Activist Courts

[Jacobtm]

Republicans, as usual, lack coherency.

The scream about activist courts when they overturn laws that conservatives like.

When an activist court wishes to overturn a law conservatives don't like, well they think that court is the vanguard of the constitution.

No convictions. The principles they cite are just out of convenience. They love activist courts, big government, all that, when it goes for their side.

[muon2]

The GOPers I know don't look at activism as whether or not a court overturns a legislative act. They would see it as partisan based on the partisan composition of the court and would agree or disagree on that basis. What I hear described as judicial activism is when a court in its ruling creates a law that the legislature would not pass. That's different from restoring a the status quo by removing a new law.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Also, an act of the SCrt that overturns precident. Established law that has been deemed constitutional generation after generation. Like in 2000, never before has the SCrt overturned an election result by stopping the vote, the politicians throughout history have done it like in 1800, 1828 and 1876.  Also, if the SCrt overturn Roe, established precident generation after generation it does look like Activism.

[Brittain33]

The GOPers I know don't look at activism as whether or not a court overturns a legislative act. They would see it as partisan based on the partisan composition of the court and would agree or disagree on that basis. What I hear described as judicial activism is when a court in its ruling creates a law that the legislature would not pass. That's different from restoring a the status quo by removing a new law.

I'm pretty sure that if the SC overturns DOMA, conservatives will hail it as judicial activism.

[muon2]

The GOPers I know don't look at activism as whether or not a court overturns a legislative act. They would see it as partisan based on the partisan composition of the court and would agree or disagree on that basis. What I hear described as judicial activism is when a court in its ruling creates a law that the legislature would not pass. That's different from restoring a the status quo by removing a new law.

I'm pretty sure that if the SC overturns DOMA, conservatives will hail it as judicial activism.

I'm sure they won't like it, but I'll wait to see if it is called activism.

[Torie]

I am "praying" that Sotomayer joins the "conservative" five judges to strike down the mandate, and sever (with the balance of Obamacare upheld except for the part both sides agree cannot be severed), on the grounds that it over-reaches the interstate commerce authority of the Feds due to the cross subsidy, that cannot be constrained by a clear limiting principle, and I say that as one, who on policy grounds, has zero interest in "states rights,"  and agree with the mandate (but not much of the balance of the act, including the young cross subsidizing the old on a non means tested basis).  Go figure, but that is what would be best in my judgment for the fruited plain. My point of view must be shared by about 25 other persons out there it seems to me, but I have taken lonely positions before, and no doubt will again.

If I were in the Senate, I would focus on having a nominee persuade me that they would not be part of a "block vote."  Every nominee denies that they will be that way, but these days, almost all of them are. That is called well, a lack of "transparency." I would also demand they be more forthcoming about how they approach cases, then they are. If they deflect me, I would not vote to confirm. The days of nominees saying they can't say anything, should be over. Too much is at stake. SCOTUS just has such vast power.

[Beet]

President Obama speaking out on the matter was a bone-headed move. It's the judicial branch's complete and uninfringable authority to exercise complete review. I don't fault Obama for repeating specific arguments in defense of the constitutionality of his bills, or repeating the positive policy implications, but he shouldn't speak in general terms about judicial review as the result of any single case.

[useful idiot]

What I hear described as judicial activism is when a court in its ruling creates a law that the legislature would not pass. That's different from restoring a the status quo by removing a new law.

This. It's finding new "rights" that weren't in the constitution before the judge ruled that they have a problem with.

They love activist courts, big government, all that, when it goes for their side.

And Democrats dislike activist courts and big government when it goes against their side. Welcome to reality! People don't like it when laws they want passed aren't passed. If both sides are angry that generally means the courts are doing their job and not sailing with the political winds.