YES, that’s precisely the point. Nothing more.
How about interpreting the Constitution too? Surely that’s part of their job, isn’t it?
Maybe the land of snark, but my point is that referring to state behavior as childish really trivializes the issues I’m talking about.
I’m not sure what feds did to stop lynchings. That’s a great question. I do know, however, that the feds did a lot to stop segregation and Jim Crow, and these are also behaviors that I don’t consider childish, but rather consider to represent a segment of the country being overrun with prejudice, and the country as a whole stepping in to rectify the situation.
Daniel
I agree with that. Although I believe substantive due process is flawed, I also agree that we’ve built a complex system of case law that relies on it, and it would be nearly suicidal to simply erase all of that in one fell swoop.
So I don’t say that we should bring a large eraser to the last 100 years of case law.
I DO say, however, that we stop the madness. What the system has built, we - generally - live with. What we stop doing is continue to add SDP-based precedent to the body of case law.
Stop the “madness”? Just for once, how about you post to a thread about the Constitution and refrain from overblown rhetoric, using the word “Lochner”, or blaming every poor judicial decision on what you call “activism”. If you’re feeling especially spry, perhaps you could avoid setting your little “judges should find justice” trap and making wagers. Just for a change, you know. Broaden your horizons.
Geeze. Do I have to trade in my car and quit watching my favorite TV shows too? Ye gods, man, leave me something.
If it is not legitimate to use judicial power to promote social change, why is legitimate to use it to impede?
It isn’t. But it’s generally the left that likes to make shit up and try to justify it afterword.
I didn’t say state behavior was childish.
So why did you bring up lynchings then if it doesn’t support your argument?
It doesn’t take more than the plain reading of the 14th amendment to overturn Jim Crow laws. I don’t see a problem with that. When the Federal courts require forced busing to achieve some broad social goal, that’s reaching far being the intent of the law. When the SCOTUS upholds racial preferences in Affirmative Action policies, that goes against the plain text reading of the 14th amendment.
Given that Bush may nominate 3 SC justices by the time he leaves office, are you sure you want that body to be promoting social change? Change isn’t unidirectional, as I’m sure you know.
So, that’s it? All we gotta do is dump affirmative action and you’ll start munching granola and singing “Kumbaya”?
How’s the search for WMD coming?
Aye, ye got me there. But my prophesies are what should be, not necessarily what will be.
I don’t buy the argument that conservatives want “strict constructionism” or “literalism” or whatever term that you choose. Let’s face it- each side has an agenda. If a strict reading of the Constitution serves the agenda, then that’s what is read. If you have to go beyond what’s written to serve the agenda, then that’s what you do. Look how the liberal and conservative wings of the court flip-flopped in Bush v Gore. A strict reading of the Constitution would have found nothing to justify overruling the Florida Supreme Court, yet look how the votes fell.
Let’s hope that this radical appointment wakes up the progressive crowd and they get off their asses in 2008 and vote to take back the country. I look forward to the day when President John Edwards replaces Justice Scalia.
Fine. YOu said you don’t understand this fear that the states are like children. I have no such fear. Does that suffice?
This was an outright poor choice on my part; thus the comment about “great question,” and the shift of subject.
I’ll shift subject again: I believe that the court’s mandating of the first amendment on the state level has been a very positive thing, especially for nonChristians in the south, as one group.
Daniel
I’ll happily read you say that was just a wee bit of hyperbole. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to cite and link to an important case in which judges did whatever they pleased totally without regard to the written law?
Just curious – what is Rush & Co.'s spin on this whole situation? Do they posit that it’s GWB’s craftiness in action or did they actually turn against him?
Even if you got a President John Edwards, where do you think Justice Scalia is going, anyway? Does he have some kind of illness the rest of us aren’t privy to, or???
Well he was born in 1936. If Edwards were to be elected in 2008 and reelected in 2012, Scalia would be have to live and serve beyond 80 in order to avoid an Edwards nomination to replace him. Not sure what the actuarial odds are of that, but I’m just guessing that he wouldn’t.
Please pass this happy train of thought on to Justice Stevens (Born: April 20, 1920), would you? I’d love to get him retired and replaced.
Three words for you, sir: Oliver Wendell Holmes