Posts Tagged ‘judicial activism’

Love it

I took a brief break from watching or listening to politics altogether as a personal experiment. As I thought, my life changed none, and I am way more relaxed now. This was the first day I listened again and immediately heard something stupid:

Six attorneys are going to decide if a law a state made is legal or not. The six attorneys should stay out of the state’s business because that messes with the Democratic process.

The six attorneys being denounced as useless and in the way happen to be the Supreme Court of the US, and the law that was made legal was the gay marriage law. Now it gets interesting if you know how to argue.

The person I was listening to clearly had no skill in framing his position, almost to the point that he could not justify why he thought this way. I hate but cannot remember what radio talk show I was listening to when I heard this. This was a Republican Congressional member from the West somewhere, possibly CO or WY making this statement. He is suggesting that judges are participating in judicial activism, and they would never do that (sarcasm intended). The odd thing was he was defending gay marriage rights, which I care neither way. I say let them marry, who does it harm? Anyway, this guy was suggesting that if a state passes a law, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction which = absurdity. If that were the case, then there would be all sorts of oppressive laws out there (and that is a guarantee). It is the judicial branch’s job to check the power and Constitutionality of laws created by the legislator. If the dispute is not resolved at the lower courts – for you dummies out there, I am talking about the States themselves – then it goes Federal. That is the process and always has been. Is this Congressional member (someone who represents others) suggesting the Supreme Court should not exist or is only in existence to clear up Federal disputes? Once again, absurd.

Second, the democratic process – voting for something – is not a fail proof way of making laws. Remember everyone before you go off pissing in my drink, there used to be laws like this and if I remember correctly, women and colored people were excluded because of a law like this. The white men said they were the only ones who could vote, passed a law by popular vote due to the fact that only they could vote, and by popular vote, they won. Go figure.

For the record, where I am concerned, the “six attorneys” are very relevant although a small amount of judicial activism is unavoidable. Reason I say that is everyone has an opinion. I staunchly disagreed with Obama Care, but the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax. Granted this was sold as something and argued as something else, that is not what the Supreme Court took into account. They looked at the fact that Obama Care was a tax and said Congress could do it. Not being overly happy about that decision did not make me say the Supreme Court should not exist or that the twelve judges are somehow outdated or irrelevant.

I guess after being away from politics for a couple of weeks, and coming back today, I immediately picked up on something extremely stupid. A false anger and fake argument. I did agree with his overall assessment that marriage should be between anyone who wants it and meets a certain age (18 without parental consent). I just would have argued this differently and noted how many judges actually sit on the Supreme Court.

– Me


ObamaCare on the Defense?

The Supreme Court finished hearing the arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I am against this and was at the time of passing. I am for certain aspects of it, like the pre-existing conditions, etc. . . Here is the nuts and bolts of the new Left argument. The Obama Administration failed miserably through the Solicitor General and the Bill looks as though it will fail miserably. There appeared to be times the Liberal leaning judges tried to HELP explain on behalf of the bill and the Conservative judges picked it apart. That is no surprise to anyone I would argue.

Here is where the propaganda comes in. The Left is now claiming the Supreme Court is too Republican, and only on those merits are going to deem the law unconstitutional. They are setting up the excuses now in anticipation the law will be struck down. Some on the Left are even claiming the Supreme Court is exercising “judicial activism”, or will “lose legitimacy” if the law is overturned. What a joke of a political comment. These idiots are posturing before a single vote is cast. Interesting; makes me think they KNOW it is going to be struck down.

A point of note (please click the link and look at the numbers) is 48% of cases in 2010 were decided 9-0, 13% 8-1, 15% 7-2, 5% 6-3 and 20% 5-4. Is it political and judicial activism when the Justices agree unanimously almost half the time, or only when things don’t seem to go their way? I suggest the Left is terrified the legislation is gone, and when that happens, the process would have to start over. I personally hope it does, and take the B/S out of it this time – and READ it for crying out loud. Anyway, the Left is always on a new talking point in a failed attempt to once again become the victim. I am tired of the same old tired attitude of the Left, when they tend to get most everything they want. Saying the Supreme Court loses legitimacy if a decision does not go your way is simple disregard for the law. If they find this bill to be legal, then I am on board, I just hope they do not.

–          Me

%d bloggers like this: