typical left wing slant. quick search of john fried,called justice scalia "conservative radical". voted for obama because of palin? really... no,loves socialism.
Last edited:
Well, of course, anyone associated with Reagan is considered a leftwinger today. True Fact.
Which do you think is more important -
the role of the Supreme Court as a check against unconstitutional laws
or the power of the Congress to pass any law they wish as long as there is "an emergency" or it is "in the best interests of the nation?"
the role of the Supreme Court as a check against unconstitutional laws
or the power of the Congress to pass any law they wish as long as there is "an emergency" or it is "in the best interests of the nation?"
When the court abandons the principle of stare decisis, they disrespect themselves as an institution. Suits me. Citizens United which over-turned a century of law has certainly made for a more interesting primary season. Money is speech and corporations are people.
Stare decisis is the principle under which the court respects and maintains prior rulings of the Supreme Court. I don't believe it has anything to do with the court declaring a law unconstitutional.
I don't believe that if the court strikes down Obamacare they will be failing to respect or maintain any prior Supreme Court ruling. But I could be wrong and am always open to being educated.
The reason I tossed the link out without comment was to give an example of a Reagan era solicitor general who disagrees with you.
And let's face it, conservatives are just getting their revenge for Warren Court activism: The exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, segregation. None of that stuff was in the constitution. Turn about is fair play.
And let's face it, conservatives are just getting their revenge for Warren Court activism: The exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, segregation. None of that stuff was in the constitution. Turn about is fair play.
I think you are claiming that striking down Obamacare would be judicial activism.
As I understand judicial activism it is policy making by judges, based on personal or political views as opposed to upholding preexisting laws. The idea that government has the power to require a citizen to purchase health insurance is a dangerous violation of our freedom and a violation of preexisting law (the Constitution). No matter what the emergency or how well intentioned it may be, it is a bad thing. Once the government can tell us what we must buy, what is to stop it from telling us where we can live or how much money we can have? It is a "brave new world" we do not want to enter.
In spite of what many people may think, the government lacks the wisdom to tell people how they should live. Big government is almost always a colossal screw-up. We the people are the best judges of how to pursue our individual happiness.
The government can deny me "free" healthcare, I have no problem with that. But it needs to keep it's hands off of my freedom.
Time for me to hit the hay. Thanks
As I understand judicial activism it is policy making by judges, based on personal or political views as opposed to upholding preexisting laws. The idea that government has the power to require a citizen to purchase health insurance is a dangerous violation of our freedom and a violation of preexisting law (the Constitution). No matter what the emergency or how well intentioned it may be, it is a bad thing. Once the government can tell us what we must buy, what is to stop it from telling us where we can live or how much money we can have? It is a "brave new world" we do not want to enter.
In spite of what many people may think, the government lacks the wisdom to tell people how they should live. Big government is almost always a colossal screw-up. We the people are the best judges of how to pursue our individual happiness.
The government can deny me "free" healthcare, I have no problem with that. But it needs to keep it's hands off of my freedom.
Time for me to hit the hay. Thanks
Yes, but that won't happen.
Similar threads
