But my larger point is that all judges are activist by definition. How could you judge — that is, decide — without bringing your interpretation of things to bear?
“Activist” becomes an epithet only when applied to a judge who’s point of view you don’t like.
This is one of the quintessential topics on which conservatives differ from liberals.
I, as a conservative, would just as soon have a computer programmed to decide based on strict interpretation of the ACTUAL constitution rather than whether the judge agrees with me or Ken. The constitution does a REALLY good job of defining where it applies and where it doesn’t. See the enumerated powers section. Other disputes brought to the court should be sent back to a state court for adjudication.
‘Activists’ on the supreme court have found (really they make up) all kinds of connections that they BELIEVE gives them the power to judge as they have.
I think that ALL office holders in the country, including Supreme Court Justices, should only be allowed to hold their office for a maximum of ten years. After ten years they should be given a gold watch, the country’s thanks and a nice ‘go away forever’ party.
I found this great quote the other day:
“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide.”
I don’t know who said it.
Following up on my response to you Emmett, I see that Judge Sotomayor has herself made the same point as I did, “the aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
Ephraim, can you please get a diffrent hobby? Seriously?
You have never written one single thing on this site, of your hundreds of comments, that has ever once made me pause even for one moment and think, “Hmm, good point.”
You are like a caricature of a thoughtful person – even down to posting your “triumphant” quote without having the brains to remember who (supposedly) said it or the enthusiasm to look it up when you couldn’t remember. You are well-suited to your ideology, which places little value on accuracy or follow through.
You go ahead and continue to hold as absolute truth that we are all best ruled by laws set forth by one small group of men 225 years ago. Laws that, even then, were known to be imperfect because they were a compromise amongst various political factions. Laws that were specific to a time and place that is long gone, and which couldn’t hope to apply to the developments from a civilization that – from the 1700s – would seem completely unrecognizable.
People like you (and people who are of your ideology but who are actually able to be thoughtful and compelling, like Justices Thomas and Scalia) always think you know something that people like me don’t. Well, you have it reversed. We laugh at you because we know that your community of backwards-lookers is growing smaller and smaller by the decade. So kick your feet and pout all you want. But no one here is listening.
Ah, the humanity. Some would rather have HAL “interpret” the Constitution; but HAL’s instruction codes,as are all computers, are programmed by humans.
James Burnham is responsible for the quotation above. It took one google to discover who said it and a second google to find out who he was.
This is one of the quintessential topics on which conservatives differ from liberals.
And this is one of the essentials on which I disagree with ya both The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There are always way too many trying to fill in those holes.
What are the powers not delegated? And which of those powers are reserved to the states and which to the people? And “people” meant the people collectively, not persons individually, so who decides for “the people”?
And what would you make of the ninth amendment? “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.”
Note well this. Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States’ Rights Amendment.
The word “expressly” was debated at the time and purposefully left out of the tenth amendment.
So, right off, I question your source, which after all is just someone who says about the web page you site, “This document contains my personal notes about certain portions of the United States Constitution.”
Like I like everything that agrees with me – no?
But of course. Don’t you?
But my larger point is that all judges are activist by definition. How could you judge — that is, decide — without bringing your interpretation of things to bear?
“Activist” becomes an epithet only when applied to a judge who’s point of view you don’t like.
This is one of the quintessential topics on which conservatives differ from liberals.
I, as a conservative, would just as soon have a computer programmed to decide based on strict interpretation of the ACTUAL constitution rather than whether the judge agrees with me or Ken. The constitution does a REALLY good job of defining where it applies and where it doesn’t. See the enumerated powers section. Other disputes brought to the court should be sent back to a state court for adjudication.
‘Activists’ on the supreme court have found (really they make up) all kinds of connections that they BELIEVE gives them the power to judge as they have.
I think that ALL office holders in the country, including Supreme Court Justices, should only be allowed to hold their office for a maximum of ten years. After ten years they should be given a gold watch, the country’s thanks and a nice ‘go away forever’ party.
I found this great quote the other day:
“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide.”
I don’t know who said it.
Following up on my response to you Emmett, I see that Judge Sotomayor has herself made the same point as I did, “the aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
Ephraim, can you please get a diffrent hobby? Seriously?
You have never written one single thing on this site, of your hundreds of comments, that has ever once made me pause even for one moment and think, “Hmm, good point.”
You are like a caricature of a thoughtful person – even down to posting your “triumphant” quote without having the brains to remember who (supposedly) said it or the enthusiasm to look it up when you couldn’t remember. You are well-suited to your ideology, which places little value on accuracy or follow through.
You go ahead and continue to hold as absolute truth that we are all best ruled by laws set forth by one small group of men 225 years ago. Laws that, even then, were known to be imperfect because they were a compromise amongst various political factions. Laws that were specific to a time and place that is long gone, and which couldn’t hope to apply to the developments from a civilization that – from the 1700s – would seem completely unrecognizable.
People like you (and people who are of your ideology but who are actually able to be thoughtful and compelling, like Justices Thomas and Scalia) always think you know something that people like me don’t. Well, you have it reversed. We laugh at you because we know that your community of backwards-lookers is growing smaller and smaller by the decade. So kick your feet and pout all you want. But no one here is listening.
Ah, the humanity. Some would rather have HAL “interpret” the Constitution; but HAL’s instruction codes,as are all computers, are programmed by humans.
James Burnham is responsible for the quotation above. It took one google to discover who said it and a second google to find out who he was.
This is one of the quintessential topics on which conservatives differ from liberals.
And this is one of the essentials on which I disagree with ya both
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There are always way too many trying to fill in those holes.
What are the powers not delegated? And which of those powers are reserved to the states and which to the people? And “people” meant the people collectively, not persons individually, so who decides for “the people”?
And what would you make of the ninth amendment? “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.”
Note well this. Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States’ Rights Amendment.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am10
The word “expressly” was debated at the time and purposefully left out of the tenth amendment.
So, right off, I question your source, which after all is just someone who says about the web page you site, “This document contains my personal notes about certain portions of the United States Constitution.”
C’mon.