569ec644709363dd8a9e…

I was trying to follow this story of liberal stupidy today at work but got too busy after only reading the initial post….

Boy, howdy:For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s……

So, let’s not be down on folks who wear bow ties; if that were the only problem with Justice Stevens, I’m sure we’d all be delighted to see him remain on the bench for decades to come.

Yikes!! That’s rather novel. It’s also completely subjective; which is kind of the point I guess, allows the wide use of the term as a bludgeon against anyone who disagrees with your particular take on the Constitution.

There is a lot of disagreement about what this term means, even lexicographers don’t agree. Encarta has their definition, Wiktionary has another, and Dictionary.com has yet another.

But you ask me for My definition and I gave it to you. And I believe the definition I gave is fairly consistent with the way most conservatives use it. I see that you apply a different definition. We may have discovered yet another reason why the left and the right have a failure to communicate.

If I would have known the term was so nebulous I would not have used it. Maybe I should have simply said; I think Stevens is a bad judge because he doesn’t follow the Constitution … and left it at that.

We’ve all had the experience of sitting in a movie theater or in our living rooms watching a movie where events were unfolding toward an unmitigated disaster. You see characters doing things they shouldn’t (or not doing things that they should) but y…

JRB has had some time & experience now on the court, so a nomination of her isn’t out of the question.

Just remember that Ginsburg is also aged, and she did have a bout with cancer, so she may retire early as well. If Stevens retires and the Senate is Democratically controlled, then you can expect a minority or a female appointment (just remember that Clarence Thomas didn’t exactly have an easy time of it). But if it’s a Republican Senate, he may go with a male (Alberto Gonzalez, perhaps?) if they think Ginsberg is close to retirement.

that activism is overturning state/federal legislation and judicial precedent.

I personally cannot stand the term “judicial activism”. It’s entirely too subjective. Regardless of what it’s called, however, the effect is the same: The Court defining law by selectively eliminating alternatives that run counter to the courts collective world view… and it really doesn’t matter whether that world view is conservative or liberal.

What, is he gay, too?

That gains him some sympathy points right there, and removes him from some levels of criticism for that sacrifice.

Judicial Activism: ruling that deviates from or is in opposition to the wording of the Constitution.

Maxx on November 6, 2006 at 9:50 AM

Yikes!! That’s rather novel. It’s also completely subjective; which is kind of the point I guess, allows the wide use of the term as a bludgeon against anyone who disagrees with your particular take on the Constitution.

I prefer the attached POV, that activism is overturning state/federal legislation and judicial precedent.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=912509

Janice Rogers Brown. With Steele being elected, the tide is turning, her confirmation would be a battle but Brown would get it. The left cannot afford to alienate the black vote, they have to keep them tethered to their lies. Fighting a strong, intelligent, independent black women would split the Democratic party. They (Dems) need slaves, not masters.

right2bright on November 6, 2006 at 8:56 AM

So you’re saying that blacks who vote Democratic are acting like slaves? Gee, wonder why blacks stay away from you Repubs in droves…..

SCOTUS is not suppose to be a political entity. Honorable service requires members of the court to be above politics and remain bound to the Constitution. They are not the writers of law, but only the interpreters. Justice Stevens has a long history of violating this principle, he is a paragon of judicial activism.

Maxx on November 5, 2006 at 11:22 PM

Please give my your definition of “judicial activism”. Thanks.

I’d have no troubles with Ken Starr, either. All three exhibit integrity that most liberals can’t possibly understand.

Freelancer on November 6, 2006 at 1:02 AM

I fervently agree; I absolutely do not understand the integrity of Ken Starr.

She’s pretty close to being a libertarian poster child. She quotes Ayn Rand and uses powerful words against collectivism. They’d filibuster the living hell out of her. Doesn’t matter that she’s a black woman… they’re afraid of her. Heck, I’ll bet most Republican senators are afraid of her. She equates government programs to addictive drugs. She says senior citizens are “blithely cannibalizing their grandchildren.”

I guess that means you’re not allowing Ann Coulter to comment here . . .

That said, I’d like to see Roy Moore be the next nominee. He was wrongly shafted out of his position in Alabama. You want a firebrand, a hard-right take-no-prisoners jurist? He’s your man.

I’d have no troubles with Ken Starr, either. All three exhibit integrity that most liberals can’t possibly understand.

SCOTUS is not suppose to be a political entity.

No.. SCOTUS is not meant to be a legislative entity. It’s still political.

Honorable service requires members of the court to be above politics and remain bound to the Constitution. They are not the writers of law, but only the interpreters. Justice Stevens has a long history of violating this principle, he is a paragon of judicial activism.

I certainly agree that there have been egregious abuses on the part of the entire court over the past few decades.

SCOTUS is not suppose to be a political entity. Honorable service requires members of the court to be above politics and remain bound to the Constitution. They are not the writers of law, but only the interpreters. Justice Stevens has a long history of violating this principle, he is a paragon of judicial activism.

Maxx on November 5, 2006 at 11:22 PM

Maxx nailed it!
I don’t wish the old fart ill personally and I hope he has a long life followed by a peaceful, painless death in private life, but he and those other 4 Liberal judicial tyrants (Ginsburg, Souder, Breyer and Kennedy) sure have shoved through some mighty bad law like Kelo and Hamdan.
I sure miss Justice Renquist and I sure love Alito & Roberts as well as Scalia and Thomas.

SCOTUS is, by design, just as political as any other branch of government

Nel, explain.

There’s not much to explain. SCOTUS is a fundamental part of the political system. It’s designed to be independent of either the Executive or Legislative branches and has been assigned a distinctly unique role relative to either of the other branches but that doesn’t make it apolitical.

SCOTUS is, by design, just as political as any other branch of government

Nel, explain.