Vacancy on the Supreme Court

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
Gonzalez is a great choice.

How do you feel about his drafing of the ‘Torture Memo’?

How would feel if Janet Reno drafted the torture memo?

The SCOTUS is loaded with Republican appointees. The GOP needs to look in the mirror if they are going to complain about the current status of the SCOTUS.

If the legistative brand of the federal goverment did their job we would not have judges being ‘activist’.

When the SCOTUS is stacked with far right wingnuts then the activism will me from the far right.

Same activism but from another point in the political spectrum.

We will have the same BS activism one way or another.

[/quote]

I feel fine about it. The US is not using torture in the traditional sense of the word anywhere. Toture is killing innocent civilians with commercial airliners and setting the on fire. Torture is beheading people so it can be shown on the internet. Turning the air conditioner off is not torture.

Bush is a Republican Conservative of course he is going to nominate a conservative. Would Clinton nominate a Conservative…of course not.

Maybe a conservative court wouldn’t take your house away to build a development…think about it.

lumpy wrote:

“Balance? Uhmmm we have a conservative scotus,congress,and admin–balance has nothing to do with it.”

What a beautiful paragraph!!!

May I have your permission to re-type it verbatim?

JeffR

Let me pre-emptively apologize for the length of this post, but I’m working on my BB impression. So here’s a very interesting piece on judicial activism:

Unleash the Judges

The libertarian case for judicial activism

Damon W. Root

Speaking to the Heritage Foundation in 1996 on the topic of ?judicial activism,? the conservative commentator Pat Buchanan denounced the Supreme Court as a ?judicial dictatorship?; the Court?s beneficiaries, he said, were ?criminals, atheists, homosexuals, flag burners, illegal immigrants (including terrorists), convicts, and pornographers.? In his influential 1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, former federal appeals court judge Robert H. Bork declared that ?the Supreme Court has usurped the powers of the people and their elected representatives.? Dissenting from the majority in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which nullified that state?s anti-sodomy law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Texas legislature?s ?hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new ?constitutional right? by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.?

Such views are widely shared on the right, where few subjects produce greater outrage than judicial activism, which conservatives blame for the forced imposition of liberal values on American society. But libertarians, who have frequently allied with conservatives in the effort to rein in the federal government, should not join their battle against the judiciary. There is no inconsistency between principled judicial activism and limited government.

Lincoln?s Property-Rights Activist

For the better part of six decades, in fact, judicial activism was associated almost exclusively with the protection of economic rights, while its counterpart, judicial restraint, was the rallying cry of liberal reformers. Between Reconstruction and the New Deal, as the states began legislating a variety of new ?progressive? regulations, it was judges acting in the name of private property and ?liberty of contract? that ?usurped? the power of the people, ?invented? new rights, and gave birth to judicial activism as we know it today.

This history suggests that a principled form of libertarian judicial activism?that is, one that consistently upholds individual rights while strictly limiting state power?is essential to the fight for a free society. In fact, a genuinely libertarian jurisprudence would, in the words of the legal scholar Randy Barnett, ?requir[e] the state to justify its statute, whatever the status of the right at issue.? The real legal challenge facing libertarians isn?t judicial activism; it is defending individual rights from the liberals and conservatives who seek to take our liberties away.

For a historical model, look to Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field. Appointed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, Field sat on the Court for more than three decades, retiring in 1897 at age 81. In the words of biographer Paul Kens, Field was ?the prototype for the modern judicial activist.? He was among the first judges to create a body of legal authority by penning extensive dissenting and concurring opinions; he eagerly wielded the power of judicial review; he recognized few ?political thickets? into which the courts should not tread. Nor did Field bind himself exclusively to legal precedent or to the text of the Constitution. Anticipating those 20th-century judges whose decisions draw on the political and social sciences, Field?s opinions resound with such extra-constitutional sources as Adam Smith?s Wealth of Nations and the precepts of natural law?the doctrine that man?s rights derive from nature, not from human institutions.

Most important, Field advocated a groundbreaking jurisprudence of unenumerated natural rights. Through a number of creative and forceful opinions, particularly his dissents in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and Munn v. Illinois (1877), and his concurrence in Butchers? Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (1884), Field worked to enhance judicial power, nullify popular legislation, and expand individual liberty under the 14th Amendment.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment is the most controversial of the three amendments added to the federal Constitution after the Civil War. The 13th abolished slavery, and the 15th secured the vote for African-American men?not exactly open issues today. But the 14th still inspires debate. The relevant portion reads: ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?

The first test of this broad new language came in 1873 with a group of lawsuits known collectively as the Slaughterhouse Cases. At issue was a Louisiana law granting a 25-year monopoly to the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company to build and operate a new central slaughterhouse to ?promote the health of the City of New Orleans.? Critics, particularly established local butchers, charged (correctly) that the whole deal stank of an exclusive privilege granted to well-connected insiders and, in a surprising move, claimed the law violated their rights under the 14th Amendment.

Attorney John A. Campbell, representing the Butchers? Benevolent Association, argued that the amendment?s Privileges or Immunities Clause secured the right of butchers to pursue their calling without unreasonable interference from the state. Writing for the 7?2 majority, Justice Samuel F. Miller disagreed, holding that ?the one pervading purpose? of the clause was to protect the rights of former slaves, not to expand the rights of white butchers.

Expanding the 14th

In dissent, Justice Field took a far wider view. The phrase ?privileges or immunities,? he argued, describes those ?natural and inalienable rights? that ?belong to the citizens of all free governments.? Furthermore, ?Clearly among these must be placed the right to pursue lawful employment in a lawful manner, without other restraints than such as equally affects all persons.? Miller, foreshadowing one of the chief charges leveled against judicial activism, wrote that Field?s sweeping assertion of the right to pursue a calling, if accepted, would transform the Court into a ?perpetual censor upon all legislation of the states.? (Theodore Roosevelt echoed this view some three decades later when he denounced the Court as a ?super-legislature.? Newt Gingrich recently did the same when he decried the Court as ?a permanent constitutional convention.?)

Field, however, was undeterred. In 1877 the Court heard arguments in Munn v. Illinois, one of the so-called Granger cases, which dealt with various state laws regulating railroad shipping rates. In Munn, the law in question set the storage rates for 14 massive grain elevators situated at the port of Chicago.

Writing for the 7?2 majority, Chief Justice Morrison Waite upheld the fixed rates, writing that when private property is ?affected with a public interest? it becomes open to greater regulation. The grain elevators, he maintained, ?stand?in the very ?gateway of commerce? and take toll from all who pass?; they ?exercise a sort of public office,? a de facto monopoly. Furthermore, ?for protection against abuses by the legislature, people must resort to the polls, not the courts.?

Dissenting, Field ridiculed the decision, arguing that under the Court?s elastic definition, any useful business or enterprise could be defined as serving a public interest. ?If this be sound law,? he argued, ?all property and all business in the State are held at the mercy of a majority of its legislature.?

Then, turning to the language of the 14th Amendment, Field spelled out a sweeping new interpretation of due process, one whose reverberations are still felt in the legal battles over privacy and abortion. The due process protection of life, Field began, means more than ?mere animal existence.? It extends to one?s body and one?s faculties, and it prohibits mutilation just as certainly as it prohibits murder. Liberty, by the same standard, requires more ?than mere freedom from physical restraint or the bounds of a prison.? Each individual must be free to travel, to pursue happiness as he sees fit. This freedom obviously includes the right to pursue ?such callings and avocations as may be most suitable to develop his capacities.?

Finally, ?the same liberal construction? must be applied to the protection of property. This right must refer to more than just ?title and possession? if it is to have any real meaning. It necessarily includes the right to use and dispose of one?s property, to set rates of compensation, and to profit.

Substantiating Due Process

Today, Field?s approach is known as ?substantive due process,? referring to the idea that the Due Process Clause guarantees more than just ?procedural? rights and in fact secures all ?substantive? or fundamental rights from violation as well. In other words, there is simply no official procedure, including the deliberative judgment of a legislative majority, that can legitimate the violation of inalienable rights.

Field?s dread phrase ?liberal construction? will no doubt send a few conservatives into apoplexy, since it so clearly foreshadows two of the Court?s most controversial modern rulings. First, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court held Connecticut?s ban on the use of contraceptives to be a violation of the ?zones of privacy? carved out by the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Then, in Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court expanded the individual right to privacy to include the right to an abortion.

These decisions clearly fall within Field?s interpretation. Individual rights, by nature and by necessity, he argued, require a broad or ?liberal? scope if they are to have any real meaning. State power, by contrast, must be narrowly construed and strictly limited. Modern conservatives, by exalting the will of the majority over the liberties of unpopular minorities, have abandoned Field?s natural rights?based approach for a constitutional vision that errs in favor of contested legislation. As we?ll see, this doctrine of judicial restraint proved disastrous for individual rights in the 20th century.

In 1884 the butchers of New Orleans again provided Field with the opportunity to expound his sweeping vision of life, liberty, and property. Louisiana?s new state constitution, passed in 1879, transferred the regulation of slaughterhouses from the statehouse to city hall. New Orleans responded by opening the business to limited competition, thus voiding the Crescent City Company?s exclusive 25-year monopoly.

The issue before the Court in Butchers? Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., therefore, was whether the state could impair its contractual obligations and rescind the privilege it had bestowed. The Court unanimously held that it could, since no legislature had the authority to limit the future exercise of its own police powers. Although he concurred with the ruling, Field devoted the bulk of his opinion to restating his objection to the original monopoly and expanding his conception of liberty.

?Certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action,? Field wrote. Among these ?is the right of men to pursue happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the rights of others.? This boldly libertarian position, which if followed would sweep away much state and federal legislation, aptly demonstrates how judicial activism in defense of individual rights would limit the size and scope of government.

Although Field would die before his ideas fully entered the law, the tide had turned. In 1897, in the case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana, which overturned Louisiana?s ban on mail-order insurance contracts sold by out-of-state companies, a unanimous Court explicitly recognized the right to pursue a calling, enshrining the broad 14th Amendment right to ?liberty of contract.? During the next three decades, the Court would selectively employ liberty of contract in several controversial cases to nullify popular state laws.

By far the most famous of these was Lochner v. New York (1905). In a decision still denounced for its judicial activism, the Court struck down New York?s law setting maximum working hours for bakery employees on the grounds that it violated the liberty of contract protected by the 14th Amendment?s Due Process Clause.

?The act is not,? Justice Rufus Peckham held for the majority, ?within any fair meaning of the term, a health law.? The legislature was plainly inspired by ?other motives? than health or safety. Were the Court to uphold such an arbitrary state action, he continued, ?there would seem to be no length to which legislation of this nature might not go.?

Notably, Lochner was decided just nine years after Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the Court upheld a Louisiana statute banning the sale of first-class railroad tickets to African Americans, permitting state-mandated segregation in public accommodations as long as the facilities for each race were ?separate but equal.? Although Field joined with the majority in this vile opinion (and remained uncharacteristically silent while doing so), Plessy clearly violates liberty of contract. As legal scholar Richard Epstein has written, ?the statute sustained in Plessy was flatly inconsistent with laissez-faire principles.?Plessy represented
the expansionist view of the police power that Lochner repudiated.?

Individual Liberty vs. Good Government

It was precisely this repudiation of state power that motivated the attacks of Lochner?s many opponents. In his famous Lochner dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes lambasted his colleagues for enshrining ?an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain.? For Holmes, the deciding factor was the will of the majority, not individual rights. ?I think that the word ?liberty? in the 14th Amendment,? he explained, ?is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless?the statute proposed would violate fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law.?

This view, which became a central tenet of Progressive and New Deal?era liberalism, is precisely the approach now championed by Robert Bork, perhaps the leading conservative critic of the judiciary. The common denominator is that both liberals and conservatives will gladly sacrifice individual liberty to further their particular notions of ?good government.?

If Stephen Field is the first great champion of judicial activism, then Oliver Wendell Holmes is his nemesis, the first great advocate of judicial restraint. Appointed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1902, Holmes also sat for three decades, retiring in 1932 after exerting a vast and lasting influence, particularly on several key figures in Franklin Roosevelt?s New Deal.

