The "Judicial Activism" ploy

[Little-Acorn]

With all the screaming, shucking, and jiving being frantically done by the usual leftists over the Federal Court's ruling of Barack Obama's most important legislation unconstitutional, Thomas Sowell provides a timely analysis. He cites several Supreme Court cases, the details of which are downright funny if you look into them.

--------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/02/08/the_judicial_activism_ploy/page/full/

The "Judicial Activism" Ploy

by Thomas Sowell

Now that two different federal courts have declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, the administration's answer is to call the courts guilty of "judicial activism."

Barack Obama has a rhetorical solution for every problem. Remember the repeated claims of "shovel-ready" projects that needed only federal stimulus money to get started? Last year the President quietly admitted that there were not many "shovel-ready" projects, after all.

But the phrase served its political purpose at the time-- and that was obviously all that mattered. Now, in the wake of rulings by two different courts that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, rhetoric is being mobilized again, without any fussy worries about facts.

"Judicial activism" is a term coined years ago by critics of judges who make rulings based on their own beliefs and preferences, rather than on the law as written. It is not a very complicated notion, but political rhetoric can confuse and distort anything.

In recent years, a brand-new definition of "judicial activism" has been created by the political left, so that they can turn the tables on critics of judicial activism.

The new definition of "judicial activism" defines it as declaring laws unconstitutional.

It is a simpler, easily quantifiable definition. You don't need to ask whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution. That key question can be sidestepped by simply calling the judge a "judicial activist."

A judge who lets politicians do whatever they want to, whether or not it violates the Constitution, never has to worry about being called a judicial activist by the left or by most of the media. But the rest of us have to worry about what is going to happen to this country if politicians can get away with ignoring the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that the federal government can do only what it has been specifically authorized to do by the Constitution. Everything else is left to the states or to the people themselves.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[bullypulpit]

Judicial activism defined:

Any decision by a judge which runs contrary to right wing-nut notions of just what the Constitution means. It does not apply to judges who make broad, sweeping decision which comport with right wing-nut ideology. (See: <a href=http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0126_judicial_activism_mann.aspx>Citizen's United v. FEC</a>)

[darin]

The problem is...it doesn't go both ways. Activism is putting political agenda AHEAD of the constitution - something conservative judges, by their nature, CANNOT do.

[fj1200]

(See: <a href=http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0126_judicial_activism_mann.aspx>Citizen's United v. FEC</a>)

Why do you hate freedom of speech so?

[logroller]

I didn't notice any reference source in the Obama Administration where "judicial activism" was used.

[avatar4321]

Judicial activism defined:

Any decision by a judge which runs contrary to right wing-nut notions of just what the Constitution means. It does not apply to judges who make broad, sweeping decision which comport with right wing-nut ideology. (See: <a href=http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0126_judicial_activism_mann.aspx>Citizen's United v. FEC</a>)

Defending free speech is hardly judicial activism. Unless you are trying to argue that free speech is some sort of new law.

[avatar4321]

Why do you hate freedom of speech so?

Because then people can prove him wrong.

[bullypulpit]

The problem is...it doesn't go both ways. Activism is putting political agenda AHEAD of the constitution - something conservative judges, by their nature, CANNOT do.

Then you're dumber than I thought. Citizens United v. FEC does nothing but put the political interests of a small, powerful group of plutarch wannabes ahead of the Constitution. God, pull yer head outta yer ass.


Why do you hate freedom of speech so?

Corporations are NOT people.

[darin]

Then you're dumber than I thought. Citizens United v. FEC does nothing but put the political interests of a small, powerful group of plutarch wannabes ahead of the Constitution. God, pull yer head outta yer ass.



Corporations are NOT people.

Do you know I was talking about how to define or describe judicial activism? www.hop.com maybe?

Corporations are NOT people...they are evil, vile, immoral, profit-loving entities!! Down with them!

(sigh).

