake, I just saw Rehnquist was staying on and hit the button. Talk about trivial.. 382168[/snapback] Well, your style reminded me of BF. I had to make mention of it. Kind of like running to the window, " The Ice Cream Truck is here, The Ice Cream Truck is here" Nice work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 My point is your judicial activism isn't necessarily the definition that others give to it. For example, I'm guessing many Conservatives don't view the Bush-Gore decision as activism, whereas some Liberals do. That's all I'm saying..no disrespect intended towards you at all. I just hate the way people throw around labels and use them as dialogue-ending insults. Perhaps there are better examples of decisions that would illustrate judicial activism as practiced by a conservative justice. I thought the argument in the article linked was flawed at it's foundation. I still believe judicial activism has a clear (derogatory) context, but I'm open to the suggestion a better argument can be made on the subject. I'm not offended; it's just difficult to size up someone I've never met, can't see, and can't hear. I'm sure there's posters here that I think I agree with that I would avoid in public, and others I may think little of that I would actually have a great time hanging out with. Just the limitations of the medium. After getting thoroughly reamed by someone for paying them a compliment that they took as cutting sarcasm, I try to be as clear as I can. Or alternately, completely goof off. I try to avoid the in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts