Blues_X: shhhh... you'll disturb the cognitive dissonance.

Disturb it, please. I want my party back. Powell should be running it, not Limtard the Gluttonous.

tl;dr of TFA: You're an activist judge if you enter an opinion opposite the side that is criticizing you.

Neither side - Republican or Democrat - can claim the moral high ground since they both want to stack SCOTUS in their favor. I'd just be happy if they upheld the Constitution.

Von_Ruff: tl;dr of TFA: You're an activist judge if you enter an opinion opposite the side that is criticizing you.

Neither side - Republican or Democrat - can claim the moral high ground since they both want to stack SCOTUS in their favor. I'd just be happy if they upheld the Constitution.

Oh really? I'd say the Democrats are entitled to some payback in that regard, considering that an openly partisan, conservative bloc on the SCOTUS appointed their choice for President in 2000, who proceeded to arrange the deaths of hundreds of thousands worldwide. So, moral high ground? Yeah, Dems has it. Repubs? Not so much.

You know, the activist judges label for the GOP only goes so far. They had 20 years of the White House to appoint "activist judges" to repeal basic rights like Roe v. Wade. They never did it. They know it's better just to shout when election time comes around because they know the faithful are too stupid to question why they didn't do it already. They may be activist judges in other matters, but they haven't touched everything.

Your Faith is Creepy: Von_Ruff: tl;dr of TFA: You're an activist judge if you enter an opinion opposite the side that is criticizing you.

Neither side - Republican or Democrat - can claim the moral high ground since they both want to stack SCOTUS in their favor. I'd just be happy if they upheld the Constitution.

Oh really? I'd say the Democrats are entitled to some payback in that regard, considering that an openly partisan, conservative bloc on the SCOTUS appointed their choice for President in 2000, who proceeded to arrange the deaths of hundreds of thousands worldwide. So, moral high ground? Yeah, Dems has it. Repubs? Not so much.

So, you're a partisan hack? It's not a bad decision when your party of choice is in power? Rather than argue individual merits, you'll just do it because they did it?

jbuist: I'd say the Democrats are entitled to some payback in that regard, considering that an openly partisan, conservative bloc on the SCOTUS appointed their choice for President in 2000... blah blah blah

How much longer are people going to keep whining about this?

Uh, Bush wrecked the country. I'd say a decade or two.

nekulor: Limtard the Gluttonous

You mind if I steal that? Cause it's just so full of win and awesome.

Von_Ruff: So, you're a partisan hack? It's not a bad decision when your party of choice is in power? Rather than argue individual merits, you'll just do it because they did it?

Did you read my post, or just skim it? The question I raised, in response to your "neither side has the moral high ground," is: what's the Republican body count for the 21st century, and what role did the SCOTUS play in that? If pointing that out makes me a 'partisan hack', so be it.

If you're not partisan, you haven't been paying attention.

Sleeping Monkey: Yep, that pretty much sums up the contemporary Republican party.

And at least some of his decisions are thanks to a shift in ideological outloook tracing back to Rehnquist.

jbuist: I'd say the Democrats are entitled to some payback in that regard, considering that an openly partisan, conservative bloc on the SCOTUS appointed their choice for President in 2000... blah blah blah

How much longer are people going to keep whining about this?

As long as that outrageous, anti-democratic, anti-American nigh-treasonous miscarriage of justice remains a shameful stain on our nation's history and a disgrace to all who have fought and died for our country.

Your Faith is Creepy: Von_Ruff: So, you're a partisan hack? It's not a bad decision when your party of choice is in power? Rather than argue individual merits, you'll just do it because they did it?

Did you read my post, or just skim it? The question I raised, in response to your "neither side has the moral high ground," is: what's the Republican body count for the 21st century, and what role did the SCOTUS play in that? If pointing that out makes me a 'partisan hack', so be it.

If you're not partisan, you haven't been paying attention.

You said "I'd say the Democrats are entitled to some payback in that regard..." and point to one case (one that is worth arguing) and imply that it's now okay if the Democrats do it. So, yeah... I think calling you a political hack is fair.

That's also some mighty tortured logic to tie SCOTUS to being responsible for the Iraq war because they sided for Bush in Bush v. Gore. You should go back further: if Ponce de Leon hadn't discovered Florida, the Iraq war might have never happened.

They've never disliked judicial activism. What they want is fascist judicial activism--and Regent University is churning out young lawyers trained to aim for not only that, but a usurpation of the Establishment Clause.

And they really are infiltrating the organs of government. See what is going on with the Texas State Board of Education, with the efforts of Cynthia Dunbar.

We will see more and more politico-religionists try to do away with those parts of the Bill of Rights they find inconvenient.

.

nekulor: Powell should be running it,

The guy that lied to the UN?

Why the hell would you want him?

Mrbogey: Subby needs to learn what a fallacy is.

go on...

Jeffrey Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, has recently reported that "n every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff." Some umpire.

I was going to try play devil's advocate and say it might just reflect a sort of selection bias, or the fact that the cases in which certiorari had been granted did not reflect the shifting SCOTUS makeup. But then I remembered the lesson of the Lily Ledbetter case: there are four Justices who will never rule in favor of non-white discrimination plaintiffs under any circumstances, ever.

Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, Judge Joe Brown, Judge Christina, et. al. pretty much reflect conservative values when they issue their findings. Are they all Republicans, or is the law generally conservative?

depmode98: go on...

he said fallacy, not fellatio ;)

poundgrayly: Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, Judge Joe Brown, Judge Christina, et. al. pretty much reflect conservative values when they issue their findings. Are they all Republicans, or is the law generally conservative?

