Unfortunately for the GOP, Roberts still sees himself as a supreme court judge, not an instrument of the Republican party. The GOP needs more partisan hacks like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas if they want to get their agenda past the stark opposition of the American people.
Judicial activism on the part of Conservative justices? Impossible, can’t happen, never. Like, gutting the Voting Rights Act — not activism at all, just you know, uh, something else.
An oxymoron — by definition, judicial activism is something only Liberals do.
That is not necessarily true, there are some moderate thinking conservatives right here on these comment sections. Unfortunatly, they are far outnumbered by the ultra conservative clowns that are also here, equally unfortunately for the rest of us!!
I’m surprised, and a little shocked actually, that Roberts is actually taking his job seriously and applying the review of laws, not bowing to political forces from the right.
Wouldn’t it be judicial activism if they struck down the law? Or forced a change in it? Sometimes judicial activism is called for, sometimes not. Depends on what the Constitution says about the law in question.
Look if Conservatives do not want judicial activism than stop bring issues before the court and introduce a bill in the legislature. What do expect when issues come before the court for them not to rule? If they only have a hammer they are going to pound on everything that comes before them." But what Sessions fails to acknowledge is that politics is always in the courtroom, and every justice has their own set of ideologies, biases, and prejudices. Rolling out the fossilized attack of “liberal activism” may be part of more political grandstanding. However, this line of thinking is not only antiquated, but also disingenuous. Two of the biggest partisan hacks on the court, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (both Republicans) are wildly ideologically biased, and yet they are never labeled as “activist judges.” Scalia could be called a gun activist, since he is a gun owner, and went beyond defending the Second Amendment in his ruling during District of Columbia v Heller. He said self defense is a “central” constitutional right that requires the ownership of guns (specifically handguns) be permitted so that it can be fully exercised. Crowbarring “handguns” into the definition of “right to bear arms” might have opened up Scalia to accusations of being a “right-wing activist,” but luckily, he avoided such inconveniences. Clarence Thomas, Scalia’s younger, crazier cousin, is the definition of an activist judge. Check out his dissent in the voting rights case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder. Thomas was the only one of the nine justices who wanted to throw out Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as an unconstitutional intrusion on states’ rights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/every-judge-is-an-activis_b_230696.html
Republican Presidents have been way too generous electing open-minded moderates while the Dems have gone all out to push hero ugh ultra-Lefty socialist Justices.Shame.
Funniest comment today is Republican presidents appointing “moderate” justices. They are all now appointed on their hard right records. Kennedy used to be thoughtful, more recently rightwing rubberstamp, and has swung back to thoughtful. Roberts just did not want a court with his name on it branded partisan. It doesn’t mean he isn’t partisan.
What you guys fail to realize is that the SCOTUS has legislated from the bench. There was no lawsuit applied at the federal level; there was a specific statute in a specific state that was being challenged. There was no federal law that was being challenged. When the SCOTUS ruled that all 50 states had to adhere to the same-sex marriage decision, they overstepped their authority and constitutional limits. What I think they did was said, “I don’t feel like dealing with xyz more of these, so let’s just go ahead and legalize it across the country.” The problem is is that is not personal decisions surrounding the issue. The problem is they created a law without having Congress pass it. That’s what is being missed in all this back-and-forth vitriol. The SCOTUS can only decide if a specific law is constitutional, not write a law they feel is constitutional. They overstepped their bounds. That’s MY primary issue with this. And a secondary issue with this is states rights. This is a state-level issue, not federal. It’s not interstate commerce, it’s not currency, it’s not trade dispute, and it’s not national defense. After all, if they want to make a decision like this, they should also rule that concealed-carry should be legal and justified in all 50 states with reciprocity, since it’s legal in so many. But I can guarantee a lot of liberals will disagree with it, because it’s an issue they dislike.
Odon Premium Member almost 9 years ago
Sure Mike that’s it.
Dave Ferro almost 9 years ago
On time, on target!
Jason Allen almost 9 years ago
Roberts was appointed by a Republican President and confirmed by Congressional Republicans. Enjoy!
