Posted on 06/29/2008 7:41:23 PM PDT by TheDon
The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.
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.
...
What then explains the court's decision to strike down the D.C. law? Conservative political ideology. The majority followed prevailing conservative political philosophy and found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
And he lies alot.
I’ll never forget watching this weak whiney liberal lecture on Consitutional law for bar prep classes.
Erwin believes that only liberals can use the court to rewrite the law.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Maybe it is prevailing conservative political philosophy. However, let's not forget those "evolving standards of decency" that was recently cited in a certain Supreme Court case. And, regardless, the justices simply applied the words of the Second Amendment, literally...something that is not at all judicial activism, to anyone who has ever taken a proper U.S. civics course, commonly taught in both middle or junior high and senior high school.
In order to be an activist judge, you need to rule AGAINST the U.S. Constitution.
Ruling in favor of the 2nd amendment is what originalist judges do, and rightfully so.
A Court is "activist when it is throwing out the Constitution of the United States in favor of some "agenda for change" you moron.
Quick! Call the Whaaaamulance!!!
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
James Madison was a Conservative Activist!
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... “
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Samuel Adams was a Conservative activist!
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
Thomas Jefferson was a conservative activist!
Quotes from George Mason University
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
“And he lies alot.” and contradicts himself.
“Erwin Chemerinsky argues in today’s L.A. Times that Heller is an example of judicial activism:
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.
Chemerinsky says that when a constitutional provision is ambiguous, judicial restraint counsels that the Supreme Court defer to legislative enactments:
At the very least, one would expect that a high court committed to judicial restraint would have used the 2nd Amendment’s ambiguity to defer to the political process and to follow precedent.
Here is a persuasive case for the opposite view, arguing that ambiguous constitutional provisions should be resolved by the Court:
Mark, you say you’ve never heard a persuasive argument as to why someone committed to “democracy” would want courts to determine the meaning of the Constitution when there is disagreement over its meaning. I think that the basic answer came from Marbury v. Madison: the limits of the Constitution have no meaning if they are not enforced and the other branches of government see their role as pleasing constituents, not upholding the Constitution.
. . . .
The core of your position seems to be that if there is disagreement over the meaning of the Constitution, there is no reason to prefer having the court make the choice rather than the political process. My view, in contrast, is that society is better off having an institution largely insulated from majoritarian politics determine the meaning of the Constitution and enforce it.
Well said.
You might be interested to know who made this argument. He is a well-known law professor by the name of Erwin Chemerinsky.”
http://patterico.com/2008/06/27/chemerinsky-v-chemerinsky/
Yep. he sure does.
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.
What frightens me is the thought that many Americans are too poorly educated to see through this lie.
Erwin is to the left of Lenin. Quoting Erwin on the Constitution is like quoting Karen Carpenter on nutrition.
Hey Erwin (nice name), the only agenda the 5 majority justices on the court were pursuing was that of protecting the Second Amendment. DumbAss.
I’d say by his actions King George was a Democrat.
Case closed.
Marxists teaching conlaw.....the gospel of Antonio Gramsci.
Nobody's rewriting the law.
The Constitution doesn't give any rights to anyone.
It states that GOD gives us our rights and it then goes on to state what limitations there are on the Government to infringe those rights.
Your right to carry a gun is not "given" in the Constitution, you had it already.
What IS in the Constitution is a clear declaration that the Government shall not take that right away, and by thus stating so, validates that that right exists. It doesn't state that it is an individual right or a collective right, because frankly, that's irrelevant.
Chemerinsky quickly and vehemently argued the statement was clearly wrong.
At which point, the other guy pointed out that Chemerinsky, himself had written it a few years prior.
He’s a contrarian asshat who argues whatever point is expedient to his self-serving agenda.
“the only agenda the 5 majority justices on the court were pursuing was that of protecting the Second Amendment.”
Exactly. An activist judge is a judge who “sees” something in the Constitution that is not THERE.
The left thinks an activist judge is someone who doesn’t agree with their leftist ideology.
Erwin Cherminisky reveals himself to be a true Marxist in the mold of Sol Alinsky, Obama’s Marxist idol. Who else would be a dean of Law at an American university? He’s probably positioning himself for a Supreme Court nomination. Te nation needs a good old fashioned enema to flush the garbage out of the system.
Dear LA Times,
This is why you’re going to go out of business.
We won’t miss you.
Good bye.
Don’t forget to write. (Just kidding. We actually hate your writings.)
Sincerely,
Coloradan and millions of other Americans.
How is reaffirming the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment “judicial activism”?
How is upholding the Second Amendment an example of judicial activism?
They sure whine when they lose, don’t they?
I bet it was quite intolerable...
LOL! I figured his argument sounded rather odd coming from him.
LOL!
Which is why I got tired of listening to his drivel. I’ve listened enough to liberals to know it is a complete waste of time. If they at least made logical arguments, they might be worth listening to.
To all journalistic nitwits out there: the past 60 years hardly define "originalism", and Miller decided nothing. You have been reading from the NYT playbook and drinking the Democratic Kool-Aid, and now you have been beeyotch-slapped back into reality when you forced the interpretation of the 2A to the Supreme Court. Deal with it. You can whine and delude yourselves all you want, but we, the people, won. We don't need the blessing of the USSC but we now have it. So please, take your whining elsewhere and save the whales or something. You no longer have any purchase on our rights. You are like a squeaky hinge on a gatepost in the night; annoying yet harmless. Like a barking miniature terrier. Ankle biters. Let better men and women than you handle their own affairs. Freedom has asserted itself once again, and you'd best steer clear of subjects you know nothing of and hide behind your desk.
Let me correct that. “In upholding the 2nd ammendment”
What’s activist about upholding the second amendment? Everyone has a right to defend himself and to have a gun. That’s activism to enforce the intent of the 2nd amendment?
DUH...like, how stupid are you? It overturns past precedent of judicial decisions that undermine the original intent. Like, everyone knows THAT!
That’s not exactly accurate. He is not correct that this is an activist ruling in the first place. In fact, it should have been less timid than it was.
The Supreme Court "found" nothing, of course. It merely reaffirmed the Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms and told a government entity to stop trampling on that right. Gee, that is some activism....
Hehe, this guy Chemerinsky is quite the pantload. He sounds like he's been taking lessons from George "rhymes with" on how to lie.
Anyone who listens to the Hugh Hewitt Show has had to suffer thought the stupidity of Erwin Chemerinsky. He is the type of attorney that all of us love to hate. He is truly on the lunatic fringe. He isn’t even a liberal,he is on the very far far left. He really makes me sick. I despise this guy. He is wrong on just about every issue. Left unchecked this is type of man who will destroy America. In earlier times he would have been “tared and feathered”.
Eriwn's a smart guy, and must know this.
So he's either engaging in rhetorical excess, or he's lying.
Not to disagree or bandy words, but how smart could this guy be, really?
It’s easy to say anything when you don’t have to worry about adhering to any principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.