The truth about "activist judges" (political stuff) - GoFuckYourself.com

Mr.Fiction · 07-24-2002, 02:35 AM

I was arguing with some talk radio ranter the other day on GFY and he was trying to claim that activist judges are usually liberal. Here is a statistic I just found today that I thought he might find interesting. Talk radio won't tell you this, because talk radio is not about truth, it's about propaganda.

The most liberal Supreme Court in recent U.S. history was statistically far less "activist" than the current conservative activist Supreme Court. These statistics do nothing less than prove that conservatives, not liberals, are actually the activist judges, at least at the highest levels.

Interesting that Rush Limbaugh and his followers scream all day about "activist judges" when they are the ones who own the most activist Supreme Court in recent United States history. I'm sure that's not hypocrisy, though.

Here are the facts:

Conservatives, including President Bush, have criticized "judicial activism," or the substitution of a judge's own views for established law. Conservatives have pointed to the civil rights-era decisions of the court under Chief Justice Warren Burger as examples of such activism.

Critics on the left have countered, as Clinton did Tuesday, that activism is often in the eye of the beholder.

While the court has the power to strike down federal laws, it has been historically reluctant to do so, Clinton noted.

The (liberal) Warren court struck down federal laws in about 20 cases over 16 years, she said. The (conservative) Rehnquist court, in the last eight terms alone, has done so in 32 cases.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...0723_1999.html

Frank W · 07-24-2002, 05:31 AM

It really depends on how you define "activist" -- if you look at Scalia's record, he sides with liberals enough times to make you wonder if this guy really is on a crusade to steer the court's jurisprudence rightward.

12clicks · 07-24-2002, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
I was arguing with some talk radio ranter the other day on GFY and he was trying to claim that activist judges are usually liberal. Here is a statistic I just found today that I thought he might find interesting. Talk radio won't tell you this, because talk radio is not about truth, it's about propaganda.

The most liberal Supreme Court in recent U.S. history was statistically far less "activist" than the current conservative activist Supreme Court. These statistics do nothing less than prove that conservatives, not liberals, are actually the activist judges, at least at the highest levels.

Interesting that Rush Limbaugh and his followers scream all day about "activist judges" when they are the ones who own the most activist Supreme Court in recent United States history. I'm sure that's not hypocrisy, though.

Here are the facts:

Conservatives, including President Bush, have criticized "judicial activism," or the substitution of a judge's own views for established law. Conservatives have pointed to the civil rights-era decisions of the court under Chief Justice Warren Burger as examples of such activism.

Critics on the left have countered, as Clinton did Tuesday, that activism is often in the eye of the beholder.

While the court has the power to strike down federal laws, it has been historically reluctant to do so, Clinton noted.

The (liberal) Warren court struck down federal laws in about 20 cases over 16 years, she said. The (conservative) Rehnquist court, in the last eight terms alone, has done so in 32 cases.

well, that WOULD be the liberals take on it.

The bill of rights LIMITS the power of the government. Therefore, a court who strikes down laws is following the constitution by limiting the power of government. an ACTIVIST court invents and implies things that aren't in the constitution.
Liberals, as we all should know, expand the power of the government.

jimmyf · 07-24-2002, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

well, that WOULD be the liberals take on it.

The bill of rights LIMITS the power of the government. Therefore, a court who strikes down laws is following the constitution by limiting the power of government. an ACTIVIST court invents and implies things that aren't in the constitution.
Liberals, as we all should know, expand the power of the government.

I just can not help myself. I must agree with you once again.

And Mr.Fiction, it looks to me like anyone that does not agree with you is a talk radio ranter. It may come as a surprise to you but not everyone that may disagree with you listens to talk radio. I know I don't. My TV is on CNN (AKA Clinton News Network), as I want to know what you Liberals are up to....

Mr.Fiction · 07-24-2002, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

well, that WOULD be the liberals take on it.

