Judicial activism by conservatives

The Los Angeles Times ^ | June 27, 2008 | Erwin Chemerinsky

[singfreedom]

That’s probably why they don’t have youngsters “diagram” sentences anymore.

[realdifferent1]

I sure that giving HC to terrorists was not ‘activism’ in the writer’s eye though.

[iopscusa]

Well folks the 1st battle of the 2nd CW has been fought and the results are available for all to see and hear. Let’s keep this fight in the forefront and remember the vast majority of voters are we the people and our rights as duly noted in the BoR’s and Federalist papers...let’s take it to the next level.

[muir_redwoods]

"If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions."

Here's the weak point in this argument, Judicial Activism means violating the constitution, not acting affirmatively in its defense. Judicial restraint means adhering to the constitution and not seeing penumbras where none exist.

[kevkrom]

He's basically just recycling Stevens' dissenting opinion, which Scalia tore to shreds in the Court's opinion.

The Court never ruled either way on what the 2nd Amednment applies to, until yesterday. Miller does not say what this moron wants it to say, and Scalia's opinion is quite clear and detailed as to how the Heller opinion in no way contradicts or invalidates any prior decision by the Court (quite likely, this language was added to secure Kennedy's concurrence).

[sergeantdave]

So this moron believes the 2nd says, “The right of the Army to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

He’d like it to say, “The right of my Marxist buddies to shoot people shall not be infringed.”

[Condor51]

This Erwin Chemerinsky is a moron.

He's 100% wrong about Miller and its apparent this jackass didn't even bother to read the decision, Majority Opinion by Justice Scalia, before writing this tripe.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Deviance from the Constitution is Activism, Liberalism, Fascism, Evil.

A shift back to the Constitution is right. Not Activism, not Right-Wing, just RIGHT.

And thw WRONG hate it when that happens.

[Kaslin]

Where is the barf alert?

[PapaBear3625]

In the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case "Dred Scott v Sanford", the reason that Chief Justice Taney gave as to why blacks could not be considered full citizens of the United States was:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State

Since Taney regarded as ridiculous that a black man could have the above enumerated rights of a citizen of the United States, he decided that Dred Scott could not have those rights

[<1/1,000,000th%]

More 10-year-old scholarship from the left.

[SoCal Pubbie]

You missed the pit of my post. I know he has a law degree, I know he presents cases before the court, I know he's the dean of a law school, right in my backyard. However, IMHO, a true lawyer, outside the court, would present the law as a set of fixed principles that could be applied evenly across a broad spectrum of issues. Chemerinsky does no such thing. His interpretations of the law ALWAYS follow an extreme leftist point of view, and the way he applies statutes or rulings can be very contradictory from one issue to another. As I wrote, he is a political animal, not a lawyer. The words "out of the mainstream" will flow for his lips as often as "habeas corpus" or "rules of evidence."

[Texas Federalist]

If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

No, "judicial activism" means to engage in legal reasoning to achieve a predetermined result.

[traviskicks]

Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.

LOL!

I don't know why, this reminded me of this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1672282/posts?page=1

Worse, these alleged academies, these dark nights of the soul encourage moral depravity. This is not just my opinion. It can be shown statistically. Virtually all practitioners of I-banking, advertising, and law began by going to some university. Go to Manhattan and visit any prestigious nest of foul attorneys engaged in circumventing the law. Most will have attended schools in the Ivy League. The better the school, the worse the outcome. Any trace of principle, of contemplative wonder, will have been squeezed out of them as if they were grapes.

[traviskicks]

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
- Tench Coxe

[Amerigomag]

We are the militia.

My disappointment with the court's decision was its failure to recognize that ownership of guns was prompted by the need to protect the citizenship from the politcal class.

We are indeed the militia !. Our cause it to protect this great republic from its worst enemy; its own elected politcal class.

[MrB]

“Constitutional Law” has nothing to do with the actual Constitution.

[MrB]

Read up on “deconstructionism” and the “Postmodern” worldview.

This is what these leftist morons have been trained and “educated” in.

“Feminist studies” is notorious for its “deconstructionist” views of historical documents. Basically, their viewpoint is that the writers of those documents were white, sexist, patriarchical, male slaveholders, so their writings should be dismissed as meaningless.

[MrB]

Guys like this are po’d because they are fascists, and whenever the people retain a right to resist their forced implementation of totalitarian collectivism, it really sets them back.

[MrB]

I wouldn’t make the mistake that libs like this are stupid - they’re not. They’re EVIL.