?I always say, as you know,? Holmes once remarked, ?that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It?s my job.? That statement, perhaps more than Holmes or his supporters realize, perfectly captures the significant dangers inherent in judicial restraint. Consider, for instance, Holmes? dissent in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), where the majority held that a state law banning foreign language instruction for young children, passed in the heat of the anti-German hysteria stirred up by World War I, violated the 14th Amendment?s substantive guarantee of liberty. ?I think I appreciate the objection to the law,? Holmes explained, but ?I am unable to say the Constitution of the U.S. prevents the experiment being tried.?

Then there is Holmes? opinion for the majority in Schenk v. United States (1919), which upheld Woodrow Wilson?s monstrous Espionage Act, permitting Congress to restrict and punish speech that obstructed the draft. This ruling sent Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs, among others, to federal prison, where he rotted for three years on the charge of exercising his First Amendment right to criticize the government. In both cases, Holmes? deference to the popular will placed him squarely against the fundamental rights of unpopular minorities.

Selective Rights

The obvious parallel here is to the Court?s judicial restraint in Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld the Roosevelt administration?s wartime internment of Japanese Americans. For those conservatives terrified at the thought of ?judicial dictatorship,? it?s worth remembering that it was judicial restraint, not activism, that allowed these egregious violations of both fundamental rights and basic justice to occur.

Like Stephen Field before him, Oliver Wendell Holmes would not live to see his ideas become law. In 1937, five years after Holmes? death, the Supreme Court overturned Lochner v. New York, relying on the principle of judicial restraint to uphold a Washington state minimum wage law for women. Writing for the majority in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parish, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes rejected substantive due process and the notion of unenumerated rights. ?The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract,? he declared. So long as an economic regulation is ?reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community,? the requirements of due process are met. To put it plainly, ?the legislature is entitled to its judgment.?

Conservative critics of judicial activism ought to celebrate this decision and the countless economic ?reforms? that followed. Instead, many such critics, including Justice Scalia, still favor an active judicial role in defending property rights. Similarly, modern-day liberals remain firmly committed to the demise of liberty of contract while at the same time championing Lochnerian substantive due process for privacy and abortion rights.

Predictably, neither right nor left is eager to subject its selectively cherished rights to the will of the majority. And why would they? Majority rule, as James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 10, is not always such a pretty thing. Fortunately, we possess inalienable rights that no majority may touch. Furthermore, as the Ninth Amendment says, ?The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.? Stephen Field got that right in Munn v. Illinois: Individuals possess far more liberties than any constitution could possibly list.

A principled form of libertarian judicial activism, therefore, is clearly consistent with the basic requirement of a free society: the protection of individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.

Damon W. Root is a writer living in New York City.

This page printed from: Unleash the Judges

O’connor is gone.

Rhenquist is highly likely to retire soon due to health.

Stevens is 85! How much longer till he retires.

Souter has said that he would like to retire at 65 and spend more time at home in N.H.

Could see 4 new Supreme Court Justices by 2008. Most likely will see 3. Souter will hang in to provide continuity. Don’t think he will stay for 3 years though.

The fact that 5 of these F-----ers,
( first time I have ever used profanity on this site) voted that Eminent Domain can apply to private investors is enough to warrant the selection of only strong original intent conservatives to the bench.

think about it-the government can take our land because someone else can generate higher tax revenue from it-the worse SC decision in the last 50 years IM0.

[quote]hedo wrote:

Souter has said that he would like to retire at 65 and spend more time at home in N.H.

[/quote]

after souter’s opinion in kelo, he might not have a home in n.h. to retire to if the local government confiscates his home to build a hotel. ha ha. the irony would be great.

[quote]

The real irony is that the Democrats in the senate actually represent more Americans than the Republicans do and the Democrats achieve this with less members.

The Senate’s job is to slow down the legislative process but the founders never envisioned the minority in the Senate representing the majority of voters.[/quote]

you don’t give enough credit to the founders. i’m sure they new what they were doing. its part of having a represenative republic for of government.

Scalia made a great speech not long ago that I could not quickly locate. in essence, he said that judge appointments were political because you have judges making political judgements based on their ideology and consequently, Consitutional intertpretation depends on the whim and views of only 5 judges. if you had judges that based their decisions on what the Constition says and what its original intent, then it doesn’t matter how is appointed. great speech for those who want to look for it. The man is a genius.

[quote]pkiousis wrote:
hedo wrote:

Souter has said that he would like to retire at 65 and spend more time at home in N.H.

after souter’s opinion in kelo, he might not have a home in n.h. to retire to if the local government confiscates his home to build a hotel. ha ha. the irony would be great.[/quote]

I hear you. Love to see where this winds up. NH likes to send a message sometimes.

This article, and especially this quote, sums up my philosophy as well. Many posters here have talked about the opinion of the majority, but the Constitution says nothing about the opinion of the majority as being the law of the land. That’s just a tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is about limited government. I personally don’t care what the majority thinks - the majority of the population are morons. Don’t believe me? Go to Wal-Mart on a Saturday or Sunday and spend just one hour watching the people who come in and shop. This is your “majority.” Do this little experiment, and if you still feel that you want a majority of the population making laws that affect your life, I will cease my libertarian rants.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

I personally don’t care what the majority thinks - the majority of the population are morons. Don’t believe me? Go to Wal-Mart on a Saturday or Sunday and spend just one hour watching the people who come in and shop. This is your “majority.” Do this little experiment, and if you still feel that you want a majority of the population making laws that affect your life, I will cease my libertarian rants.
[/quote]

I like the Libertarian special interest group (not really a party if they can’t win as many elections as the Greens).

However, this is exactly why Libertarians will continue to garnish 0.000000000002% of the vote. “Listen to our ideas, dumbasses! We really believe in our system of government – rule by all you idiots!”

[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters wrote:
Well, one things for certain, into at least 2006 every politicians view on abortion will be front and center, probably to the dismay of most…

Relative to abortion it seems that a Zogby poll shows that the majority of Americans are indeed against abortion:

http://www.calright2life.org/zogbypoll.pdf

This may drive President Bush to compromise less with the left when he puts forth his nominee.[/quote]

Americans in general are against abortion but at the end of the day that is not the question.

The question is ‘Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what do with your body?’.

I am against abortion but I can never make that choice as I am not a woman.

[quote]pkiousis wrote:

The real irony is that the Democrats in the senate actually represent more Americans than the Republicans do and the Democrats achieve this with less members.

The Senate’s job is to slow down the legislative process but the founders never envisioned the minority in the Senate representing the majority of voters.

you don’t give enough credit to the founders. i’m sure they new what they were doing. its part of having a represenative republic for of government.[/quote]

It is you that does not understand.

The Senate was added to slow down the majority and right now the Senate does not do that.

Think about is some more…

[quote]Keith Wassung wrote:
The fact that 5 of these F-----ers,
( first time I have ever used profanity on this site) voted that Eminent Domain can apply to private investors is enough to warrant the selection of only strong original intent conservatives to the bench.

think about it-the government can take our land because someone else can generate higher tax revenue from it-the worse SC decision in the last 50 years IM0.[/quote]

I am not so sure the ‘strong original intent conservatives’ will be selected by Bush since he definitely is not a strong original intent conservative.

A perfect example of a ‘strong original intent conservative’ would be Barry Goldwate (rest his soul).

There is a huge divide between Goldwater’s values and the current GOP’s values.

How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress? …

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O?Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Can a judge be considered ‘activist’ if he or she strikes down a law passed by Congress or is there some other way to define it?

Or is this purely a partisan term used by a critic that disagrees with a judges ruling?

The libertarian point of view is difficult to accept because it’s based on abstract principles. People adopt the libertarian point of view when it suits them, and then switch over to the “this is what the majority thinks” when the libertarian result doesn’t agree with their personal views. Marmadog’s observation illustrates this fact very well:

[quote]Americans in general are against abortion but at the end of the day that is not the question.

The question is ‘Do you believe the government has the right to tell you what do with your body?’.

