[Aetius]

Interesting. Of course it is not true that we have a conservative Supreme Court. That cannot be said so long as Anthony Kennedy holds sway.

My problem with libertarians is their support of judicial activism on issues like abortion and gay marriage. If it came down to a choice between a court that is restrained, even in the face of violations against genuine rights (like gun possession and free speech) versus a court that is ‘activist’ (sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad), then I’d choose a restrained court. Of couse, we’ll have neither for long, as we are a Scalia or Kennedy retirement away from a full-blown leftwing activist Sup Court.

We lost our last chance at decisively righting the court with the GOP imposion of 2006-08 and the the election of Obama.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[Huck]

bookmark

[Still Thinking]

It’s hard to imagine a greater victory for the conservative legal movement than the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned D.C.’s ban on handguns.

It's not that hard. How about a less wussily written opinion that was about 10 times more blunt and didn't go so far out of its way to enumerate all the infringements it DIDN'T prevent? Or maybe I'm just a good imaginer.

[Still Thinking]

In the 2010 campaign finance reform case Citizens United v. FEC, for example, the high court overturned parts of multiple precedents that had upheld restrictions on political speech. In response, Stuart Taylor Jr., a legal commentator widely respected on the right, said the Court’s conservatives had “forfeited whatever high ground they once held in the judicial activism debate.”

Oh, bullcrap. A ruling which overturns a precedent is not "activism" if the ruling to be overturned was itself "activist". The left doesn't get to commit all THEIR activism, overturning centuries of precedent, and suddenly discover profound respect for stare decisis, thus preventing the reversal of those decisions, far younger and far weaker than the precedents THEY reversed.

[neverdem]

BTTT!

[DB]

Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson III needs to learn that the rights defined in the constitution are not dependent on the ballot box. Just because a majority wants to take someones constitutional rights doesn’t legitimize their demands.

[walford]

bookmark for later

[Daveinyork]

I do not consider it judicial activism if the court makes sure that laws conform to the Constitution and original intent. What is jusicial activism is making new rights that are actually entitlements that infringe on the Constitutional rights of others.

An example was the court forcing Kansas City schools to bus across district lines, and then forcing the schools to raise taxes to pay for it.

[ExSoldier]

Bookmark.

[Mojave]

He added that the National Rifle Association “held their nose and jumped in bed with substantive due process. Who would have imagined a leading conservative group doing that?”

Unfortunately, there are far too many ignoramuses calling themselves conservatives.