|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 04/07/2012 : 15:13:56
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/05/attorney-general-three-page-letter-judge?newsfeed=true
What legal purpose could this possibly serve? I appreciate the irony of President Obama calling for judicial restraint, and I think it's wrong for Obama to bait the issue of an unelected judiciary being less legitimate in an attempt to support his legislation (and he knows better), but why isn't the response to this judge "go to hell"? It absolutely doesn't matter what the executive thinks the judicial is allowed to do, they can and should (and will) still make the decision independently.
Just seems disrespectful to the administration since it's utterly irrelevant.
|
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/07/2012 15:15:08
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 17:21:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/05/attorney-general-three-page-letter-judge?newsfeed=true
What legal purpose could this possibly serve? I appreciate the irony of President Obama calling for judicial restraint, and I think it's wrong for Obama to bait the issue of an unelected judiciary being less legitimate in an attempt to support his legislation (and he knows better), but why isn't the response to this judge "go to hell"? It absolutely doesn't matter what the executive thinks the judicial is allowed to do, they can and should (and will) still make the decision independently.
Just seems disrespectful to the administration since it's utterly irrelevant.
|
Agreed. I was surprised at Obama's gambit, considering he knows fully well the separation of powers and the Supreme courts job. Hell. He was the president of Harvard Law Review. But all things being equal, how many times were the courts accused of judicial activism by the right when the decisions were liberal? (Hint. Every time.)
In any case, while it wouldn't have been unseemly for the President to ratchet back his remarks, especially the "not elected" part, I don't know why they are answering this judge specially. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 18:54:00 [Permalink]
|
I agree, too, Mach. Dumb blunder on Obama's part. If the screams of "judicial activism" coming from the GOP all these years have been wrong-headed, they're equally bad coming from President Obama.
Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars comments upon it with his usual sense of actual fairness and balance. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/07/2012 18:59:51 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 19:06:12 [Permalink]
|
| Does he think he can have any effect on the decision by what he said? I don't think so, of course who knows what he's thinking. Maybe he's worried and the desperation welled up. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2012 : 23:50:39 [Permalink]
|
| Good articles. Glad to see people looking at these comments and the judge's response for what they are, beyond their own political positions. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2012 : 07:22:05 [Permalink]
|
What is funny about this.... Obama made essentially the same argument that the rightwingers have been making for years and those same rightwingers are bashing him for it. That is pretty fucking hilarious if you ask me.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2012 : 11:53:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
What is funny about this.... Obama made essentially the same argument that the rightwingers have been making for years and those same rightwingers are bashing him for it. That is pretty fucking hilarious if you ask me. |
I doubt most conservatives (or liberals for that matter) have said or agree with this statement by the President:
"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
When conservatives talk about judicial activism they are talking about judges coming up with brand new interpretations of the constitution to invalidate or uphold laws passed usually by states. It has nothing to do with overturning or upholding law but activism is based on how that decision was made. (strong majority is an outright lie btw)
For example the President said this:
“So, there is not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this. And I hope that is not forgotten in this political debate,"
This may be true but has nothing to do whether the healthcare bill is constitutional or not. If the healthcare decision is based on what the judges feel is right or just and not on the law then most conservatives would view that as judicial activism.
So the President is I think intentionally being dishonest when he paints conservatives as being hypocritical on this issue. Conservatives do not define judicial activism as following the constitution. The President apparently views judicial activism as anything that they disagree with him on. I think judges that have ruled to uphold the healthcare bill are activist in that they have to interpret the commerce clause in a new, never before way of somehow being able to regulate inaction as commerce.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2012 : 15:38:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Conservatives do not define judicial activism as following the constitution. |
 Of course they do! All the time! The Constitution forbids the teaching of religion in public schools, but you should hear the outraged accusations of judicial activism whenever a judge rules against creationists.
| The President apparently views judicial activism as anything that they disagree with him on. |
Which is exactly how conservatives use the term whenever a judge rules against them. If you don't think so, then you haven't been paying attention.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2012 : 16:22:33 [Permalink]
|
Conservative pundits have made the operational definition of "judicial activism" to be "any ruling we don't like, regardless of the Constitution."
There are many conservative pundits who even want to get rid of judicial review altogether.
Whether those pundits are a good representative sample of conservatives overall is a different but related question, but the squeaky wheel gets the press coverage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2012 : 17:01:33 [Permalink]
|
But you're comparing conservative pundits and religious fanatics to the president. I would argue conservatives in official capacities are not significantly more likely to make the argument that the president did. It has been more of a concern to conservatives in recent years for whatever reason, and so you hear more arguments about judicial activism from them, and so you hear it more often, but there is a legitimate argument to be made, and sometimes their arguments are reasonable.
I agree some legal decisions have been made on bases that are really stretches of the text of the Constitution and laws, which intelligent persons can reasonably disagree about the extent to which the arguments are relevant. It can be argued with little bearing to the political relevance of the decision. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2012 : 07:25:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Convinced
Conservatives do not define judicial activism as following the constitution. |
Of course they do! All the time! The Constitution forbids the teaching of religion in public schools, but you should hear the outraged accusations of judicial activism whenever a judge rules against creationists. |
Ok, but some conservatives don't think it violates the constitution. They don't view activism as a strict adherance to the constitution. No conservative would say activism is following the constitution, it is just that people disagree with what is or is not constitutional.
| The President apparently views judicial activism as anything that they disagree with him on. |
Which is exactly how conservatives use the term whenever a judge rules against them. If you don't think so, then you haven't been paying attention.
|
ok, so that's your arguement for letting the president get away with talking about judicial activism in the same way? Isn't it just as bad when the president does it as when conservatives do it? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2012 : 07:30:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
ok, so that's your arguement for letting the president get away with talking about judicial activism in the same way? |
Who is letting him get away with it? Screeching about judicial activism when the Court is doing what the Constitution mandates it do is dumb when conservatives do it, and it's dumb when the President does it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2012 : 08:33:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
ok, so that's your arguement for letting the president get away with talking about judicial activism in the same way? |
I didn't make an argument defending Obama.
Isn't it just as bad when the president does it as when conservatives do it?
|
Yes. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2012 : 08:43:13 [Permalink]
|
Ed Brayton's take on the Republican's response to Obama's accusations: Watching the Republicans break their ankles trying to do an abrupt about-face and suddenly wax eloquent about their deep and abiding love of the federal courts in response to Obama’s recent statements on the health care reform case is bad enough, but the true idiocy is found in the repeated declaration that Obama is trying to “intimidate” the Supreme Court in the case.
Republican politicians have made that claim repeatedly. Ed Meese, of all people, has said it.
| “I think he is trying to intimidate the court, or at least trying to in effect rile up the public against the court — if they should make a decision which is constitutional, and which is adverse to him,” declared Meese in an exclusive interview on Wednesday. “I think that’s why he’s doing it.” |
Seriously, from the people who threw a temper tantrum — and continue to throw one — over Roe v Wade? Who are still complaining about the Supreme Court taking prayer out of schools? Who are still freaking out over the rulings on flag burning and state sodomy laws? The people who have actually submitted bills to strip the court of jurisdiction to hear church/state cases? The people who have openly fantasized, as Newt Gingrich did during the campaign, about Congress being able to haul justices before the court to demand explanations for rulings they don’t like, and even send federal marshals to arrest judges to force them to testify?
Anyone remember Tom DeLay? When federal judges refused to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, he threw a fit and said, “Judges need to be intimidated … we’re going to go after them big time.” |
What Obama said is stupid. But the Republican hypocrisy is off the charts.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
 |
|
Judge Demands Executive Write Paper
