Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hchutch
Several folks have poked me with a stick to get involved in this thread. I do so, but with the caveat that I haven't read the decisions (majority and dissent) as yet.

In response to your comment, no I do not feel it is a good idea for "our side" on the Supreme Court to engage in "judicial activism," meaning tit for tat. Judicial activism is ALWAYS the enemy of the Constitution, no matter who uses it, or when, or why, or on whatever issue. Everyone who respects the Constitution should oppose judicial activism with every fiber of their beings.

I don't view this case as that. It looks to be a "common law" thing, instead. Yes, there is such a thing as common law at the federal level. Still, I have my doubts about the logic of the majority -- but no doubts about the practical effects of the decision. I'll spell those out in detail in my monthly column on constitutional law.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "The Berlin Solution to the Baghdad Problem."

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

74 posted on 04/07/2003 1:04:03 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob ("Saddam has left the building. Heck, the building has left the building.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Congressman Billybob
My major question, though is whether or not we will be able to get that genie (judicial activism) back in the bottle.

Current efforts for strict constructionists are stalling - so we may need to have some means to up the ante.
77 posted on 04/07/2003 1:08:18 PM PDT by hchutch ("But tonight we get EVEN!" - Ice-T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson