[hobbes1]

Yeah, speaking of judicial activism, how, I wonder, did that perennial concern just totally disappear from the minds of the rational, the logical, and the sane?

Yup.

[lugsoul]

Let's see. In the past two weeks, I've heard SReepers claim that a judge must:

1) Completely disregard well-established rules - set forth in the United States Code - for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order - because we must err on the side of life. 2) Abandon the responsibilities assigned to the judiciary by the Florida Statutes for decision-making as a health-care surrogate - because we must err on the side of life.

3) Throw out established standards of appellate review - because we must err on the side of life.

4) Ignore plainly stated Congressional intent, and infer an intent explicitly rejected by the Senate majority leader - because we must err on the side of life.

This list could go on and on - but the point is obvious. SReepers are proving once again that their definition of "judicial activism" is a judicial decision with which they disagree. Adherence to the law under which a decision is rendered is of no importance if the desired outcome is not achieved.

[thoughtomator]

Well, it's gotten a little better... the logical rational sane crew has produced one poster who wants to discuss the merits of the legal arguments and is doing so with civility and rigor.

Sadly, 500+ posts into this I STILL haven't a taker on discussing the T-4 program and the simliarities in this case.