The judges aren't all they should be -- they have always been too ruling-class oriented. Nevertheless, everything that makes America free and democratic and generally worthwhile depends on some court decision that could have been derided as "judicial activism" at the time.
If we lose judicial activism, we lose the Republic
- Thread starter Politruk
- Start date
I have always found it ironic when people decry judicial activism while blatantly supporting some of the most outspokenly biased and activist judges on the bench- especially Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Activists if ever there were, by any measure.
A true justice should not be "Conservative" or "liberal" but should respect the constitution as intended- meaning, supporting the separation of powers, protecting against executive overreach, and protecting the freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. (And yes, Mr. Chad Shaffer and Mr.FiftyscreenNames, this means Rights beyond just the second amendment!.) The current iteration of the Supreme Court, particularly the three aforementioned, has utterly failed in this respect and in my opinion, these three in particular ought to be disbarred.
A true justice should not be "Conservative" or "liberal" but should respect the constitution as intended- meaning, supporting the separation of powers, protecting against executive overreach, and protecting the freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights. (And yes, Mr. Chad Shaffer and Mr.FiftyscreenNames, this means Rights beyond just the second amendment!.) The current iteration of the Supreme Court, particularly the three aforementioned, has utterly failed in this respect and in my opinion, these three in particular ought to be disbarred.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,317
I would argue a judge should be conservative. The people who wrote the Constitution meant what they wrote. We are free to amend it. The system we have however makes amendments so difficult that for better or worse we have collectively agreed to work around the Constitution generally only bring it up when we're already losing the conversation or finding some truly absurd logic. Take the Supreme Court judgement on 'States vs Miller' that declared Sawed Off Shotguns illegal.
The short version of their ruling was that the right to bear arms was tied to a well regulated militia and a sawed off shot gun is not a "weapon of war" making it perfectly Constitutional to outlaw them. Its important to remember the Founders didn't really want a standing military. The militia wasn't something so 'The people' could rise up and overthrow the elites. IT wa so the elites didn't have to spend money on a military and could come down and recruit the locals if something popped off.
That's . . .an interpretation that I don't even 100% disagree with but while reading the Federalist Papers and other writings by the Founders we can get a glimpse into where there heads were at the time the wrote what they meant and that is what we should go with.
I also hate speaking of the Founders even if I have to. All to often we speak of them like they were the fucking Borg.
The short version of their ruling was that the right to bear arms was tied to a well regulated militia and a sawed off shot gun is not a "weapon of war" making it perfectly Constitutional to outlaw them. Its important to remember the Founders didn't really want a standing military. The militia wasn't something so 'The people' could rise up and overthrow the elites. IT wa so the elites didn't have to spend money on a military and could come down and recruit the locals if something popped off.
That's . . .an interpretation that I don't even 100% disagree with but while reading the Federalist Papers and other writings by the Founders we can get a glimpse into where there heads were at the time the wrote what they meant and that is what we should go with.
I also hate speaking of the Founders even if I have to. All to often we speak of them like they were the fucking Borg.
What about Kavanaugh?
Taking a cautious approach to interpretation of the law is one thing. Political, movement conservatism is quite another.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,317
I don't know you too well, you're new to me and I haven't been as active the last really few years than I used to be. Not that you would have noticed assuming this is your first account. I did kind of qualify my statement that I was less talking about the political conservative vs liberal and more on whether or not the Constitution is a living document to the extent that it's pretty much a wizard. It is neither precise, nor vague, what is written is exactly what the writer and reader intended. (Thank you Gandalf, that is the gift that keeps giving!)
I think its way to difficult to change the Constitution and I'm on record saying maybe its a bit past time for rewrite pretty much from top to bottom. Bottom line I think we are in agreement. I might not read all your posts but you seem to be at the very least sane.
Reasonable, if by "conservative," you do not mean you want any Federalist Society scum on the bench.
See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr -- decisions in no way regrettable, and very definitely political.
Speaker Johnson first has to pass a law eliminating federal crimes. Remember, keep things orderly!
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,317
While I'm no fan of rational wiki yeah, Federalist Society are scum.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,106
BIG BREAKING: 9th Circuit just gave President Trump huge a victory in refugee admissions case
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5e8c5020a4424ad7cfa5049be45e20b5?s=96&r=gMar. 25, 2025 2:21 pm by The Right ScoopThe 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just blocked an order by a lower court judge that would have forced President Trump to restart refugee admissions, allowing Trump to continue with his pause on refugee admissions.
https://therightscoop.com/big-break...mp-huge-a-victory-in-refugee-admissions-case/
See, now that's judicial activism too. It's not something that always favors the Dems/liberals.
Similar threads