I am against abortion but I can never make that choice as I am not a woman. [/quote]

I too am against abortion as a form of “birth control.” The problem is that most people only see the abortion debate from the “birth control” perspective. There are many other circumstances where even moral individuals and individuals who call themselves Christians would consider abortion to be acceptable. The most common example is an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. However, the Catholic church says that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy even in this instance. Pat Buchanon also seems to favor a complete ban on abortion in all circumstances because the instances when the mother’s life is in danger are only like 1%. Gee, Pat, last time I read the Equal Protection Clause, it said that all citizens shall have equal protection under the law, not all citizens shall have equal protection, but if we miss 1 or 2%, that’s okay. A law like that would essentially prohibit women with health problems from having children – it’s like asking the government for a license to have children. Anyone in favor of that? What about cases where a women takes fetility drugs resulting in 7 fetuses and the doctor recommends terminating some fetuses so that the rest may survive because attempting to carry all 7 to term could kill all 7? Maybe we should ban fertility treatments so this problem never arises? Many couples now wait until their 30s when they become financially stable to have kids. Unfortunately, fertility decreases past age 30. So the responsible couple who waits is just out of luck. Meanwhile, the 20-year-old tramp who hops into bed with anything that breathes can have all the kids she wants. But hey, the majority of the people can’t be wrong.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
pkiousis wrote:

The real irony is that the Democrats in the senate actually represent more Americans than the Republicans do and the Democrats achieve this with less members.

The Senate’s job is to slow down the legislative process but the founders never envisioned the minority in the Senate representing the majority of voters.

you don’t give enough credit to the founders. i’m sure they new what they were doing. its part of having a represenative republic for of government.

It is you that does not understand.

The Senate was added to slow down the majority and right now the Senate does not do that.

Think about is some more…[/quote]

your logic is confusing. you say the senate was added to slow down the majority, but the founders never envisioned that the senate would represent the minority. so are you saying that the founders expected the senate to represent the majority and intended that the senate slow itself down? what article in the constitutional convention or any other historical document to you base your “slow down” comment on? slow down to what pace? are they just supposed to wait for a certain time before they act?

plus, i am sure that the founders thought about the senators from the seven least populated states disagreeing with the senators from the 6 more populated states and therefore the senate representing the minority of people. that’s the difference between the senate and the house.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress? …

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O?Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Can a judge be considered ‘activist’ if he or she strikes down a law passed by Congress or is there some other way to define it?

Or is this purely a partisan term used by a critic that disagrees with a judges ruling?[/quote]

activist is a political term. conservatives use the term to bash liberal judges who make law from the bench. liberals have twisted the definition to refer to judges who follow the original intent of the Constitution.

the liberals have done a good job changing the meaning of the word ;activist judge"

[quote]pkiousis wrote:
your logic is confusing. you say the senate was added to slow down the majority, but the founders never envisioned that the senate would represent the minority. so are you saying that the founders expected the senate to represent the majority and intended that the senate slow itself down? what article in the constitutional convention or any other historical document to you base your “slow down” comment on? slow down to what pace? are they just supposed to wait for a certain time before they act?

plus, i am sure that the founders thought about the senators from the seven least populated states disagreeing with the senators from the 6 more populated states and therefore the senate representing the minority of people. that’s the difference between the senate and the house. [/quote]

I was ambiguos for a reason…to see if you truely understand the situation.

You are confused because you do not understand.

The Senate currently represents a minority of voters if you give each senator half the number of eligible voters in each state.

The founders wanted the senate to represent the majority and allow the minority to slow down proceeding through filibusters and proceedural processes.

The irony is the senators in the majority represent less Americans than the senators in the minority.

If you still can not understand the rhetorical statement I made than either you are intellectually dishonest or just not smart enough to ‘get it’.

Either way I give up with you.

[quote]pkiousis wrote:
activist is a political term. conservatives use the term to bash liberal judges who make law from the bench. liberals have twisted the definition to refer to judges who follow the original intent of the Constitution.

the liberals have done a good job changing the meaning of the word ;activist judge"
[/quote]

ROTFLMFAO!

This is not a partisan discussion.

The fact is anytime judges rule against right wingnuts they howl ‘liberal activist judges’ and every time judges rule against left wingnuts they howl ‘conservative activist judges’.

It DOES work both ways and the reason you can not admit that is you are being intellectually dishonest.

Keep up the great work!