By activism, they mean the kind of activism that ignores the Constitution and gives corporations more control over our lives.

Well, whaddya want - more control over corporations by the gummint, or more control over the gummint by the corporations?

Also: George Will is one of the few "conservatives" who has a brain and isn't afraid to use it.

Of course, because fair and just rulings tend to rule against conservative ideologies.

GurneyHalleck: By activism, they mean the kind of activism that ignores the Constitution and gives corporations more control over our lives.

And activism in that the judge creates laws based on the Bible, I assume. Like a reverse Roe v. Wade.

GAT_00: And activism in that the judge creates laws based on the Bible, I assume. Like a reverse Roe v. Wade.

Hey, I was going to bring Roe v Wade into this.

Where the libs on the Supreme Court built their masterpiece upon that famous "right to privacy" that isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment.

And young Farkers wonder why folks are still getting their knickers in a twist about it 36 years later.

GurneyHalleck: By activism, they mean the kind of activism that ignores the Constitution and gives corporations more control over our lives.

Actually, he's referring to the kind of activism that recognizes stare decisis. The priority status of secured debt holders, in particular. Aside from his omission of "common law" as a source of legal authority (not particularly relevant to the matter at hand that I see), I tend to agree with his legal analysis here.

Of course, there's still broader social questions. However, those potentially could be addressed within the context of the rule of law. Perhaps if Indiana continues objecting, propose as an alternative settlement that each member of the UAW gets a nontransferrable one-way bus ticket for themselves, spouse, and each minor child to Indianapolis. That would be perfectly legal as far as I can see.

Blackmail, perhaps; but legal. =)

GilRuiz1: "Conversatives"?

I figure they are either very chatty, or wear Converse.

opiumpoopy: And young Farkers wonder why folks are still getting their knickers in a twist about it 36 years later.

Because it is a wedge issue that serves to differentiate the Republicans from the Democrats. That's what the hoohah about abortion is about. and the more intellectually bankrupt the Republicans get, the more they will cling to absurd but differentiating positions.

ilambiquated: opiumpoopy: And young Farkers wonder why folks are still getting their knickers in a twist about it 36 years later.

Because it is a wedge issue that serves to differentiate the Republicans from the Democrats. That's what the hoohah about abortion is about. and the more intellectually bankrupt the Republicans get, the more they will cling to absurd but differentiating positions.

Did it ever cross your mind, just for an instant, that these people would object to abortion even if the republican party never existed? That rather than being led around by the nose like sheep, they are expressing an opinion regarding the wrongness of the activity, and that's why the issue won't go away?

I didn't think so. Continue with your reduction of the known universe to the platforms of two political parties.

opiumpoopy: GAT_00: And activism in that the judge creates laws based on the Bible, I assume. Like a reverse Roe v. Wade.

Hey, I was going to bring Roe v Wade into this.

Where the libs on the Supreme Court built their masterpiece upon that famous "right to privacy" that isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment.

And young Farkers wonder why folks are still getting their knickers in a twist about it 36 years later.

See, you could have maybe made a point, but you insisted on outing yourself as a 22%er by just blaming things on "libs." Oh, and using your GED in Law to discuss the Constitution.

I'm assuming that they would prefer that this "activism" be restricted to airport bathrooms?

abb3w: The priority status of secured debt holders, in particular.

They got their priority status. 100% of the sale of Chrysler's assets is going to pay off their secured creditors, and those assets were sold for 2.5 times the liquidation value of the company. 92% of the secured creditors signed off on the deal.

Plus, the law in Chapter 11 isn't as rigid as Chapter 7. The secured creditors didn't need to get the entirety of the sale price; the law only requires that they get as much or more out of Chapter 11 as they would in Chapter 7. It would have been fully legal to give the secured creditors exactly what they would have gotten in a liquidation, then given the rest to unsecured creditors if the court wanted to do that.

This About That: Also: George Will is one of the few "conservatives" who has a brain and isn't afraid to use it.

HAD a brain; he stopped using it around the time the Red Sox won the World Series. Check out the Pledge of Allegiance article if you need proof.

So... Judicial Activism is a bad ghastly thing, deserving of our ire and anger, and should be stopped at any and every opportunity.

Except when we agree with the result. Then it's perfectly okay.

No. No. No. Not both ways, not yours.

/wharrgarbl

opiumpoopy: Where the libs on the Supreme Court built their masterpiece upon that famous "right to privacy" that isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment.

That is more like the Ninth Amendment: the part of the Constitution that says that just because a right is not listed in the Constitution does not mean that it is not a constitutionally protected right. The Ninth Amendment was put in because the opponents of having a Bill of Rights feared that having one would be interpreted that the government could do anything it wanted to do to you unless it was explicitly prohibited. Of course such a right is also rather inherent concepts that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution like:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And so on and so forth: Due process, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
The framers of the Constitution did not think that our government should have the power to willy-nilly intrude into our private affairs. Heck, they would probably be for more radical about it then even the most liberal judge today. And the conservative arguments should not butt into the economic markets don't make much sense unless there is some kind of right to privacy either. If anything a business conservative needs the right to privacy to be far stronger than a liberal -- especially of the "nanny state" variety.

And to be blunt, I don't think that there are very many people who when push comes to shove don't think that privacy is a right when they are the subject. Indeed the lack to right to some kind of privacy is one of the things that truly comes to mind when one thinks of the term "totalitarian government."

opiumpoopy: Where the libs on the Supreme Court built their masterpiece upon that famous "right to privacy" that isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Actually I think the 'Right to Privacy' has to do with the privacy of the relationship between a doctor and patient, very similar to the privacy of an attorney and client.

Y'know, the relationship one would have to break to enforce a lot of prospective law regarding a certain set of procedures that has been a centerpiece of domestic politics for decades now.

opiumpoopy: Where the libs on the Supreme Court built their masterpiece upon that famous "right to privacy" that isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment.

You're right it isn't in the fourteenth, it's in the fourth. It was just applied to the states through the fourteenth.

opiumpoopy: Where the libs on the Supreme Court built their masterpiece upon that famous "right to privacy" that isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'd love to hear your legal analysis on this issue. I haven't heard another attorney seriously bring that argument and even back in law school the nutty-conservatives in my classes didn't even try to make that argument.

Que the "It's not **** when we do it!" graphic.