but I would say. it is up to congress to say whether it is legal or not. and the fact they didnt, makes them assholes
Sure, I don’t think it’s necessarily dumb to have philosophical qualms about potentially hazardous imperfections in our whole system of checks and balances as they’ve evolved over centuries of constitutional interpretation.
But I maintain that it’s dumb to regard the modern notion of “judicial activism” as a mere avoidable malfunction of our court system that has been foisted on us by those “poor delusional liberals”.
Christ on a cracker. What part of the statement
do you consider constitutes “refusing to acknowledge” the fact that judicial ideological bias can and does take different directions?
What I am refusing to acknowledge, because it is dumb bullshit, is your persistent flailing attempt at an anti-liberal “gotcha” insinuation that any undesirable decisions a conservative-majority SCOTUS makes will somehow be liberals’ own fault for not having previously rejected “liberal judicial activism”.
There’s an interesting discussion to be had here about whether and how the term “judicial activism” can really be a meaningful and definable concept, and some other posters are valiantly trying to have that discussion. But your reiterated boogeyman hollers of HA HA LIBERALS NOW IT’S YOUR TURN TO BE SAD ABOUT ALL THIS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM YOU STARTED aren’t contributing anything useful to it.
Could not have said it better myself.
I always think that even if an OP isn’t worded intelligently enough to make a good argument, it should at least be worded explicitly enough to make a clear one.
We should not have had to wade through a literal gross of posts to finally get to the acknowledgement that all you wanted out of this “debate” was a chance to mock so-called “poor delusional liberals” based on your simplistic misunderstanding of constitutional jurisprudence.
Tell me that a year from now, when the conservative Judicial activism starts rolling in. I will still be here fighting against it. You will join me then.
How do you imagine you’re going to be “fighting against it” if you don’t support the courts having any role except to defer to the legislature’s enacted laws?
Conservative legislatures will be passing oppressive anti-liberal laws by the thousands, conservative courts will be meekly accepting them, and there you’ll be on the sidelines saying “Well done, courts! Way to refrain from that awful judicial activism!”
Yeah, I somehow don’t think I’ll be joining you there.
As much as I like Jefferson, he is just wrong about this.
Say you are a federal judge. Congress passes a law that says a person can be executed if the President deems him a danger to society. The prisoner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the law violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Do you apply the plain text of the Constitution, or just say, “Sorry, pal. I have no authority to invalidate a law that Congress passed. May God have mercy on your soul.” ?
I think it is inherent that a judge cannot apply a law that isn’t in conformity with the Constitution.
you already have. read your own post.
“Already have” what?
joined me. We agree. you just dont know it yet
you already joined me
What is it that you think I unknowingly agree with you about?
(You know, if you could persuade whoever’s rationing your word use to let you have more than ten or fifteen words per post, it would be easier for you to explain what you’re talking about without going back and forth half a dozen times.)
see above
read it again
I hate to disappoint your optimistic expectations, but the posters I end up genuinely agreeing with about Great Debates topics usually provide a lot more in the way of coherent rational arguments, and a lot less in the way of Magic-8-ball-style cryptic jabbering.
it is your words
No no, I just use a lot of words but they don’t actually belong to me. You are free to use as many of them as you need to convey your meaning, whatever it may be, in a clear and coherent way.
Because this verbal hyper-minimalism thing you’ve got going on now is, I’m sorry to say, not working at all in that regard.
The force is strong with you my young apprentice, you just need to be guided. I can show you the ways of the moderate republican force. You see it but don’t understand it. Together we can rule the SDMB.
Anyways i am going to bed.
I don’t see why a court responding to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must reach the question of whether the law is constitutional. They only need to address whether that particular person’s detainment is lawful.
~Max