Posted on 02/01/2010 9:33:43 AM PST by steve-b
The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Obama's criticisms of the Supreme Court's recent legislation -- excuse me, decision -- opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money.
Alito's inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.
Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed "not true." His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.
The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology.
The movement's legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades.
There is ample precedent for Obama's firm but respectful rebuke of the court. I know of no one on the right who protested when President Ronald Reagan, in a 1983 article in the Human Life Review, took on the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of 10 years earlier....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Alito’s inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.”
No, the SCOTUS is dominated by judges who rule by LAW, not the whim of the other branches of government. This is the brilliance behind our founding father’s... to prevent ninny’s like you from ruling government.
His was the honest reaction of being confronted by a president making blatant lies to the American people. He does have the obligation to impose the Constitutional version of right and reason on any law or ruling brought before the Supreme Court. The fact that Obama feels compelled to lie to the American people should be of greater concern than mouthed words to any organization that dares to refer to itself as one with a journalistic goal. Obviously the compost is aptly named as it fails at it's core stated purpose.
Funny how they spin this and not mention "opening our electoral system to a new torrent of "SEIU/UAW/Teanmsters" money" too.
Not just. As I understand it, they also overturned laws and precedents restricting corporate speech going back a number of decades.
I happen to think this was a good decision, but it's a whole lot more sweeping than MF.
The answer to getting corporate influence out of government is to minimize government involvement in business. Nothing else will work. Business has far more influence in government in Europe than here, it's just more under the table.
Everyone on FR already knows steve-b is an asshole, oh yeah the same goes for EJ as well.
The author needs a brain transplant.
I agree. It's mindboggling.
His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.
I'm sure Dionne wrote this with a straight fact, with utterly no concept whatsoever of the irony.
Yes, because an article written in the Human Life Review is equivalent of Obozo calling out the SCOTUS on National Television during the SOTU (AKA, the Mistake of the Union) address. What a friggin idiot.
And it should not pass notice that SEIU (Andy Stern) has gone global as have the ACORN scum, so foreign money will be poured into SEIU and ACORN and thus into democrat election coffers.
judicial activist???? IMPOSE his version??? Unbelievable!
Crap. You stole my response. :-P
Better call E.J. a waaaambualance. What a whining POS.
The SCOTUS does ok at rule of law. Not great, but ok. Rule "by" law is something the ChiComs do and have set up in opposition to Western attempts to institute Rule of Law reforms in Asian countries. Rule by law merely means that the state uses something that resembles laws on the books to regulate their citizenry. The state ignores or reinterprets those laws when inconvenient.
Rule of law means that the law on the books actually acts to restrain the state in a meaningful fashion. China is not a rule of law state, except by accident. We are doing ok at rule of law, but poseurs like Zero and the uneducated and/or fascist leftists who voted for him are doing their level best to change that.
Also, for the founders, the SCOTUS was relatively limited. Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison more or less usurped sufficient power from the executive and legislative branches to promote the court to a co-equal branch. So at the time of the founding (circa 1792), SCOTUS was weak, but within a few years it grabbed the power it has today.
Libs only like free speech when it suits their purposes. Freedom for me and not for thee, and all that. BTW, the poster of this article forgot the Dionne, mega-hurl alert.
It's good to see the psychosis of leftists like Dionne.
E.J. Dionne is a pompous ass. He interprets events through his liberal colored glasses to make things fit his idiot interpretations. He is a disgrace.
*eyeroll* So now that they are interperting the constitution the way it was wrote instead of the wishful way liberals want to bend it somehow that is wrong? Give me a break.
EJ, these two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive of each other (you effin twit!)
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.