ARodney almost 9 years ago
Unfortunately for the GOP, Roberts still sees himself as a supreme court judge, not an instrument of the Republican party. The GOP needs more partisan hacks like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas if they want to get their agenda past the stark opposition of the American people.
braindead Premium Member almost 9 years ago
Judicial activism on the part of Conservative justices? Impossible, can’t happen, never. Like, gutting the Voting Rights Act — not activism at all, just you know, uh, something else.
An oxymoron — by definition, judicial activism is something only Liberals do.
And anyway, It’s OKAY If A Republican Does It.
Rush Strong Premium Member almost 9 years ago
Your local results seem to cast doubt on the idea of electing judges.
frodo1008 almost 9 years ago
That is not necessarily true, there are some moderate thinking conservatives right here on these comment sections. Unfortunatly, they are far outnumbered by the ultra conservative clowns that are also here, equally unfortunately for the rest of us!!
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
I’m surprised, and a little shocked actually, that Roberts is actually taking his job seriously and applying the review of laws, not bowing to political forces from the right.
SergeitheAntagonist almost 9 years ago
Wouldn’t it be judicial activism if they struck down the law? Or forced a change in it? Sometimes judicial activism is called for, sometimes not. Depends on what the Constitution says about the law in question.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
As the baseball umpire said, “It ain’t nothing until I call it.”
PainterArt Premium Member almost 9 years ago
Look if Conservatives do not want judicial activism than stop bring issues before the court and introduce a bill in the legislature. What do expect when issues come before the court for them not to rule? If they only have a hammer they are going to pound on everything that comes before them." But what Sessions fails to acknowledge is that politics is always in the courtroom, and every justice has their own set of ideologies, biases, and prejudices. Rolling out the fossilized attack of “liberal activism” may be part of more political grandstanding. However, this line of thinking is not only antiquated, but also disingenuous. Two of the biggest partisan hacks on the court, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (both Republicans) are wildly ideologically biased, and yet they are never labeled as “activist judges.” Scalia could be called a gun activist, since he is a gun owner, and went beyond defending the Second Amendment in his ruling during District of Columbia v Heller. He said self defense is a “central” constitutional right that requires the ownership of guns (specifically handguns) be permitted so that it can be fully exercised. Crowbarring “handguns” into the definition of “right to bear arms” might have opened up Scalia to accusations of being a “right-wing activist,” but luckily, he avoided such inconveniences. Clarence Thomas, Scalia’s younger, crazier cousin, is the definition of an activist judge. Check out his dissent in the voting rights case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder. Thomas was the only one of the nine justices who wanted to throw out Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as an unconstitutional intrusion on states’ rights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/every-judge-is-an-activis_b_230696.html
ConserveGov almost 9 years ago
Republican Presidents have been way too generous electing open-minded moderates while the Dems have gone all out to push hero ugh ultra-Lefty socialist Justices.Shame.
doverdan almost 9 years ago
Earl Warren was a Republican.
kaffekup almost 9 years ago
Funniest comment today is Republican presidents appointing “moderate” justices. They are all now appointed on their hard right records. Kennedy used to be thoughtful, more recently rightwing rubberstamp, and has swung back to thoughtful. Roberts just did not want a court with his name on it branded partisan. It doesn’t mean he isn’t partisan.
Wraithkin almost 9 years ago
What you guys fail to realize is that the SCOTUS has legislated from the bench. There was no lawsuit applied at the federal level; there was a specific statute in a specific state that was being challenged. There was no federal law that was being challenged. When the SCOTUS ruled that all 50 states had to adhere to the same-sex marriage decision, they overstepped their authority and constitutional limits. What I think they did was said, “I don’t feel like dealing with xyz more of these, so let’s just go ahead and legalize it across the country.” The problem is is that is not personal decisions surrounding the issue. The problem is they created a law without having Congress pass it. That’s what is being missed in all this back-and-forth vitriol. The SCOTUS can only decide if a specific law is constitutional, not write a law they feel is constitutional. They overstepped their bounds. That’s MY primary issue with this. And a secondary issue with this is states rights. This is a state-level issue, not federal. It’s not interstate commerce, it’s not currency, it’s not trade dispute, and it’s not national defense. After all, if they want to make a decision like this, they should also rule that concealed-carry should be legal and justified in all 50 states with reciprocity, since it’s legal in so many. But I can guarantee a lot of liberals will disagree with it, because it’s an issue they dislike.