speaking of activist judges

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

speaking of activist judges

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> speaking of activist judges

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

speaking of activist judges - 6/21/2012 1:17:17 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Looks like the right wing usual suspects forgot they don't believe in legislating from the bench, again.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1121

The case was only about whether or not sufficient opt out notice had been given.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Petitioners-Brief-in-knox.pdf

The SCOTUS majority decided to expand the scope of the case, exactly as they did in Citizen's United, and ruled that dues payers must opt in to political fundraising by unions. Strangely they did not seem to decide that stockholders should have to opt in to corporations spending profits for political activities.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: speaking of activist judges - 6/21/2012 1:22:18 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Because they already are a priori, and any lobbying or payoff.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: speaking of activist judges - 6/21/2012 10:07:35 PM

Sepultura

Posts: 18
Joined: 12/17/2011
Status: offline

Two major decisions have given "conservatives" cause to label (usually falsely) many judges activist. The first was the Interstate Commerce Clause which for two decades allowed the Federal scum to do basically what ever they wanted if they could somehow link it to the movements of goods or even conspiracy to use the interstates to facilitate the commission of a crime. The second one was Roe vs. Wade. This is not to start another pointless argument over a topic that can't possibly have anything new to be uncovered. The simple fact of the matter is, Constitutionally speaking, there is no right to privacy. That was pulled out of thin air starting with a couple of college professors buying condoms in violation of some idiotic state law. Why is that particular medical procedure a Constitutional right, but prostate surgery isn't?

_____________________________

Indonesian Tsunamis aka Yahweh's money shot.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: speaking of activist judges - 6/21/2012 10:17:36 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Why is that particular medical procedure a Constitutional right, but prostate surgery isn't?

Soon.

(in reply to Sepultura)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: speaking of activist judges - 6/22/2012 2:50:18 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sepultura

Two major decisions have given "conservatives" cause to label (usually falsely) many judges activist. The first was the Interstate Commerce Clause which for two decades allowed the Federal scum to do basically what ever they wanted if they could somehow link it to the movements of goods or even conspiracy to use the interstates to facilitate the commission of a crime. The second one was Roe vs. Wade. This is not to start another pointless argument over a topic that can't possibly have anything new to be uncovered. The simple fact of the matter is, Constitutionally speaking, there is no right to privacy. That was pulled out of thin air starting with a couple of college professors buying condoms in violation of some idiotic state law. Why is that particular medical procedure a Constitutional right, but prostate surgery isn't?

There are actually many rulings on the Commerce Clause and all come down on the side of it giving Congress broad authority to legislate, Scalia had to write a book saying he no longer believes in it to justify his upcoming vote on the ACA.

As to the Right to Privacy it is actually fundamental to the Bill of Rights. The enumerated rights, which quite explicitly were not the only rights protected as far as the Founders were concerned, mostly boil down to "government shall stay out of each person's private affairs." That is the Right to Privacy. BTW prostate surgery is protected by Roe v Wade just as abortion is. Roe makes it a private medical decision between you and your doctor and no legislature can forbid you from having the procedure.

(in reply to Sepultura)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: speaking of activist judges - 6/22/2012 7:33:09 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

true,

however how many people out here simply say that its ok that the FBI can turn on their cell and listen even with the phone off BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE!

With IDIOTS like that who needs government? Just wrap that noose around the neck and be done with it.

No one here understands the difference between private and public rights and where those lines are.

Lets start with the privilege to drive versus the right to travel, the privilege to carry versus the right to bear.

continuing re-writing of the contract derived from the natural "private" right of self preservation.

they trick people into contracting with them like is the case with this health care and social security, (and dom(mes) that require ppower of attorney from their subs and slaves) you all gave up your right to privacy when you joined programs designed to get you to sign away your rights.

so here are the crying towels

cant have it both ways, the desert of the real. ~morpheus LMAO

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 6/22/2012 7:37:10 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 6