And why does Christina's Court fly the Utah state flag?!

Super Chronic: Jeffrey Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, has recently reported that "n every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff." Some umpire.

I was going to try play devil's advocate and say it might just reflect a sort of selection bias, or the fact that the cases in which certiorari had been granted did not reflect the shifting SCOTUS makeup. But then I remembered the lesson of the Lily Ledbetter case: there are fourfive Justices who will never rule in favor of non-white discrimination plaintiffs under any circumstances, ever.

FTFM.

WhyteRaven74: he said fallacy, not fellatio ;)

Fellatio is pretty phallusy.

Number41: WhyteRaven74: he said fallacy, not fellatio ;)

Fellatio is pretty phallusy.

PENIS

The Constitution has a Conservative slant. Sorry.

Number41: Fellatio is pretty phallusy.

internet +1

godofusa.com: The Constitution has a Conservative slant. Sorry.

Ruling in favor of corporations and against individuals consistently, always going on the side of the presecution etc has nothing at all to do with being conservative.

I love the idiocy of that headline. The accusation is that "in every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."

Which means nothing. For one, it's quite possible that in every major case the law was on the side of the prosecution (which it usually is), the state, the executive branch, or the corporation. That proves nothing. That the Roberts Court is not putting sympathy ahead for the so-called "little guy" is exactly what a restrained court should do.

There is not a single case mentioned in TFA supporting that thesis. In fact, in some major cases before the Roberts Court, the government lost. Think Boumediene v. Bush. In the criminal law, Justice Scalia joined with the liberals to repeal a pro-police rule concerning auto seizures.

TFA is 20 gallons of FAIL in a 10 gallon bucket. It proves no point, except to spew a bunch of ill-informed WHARRGARBL.

WhyteRaven74: Ruling in favor of corporations and against individuals consistently, always going on the side of the presecution etc has nothing at all to do with being conservative.

Could you give one example where, in your opinion, they got the law wrong? Note: IANAL.

Mrbogey: depmode98: go on...

As a thought experiment, if 2 political parties hold opposite views and they go before a court, is one an activist judge just for deciding in one's favor (with no other factors weighed)?

I think what the headline is trying to point out, and I should know since I am the subby, is that, Republicans would say yes, it is judicial activism, if their ideological side lost the court fight, but if they won, then it would be strict origanalism. its only activism when they lose.

depmode98: Mrbogey: depmode98: go on...

As a thought experiment, if 2 political parties hold opposite views and they go before a court, is one an activist judge just for deciding in one's favor (with no other factors weighed)?

I think what the headline is trying to point out, and I should know since I am the subby, is that, Republicans would say yes, it is judicial activism, if their ideological side lost the court fight, but if they won, then it would be strict origanalism. its only activism when they lose.

Was it activism in Boumadiene v Bush?

WombatControl: I love the idiocy of that headline. The accusation is that "in every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."

Which means nothing. For one, it's quite possible that in every major case the law was on the side of the prosecution (which it usually is), the state, the executive branch, or the corporation. That proves nothing. That the Roberts Court is not putting sympathy ahead for the so-called "little guy" is exactly what a restrained court should do.

There is not a single case mentioned in TFA supporting that thesis. In fact, in some major cases before the Roberts Court, the government lost. Think Boumediene v. Bush. In the criminal law, Justice Scalia joined with the liberals to repeal a pro-police rule concerning auto seizures.

TFA is 20 gallons of FAIL in a 10 gallon bucket. It proves no point, except to spew a bunch of ill-informed WHARRGARBL.

Well, crap. I'll just cross Huffington Post off the list of logical, well reasoned debate islands in the sea of internet stupidity.

/Lest I forget, your comment: THIS.

Your Faith is Creepy: what's the Republican body count for the 21st century..?

Whatever it is... they've got a loooong way to go before the even come close the body count of the Democrat party for the 20th century.

poundgrayly: Could you give one example where, in your opinion, they got the law wrong? Note: IANAL.

Oh shiat. Better get a good example, man. He anals.

WombatControl: There is not a single case mentioned in TFA supporting that thesis. In fact, in some major cases before the Roberts Court, the government lost. Think Boumediene v. Bush.

you might want to check Boumedine V. Bush again if you are going to use that to prove the headline wrong. in that case, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas all DISSENTED. Just because Boumedine won, doesn't mean the conservatied on the court voted with him. They voted against him IE, you are wrong.

I love how TFA tries to argue that nobody realized that the Second Amendment existed for 228 years. As if the Supreme Court made it up out of whole cloth...

When the Supreme Court enforces a statute of limitations exactly as the text demands (Ledbetter), that is not judicial activism because you dislike the result. That is what an appellate court must do: enforce the law as written, not invent it as they go. Yet TFA thinks that's "activist."

And apparently, overturning statutes that are prima facie unconstitutional is now "activist." As if following the dictates of the Constitution is suddenly "activist."

Here's a hint for everyone: judicial activism or restraint has less to do with outcomes than it does with how those outcomes are arrived at. Invalidating a statute because it conflicts with the Constitution's clear text is not activism. Inventing a "penumbra" that "emanates" new rights is activist. Both may strike down a statute, but one is based on the law and the other is based on the whim of a judge.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Was it activism in Boumadiene v Bush?

like I just said to somebody else, yes. because Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted with Bush, and against Boumedine. But thankfully they were in the minority and Bush lost.

Mrbogey: As a thought experiment, if 2 political parties hold opposite views and they go before a court, is one an activist judge just for deciding in one's favor (with no other factors weighed)?

According to the Republican Party, the answer is unquestionably yes. It's only activist when the judges go against their desired policy.