[fj1200]

Then you're dumber than I thought. Citizens United v. FEC does nothing but put the political interests of a small, powerful group of plutarch wannabes ahead of the Constitution. God, pull yer head outta yer ass.

Unions are not people, they are a small, powerful group of commissar wannabes who want to put themselves ahead of the constitution.


Corporations are NOT people.

Corporations are made up of people who have a right to express their opinion and lobby the government.

[logroller]

Corporations are made up of people who have a right to express their opinion and lobby the government.

Aren't unions also made up of people who have a right to express their opinion and lobby the govt?

[fj1200]

Aren't unions also made up of people who have a right to express their opinion and lobby the govt?

Yup, I didn't say that they weren't.

[Thunderknuckles]

Neither corporations nor unions should be allowed to lobby the govt. using money collected from their memebers/workers unless they have an opt out clause.

[fj1200]

Neither corporations nor unions should be allowed to lobby the govt. using money collected from their memebers/workers unless they have an opt out clause.

The corporations money does not belong to the workers so they would have no say in the matter. As far as unions go the Beck decision allows a union member to get some of his dues back if he opts out; problem being that it needs to be enforced.


In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Communications Workers v. Beck1 that workers who are forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment may not be required to pay dues beyond those necessary for collective bargaining purposes. They also are entitled (if they so choose) to a refund of any portion of these dues that is used by their union for political purposes. Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson enunciated the fundamental axiom that "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."2 In effect, Beck applied that principle to the collection of union dues established in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1998/02/the-worker-paycheck-fairness-act

[logroller]

Do you know I was talking about how to define or describe judicial activism? www.hop.com maybe?

Corporations are NOT people...they are evil, vile, immoral, profit-loving entities!! Down with them!

(sigh).

If corporations aren't people, then don't anthropomorphize them with human traits. Though I agree they have a disposition for damaging the character of our society, your logic doesn't follow.

[fj1200]

If corporations aren't people, then don't anthropomorphize them with human traits. Though I agree they have a disposition for damaging the character of our society, your logic doesn't follow.

I believe he was going along with the ILlogic of another "esteemed" poster. That being said corporations are endowed with certain individual rights; Corporate personhood is another thread however.

[logroller]

The corporations money does not belong to the workers so they would have no say in the matter.
Which is why workers unionize.


As far as unions go the Beck decision allows a union member to get some of his dues back if he opts out; problem being that it needs to be enforced.


Herein lies the dilemma. Give people the power to organize and they may not do what is best all. Then to enforce a rule or law against a large and powerful class, the powers of government become increasingly topheavy, decreasing the power of the republic by which it stands. Not to sound like a marxist, but govt, corps and unions serve themselves best through top-down organization, not you and me as members of society.

[fj1200]

Which is why workers unionize.

Still doesn't give them a say in how the firm spends its money and makes investment decisions.


Herein lies the dilemma. Give people the power to organize and they may not do what is best all. Then to enforce a rule or law against a large and powerful class, the powers of government become increasingly topheavy, decreasing the power of the republic by which it stands. Not to sound like a marxist, but govt, corps and unions serve themselves best through top-down organization, not you and me as members of society.

Governments and unions grant/have been granted monopoly power in some circumstances, corporations are subject to competitive pressures. If we had stayed with a limited Federal government we may not have the issues that you brought up.

[logroller]

Governments and unions grant/have been granted monopoly power in some circumstances, corporations are subject to competitive pressures.
Yes, almost exclusively from other corporations, not living breathing persons.


If we had stayed with a limited Federal government we may not have the issues that you brought up.

similarly, had we not granted corporate personhood...

[fj1200]

Yes, almost exclusively from other corporations, not living breathing persons.

So, competition good regardless of the source.


similarly, had we not granted corporate personhood...

Tough posit to prove there.

[logroller]

So, competition good regardless of the source.

Tough posit to prove there.

You mean I have to prove it too, ugh FJ ur no fun:laugh: