|
xssve -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/8/2012 10:24:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
quote:
ORIGINAL: Arturas
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
FR
Historically, conservative Republican judges were not in favor of "judicial activism".
I think Obama was just appealing to those on the court who have written ad nauseum against judicial activism (e.g. Scalia) to say, if you really don't believe in judicial activism then you really, constitutionally, legally, should not overturn this legislation.
I don't think he meant this as any kind of "threat" agains the Supreme Court. I really think it was meant as a personal appeal to those on the court who are anti-judicial activism.
(But, of course, we know that the conservative justices on the court who are against judicial activism will have no difficulty simply hypocritically ignoring their own writings on the topic, and happily judicially activate away. Again, the hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze....)
Well. Of course "we" know no such thing.
The Supreme Court will only overturn this law if it is NOT Constitutional. So, if this is a Supreme Court acting improperly in your view then this law is indeed Constitutional.
Therefore, since you feel qualified to critique the Supreme Court and indeed suggest some members of that most High Court are hypocrites, then clearly you should be able to answer why is this law constitutional or conversely, why is the Court being "activist" rather than doing it's job of deciding on what is Constitutional? For your benefit, here are the articles that pertain to Congress and its power to obtain money from U.S. Citizens.
Which one supports the Obamacare mandate that requires each citizen to buy an insurance policy or pay a fine or go to jail and why?
Section 8, Article 1.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Section 8, Article 3.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
I do not "feel" anything. Scalia has done it before, and he will do it again. He is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to writing about one thing and then acting on the court in a completely opposite way when it suits him. This isn't about how I "feel". This is about reality.
Heller v DC is the best example. He spends better than half the decision trying to handwave away better than a century of precedent.
He's a fucking geek, shit I prefer a sawed off for home defense and would hope my neighbors do too, since the effective range is about ten feet, with little chance of unintentional penetration, and a lot better effect when it's dark and you just woke up, whereas a Desert Eagle .50 is going to go through you own children's bedroom, and at least Three other houses at lethal velocities.
Harder to conceal too.
I don't think anybody has used a sawed off to commit a crime in this country since they stopped transporting gold on stagecoaches.
Beside the point maybe, but Scalia appears to have little interaction with reality, his logic is abstract to the point of sterile irrelevance, I feel dumber after just reading it.
|
|
|
|
