"On the other hand, political columnist Colbert I. King manages to write a column on "'Judicial Activism' To Be Thankful For" without having any clue about what judicial activism is (hint: it does not mean striking down unconstitutional laws when they really are unconstitutional). " -- Roger Clegg, NRO
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
1 posted on
10/30/2005 2:07:24 PM PST by
nosofar
To: nosofar
To: nosofar
Oh we all know the Supreme Court has a stellar record on the issue of race. /sarcasm
3 posted on
10/30/2005 2:13:51 PM PST by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. Ps. 14:34)
To: nosofar
All he's trying to do is water down the term "judicial activism".
4 posted on
10/30/2005 2:15:49 PM PST by
Halfmanhalfamazing
(You upgraded to Linux? No, I'm not surprised your computer works properly now. Amazing, no?)
To: nosofar
5 posted on
10/30/2005 2:17:37 PM PST by
Eastbound
To: nosofar
If the court consulted "foreign law" to determine if the law in Alabama was "unconstitutional", then they may be been "judicial activists" but I doubt they did.
6 posted on
10/30/2005 2:19:40 PM PST by
weegee
(To understand the left is to rationalize how abortion can be a birthright.)
To: nosofar
Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!(As pointed out in the first post, the case referred to in the article is not an example of judicial activism.)
7 posted on
10/30/2005 2:23:02 PM PST by
TigersEye
(When you sow discord you will harvest chaos.)
To: nosofar
On the other hand, political columnist Colbert I. King manages to write a column on "'Judicial Activism' To Be Thankful For" without having any clue about what judicial activism is ... Nor, does King write about the Southern Democratic Party politics that lead to the establishment of laws that required separate seating on buses in the first place.
It wasn't Southern Republicans that implemented separate seating laws back then.
9 posted on
10/30/2005 2:28:55 PM PST by
Noachian
(To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Senate)
To: nosofar
This whole article could be summed up in the common phrase: "The end justifies the means."
While I abhor Jim Crow and segregationist laws, their eradication does not justify overlooking the constitutional limitations placed on the Judiciary. First we do the wrong thing for the right reasons. From there, it's a small step to doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. And by then, precedent has been established and wrong law becomes the law of the land.
11 posted on
10/30/2005 2:35:49 PM PST by
IronJack
To: nosofar
I'm in favor of judicial activism when it simply applies the law. Near as I can tell, though, this is first and only time in history that has happened.
To: nosofar
Yeah, gotta love that Supreme Court. It only took them 60+ years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and we had to fight a war to overturn Scot v. Sanford! You go, judicial activism!/sarcasm
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson