Yes, it is very much judicial activism, and it based upon gross misstatements and misrepresentations of fact. Furthermore, it is not a binding precedent. It is a false opinion, despite its claim to be an authoritative opinion. Remember, the Republican Party is responsible for the ineligible and unlawful Arthur Administration, and responsible for the unlawful appointment of Justice Gray. The votes and decisions of Justice Gray and other Arthur appointments should have been voided and nullified for ineligibility and conflict of interest, insofar as Justice Gray's appointment to SCOTUS was utterly dependent upon Chester Arthur not being removed from the Office of the President for ineligibility.
Yes, it is very much judicial activism, and it based upon gross misstatements and misrepresentations of fact. Furthermore, it is not a binding precedent. It is a false opinion, despite its claim to be an authoritative opinion.A false opinion that was joined by five other Justices, none of whom was appointed by the President who appointed Justice Gray, and that has stood the test of time for over a century without being overruled?
Remember, the Republican Party is responsible for the ineligible and unlawful Arthur Administration, and responsible for the unlawful appointment of Justice Gray.
Oh come now! You're comparing the Republican Party of 2011 with the Republican party of 1880? Look at an election map of 1880. Do you notice that today's solid red states were 1880's solid blue states? Did it just happen to be that way in 1880? I think you know the answer is "no."
Besides, you still haven't explained why five other Justices, none of whom was appointed by President Arthur, joined Justice Gray's opinion in Wong Kim Ark. Who were they protecting?
