Posted on 06/08/2009 1:08:48 PM PDT by DCBryan1
Thank you for making the point. My approval stems from the ability of the full SCOTUS to review. This issue will stand a much better chance at reasoned review, if the full court is involved. I would hope that the full court could find reason to object. We shall see.
“Activist”? This is simply CHECKS and BALANCES.
This is out of Obama's hands. It doesn't matter what he wants to do. The appeal is from an order from the bankruptcy court. If the case is reversed the order is voided.
Bush started it with the bridge loan using TARP monies.
0 has simply expanded it.
The activist v. non-activist distinction in not fruitful, in my opinion. What matter is adherence to the Constitution and federal statutes, in their original public meaning. And sometimes, that adherence will lead to an ‘activist” result, i.e., a result that voids action by Congress, the States, or the Executive.
Examples:
1) The Kelo Court SHOULD have been active and struck down that use of eminant domain. Problem was it wasn’t activist.
2) If this court strikes down Obama’s abuse of the law and holds for Indiana, then it will be “activist” and correct.
Damn...and from lefty Ginsburg
does not bode well for god. (little g)
he is no longer merely the “son of”
Understood.
Still curious if a sitting President has ever refused to follow a ruling by SCOTUS.
Exactly. I agree wholeheartedly. People use activist when they disagree with a decision; they applaud the court’s judicial review when it is in line with their thinking. It’s just another symptom in an “us-vs-them” mentality.
I would be inclined to agree that opinion here does sometimes depend on who the injured party seems to be, Bush’s administration vs Obama’s.
Now this matter may reign in Obama, but I would hope it was on meritorious grounds, not an activist court type ruling.
As for Bush, I would actually have wished that to be the standard the SCOTUS used for ruling the merits on cases involving his administration.
Sorry to sound somewhat argumentative. I don’t mean to be.
Good!
In essence I agree Julia. I don’t see this as judicial activism to this point at all. That wouldn’t necessarily preclude a decision that might come close to being judicial activism though. That would rest on the decision itself, and the reasoning behind it.
Did she see the light or something? She got a clue?
Not at all. I appreciate the distinction you are making. BCrago66 encapsulated what I was trying to say better than me in post 145.
Ginsburg - HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
(I’m sure you’ve received about 10 similar posts, but what the heck)!
This might be what kind of “quid pro quo” will I get if I were to rule on this for you Obama?
“Still curious if a sitting President has ever refused to follow a ruling by SCOTUS.”
At least once. He got away with it, too.
Andrew Jackson. Worcester vs. Georgia
Jackson said something to the effect of “Let Marshall enforce his ruling’
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_cherokee.html
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2233470/posts
But the Chrysler bankruptcy doesn't involve a direction to the President which he can ignore with impunity. If the Court were to declare the sale to Fiat/government/unions to be void, it's void. Indiana wouldn't require the personal co-operation of President Soetero subsequently to assert its position.
And threaten to inflate the Supreme Court with greater number of crony judges if they don't quit finding his laws unconstitutional.
Thank God for our founding fathers forethought.
They may have saved our bacon again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.