Nonsense.
Striking down laws that are unconstitutional is exactly what the Supreme
Court is expected to do. The NYT simply changed the definition of "activist
judges" to fit their agenda.
To my mind, and speaking only for myself as always, an activist judge is one
that manufactures "rights" out of thin air or interprets the constitution in
"novel" ways.
In recent time, there have been two decisions coming out of the Supreme
Court that directly affect a lot of us. The first one says the Fifth
Amendment and perhaps the Fourteenth Amendment are non applicable if the
state can show an increased tax benefit by taking your property and giving
it to someone else. I'll give you a hint who dissented from that ruling:
four of the top five activist judges according to the NYT definition.
The other decision is the ruling on the McCain-Feingold successful attack on
the first amendment, the BCRA of 2002. I'll give you another hint about who
dissented from that ruling; this time it was the four top activist judges
according to the NYT definition.
Denys
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Heasman, David
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Should Someone Nominate Eugene?
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Wonsil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Legislators have actually been writing laws in such a way that judges
can decide how they should be implemented. (The Americans with
Disabilities Act is a good example). This takes the legislators off the
hook during election time and all is good as long as you get "your kind
of people" in the judicial branch.
The process eliminates that pesky democratic thingy but causes a lot of
political strife - in case you haven't noticed...
Mark W.
Coincidentally there has been a NYT article, pulling together
data
which is checkable, so its lickspittle surrenderist socialism
can be discounted : -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down
Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President
George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63
percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President
Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The
tally for all the justices appears below.
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered
more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and
John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional
statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently
to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the
latter group is the most activist.
And some wag has added, as one would, were one waggish:-
Whatever conservative justices are showing here, it sure ain't "humility
in the face of the common-sense of citizens as reflected through
democratically-elected legislatures."
The bit in quotes is, I gather, meme from someone named Zywicki.
But IOKIYAAR, so it's OK.
__________________________________________________________________
This message might contain confidential information. If it has been sent to
you in error please do not forward it or copy it or act upon its contents,
but report it to [log in to unmask]
Schroders has the right lawfully to record, monitor and inspect messages
between its employees and any third party. Your messages shall be subject to
such lawful supervision as Schroders deems to be necessary in order to
protect its information, its interests and its reputation.
Schroders prohibits and takes steps to prevent its information systems from
being used to view, store or forward offensive or discriminatory material.
If this message contains such material please report it to
[log in to unmask]
Schroders does not normally accept or offer business instructions via email
unless prior agreements are in place. Any action that you might take upon
this message might be at your own risk.
Schroder Investment Management Limited
31 Gresham Street
London EC2V 7QA
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Schroder
Investment Management Limited is entered on the FSA register under the
following register number: 119348
Registered Office
31 Gresham Street
London EC2V 7QA
Registered number 1893220
VAT registration number 243 8687 30
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
