[Olog-hai]

From post #20.

---

Activists judges on the left should not excuse nor encourage judicial activism from the right.

---

I do not respond to non-existent statements, i.e. if I can help it.

Protecting someone from a criminal act of course should start at the municipal level and not have to reach state level, much less federal. However, the judge in question is falsely invoking First Amendment protections for the act in question, and this does not kick the issue back down to state level.

[traderrob6]

You misinterpreted what I said. I was hypothetically stating that “potentially” one does not demand similar behavior from the other.

I stand by my statement of never stating or implied that “there IS or WAS” judicial activism on the right. Although some might disagree with that.

I wasn’t aware that it was common practice for a Federal judge to kick an issue to a state court or vise versa.

[traderrob6]

‘As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault. FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce.

‘The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature,’ Friedman said.

“He wrote: ‘FGM is a “local criminal activity” which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress.”

I did not read the 28 page decision but it certainly appears that his decision was based on an invalid (overstretching) usage of the Commerce Clause by Congress when drafting the law. I saw no reference to his relying on a conflict with First Amendment protections for his decision.