The bill of rights LIMITS the power of the government. Therefore, a court who strikes down laws is following the constitution by limiting the power of government. an ACTIVIST court invents and implies things that aren't in the constitution.
Liberals, as we all should know, expand the power of the government.

You are now contradicting conservatives, not liberals. Bush and his right wing media robots slam the "activist" courts for overturning laws that were put in place by congress. Remember, it is Bush and conservatives, not liberals, who are saying this about the Warren court. They repeatedly attack the Warren Supreme Court for overturning laws, not for not overturning them. You are not arguing with liberals, you are now disagreeing with your conservative masters. Be careful, you might get kicked out of the Rush Limbaugh fan club for this type of talk.

I'm sure you are joking about liberals and big government as well. Bush has done more to expand the power of government in 2 years than Clinton ever dreamed of in 8 years. Clinton balanced the budget, Bush broke the budget. I could go on, but I'm sure you know all of this and you're just kidding.

12clicks · 07-24-2002, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
I just can not help myself. I must agree with you once again.

Stop stalking me, I'm not really gay.

Gutterboy · 07-24-2002, 06:09 AM

The difference is simple..

Judge rules for a conservative cause = Prudent interpreter of the law.

Judge rules for a liberal cause = Liberal, secular humanist, atheistic, ungodly, anti-american Judicial activist.

See the reaction to the recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance by the 9th Circuit for proof of this. Whether you like it or not, the 3 judge panel was exercising legitimate judicial power in deciding the Constitutionality of a State mandated practice. That is what courts do. Now you might not agree with the decision, but it certainly wasn't activism or "legislating from the bench" as conservatives have hysterically and dishonestly labelled it.

Also note that Dubya is making a conscious effort to stack the Federal Judiciary with anti-abortion conservative ideologues. That is plainly judicial activism, yet its not called that because the activism - to republicans at least - is going their way.

Gutterboy · 07-24-2002, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
an ACTIVIST court invents and implies things that aren't in the constitution.

What you really mean is "invents and implies things that I don't think can be derived from the constitution."

I'm sure the realization that the Supreme Court has the temerity to disagree with you on matters of Constitutional interpretation is upsetting, but thats hardly a good definition of judicial activism

12clicks · 07-24-2002, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

You are now contradicting conservatives, not liberals. Bush and his right wing media robots slam the "activist" courts for overturning laws that were put in place by congress. Remember, it is Bush and conservatives, not liberals, who are saying this about the Warren court. They repeatedly attack the Warren Supreme Court for overturning laws, not for not overturning them. You are not arguing with liberals, you are now disagreeing with your conservative masters. Be careful, you might get kicked out of the Rush Limbaugh fan club for this type of talk.

I'm sure you are joking about liberals and big government as well. Bush has done more to expand the power of government in 2 years than Clinton ever dreamed of in 8 years. Clinton balanced the budget, Bush broke the budget. I could go on, but I'm sure you know all of this and you're just kidding.

I love liberals who are scared shitless of Rush Limbaugh.
Personally, I can't listen to the bore.

The truth of the matter is that warren overturned laws *BY* inventing and implying things that aren't in the constitution and a more conservative court overturned laws *BECAUSE* they intented and implied things that aren't in the constitution.

Unless you have facts/examples backing up your *interpretation* of whats going on in the courts, you're just another liberal ranter.

show us some laws struck down.
or take the liberal way and argue a different point.

12clicks · 07-24-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gutterboy

What you really mean is "invents and implies things that I don't think can be derived from the constitution."

I'm sure the realization that the Supreme Court has the temerity to disagree with you on matters of Constitutional interpretation is upsetting, but thats hardly a good definition of judicial activism

hey liberal, "derived" and "interpretation" are *YOUR* words not mine.
the constitution says it, or it doesn't.

You liberals like to "derive" and "interpret" the constitution. I just read it and understand it.

Gutterboy · 07-24-2002, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

You liberals like to "derive" and "interpret" the constitution. I just read it and understand it.

Me too. That is why I vigorously support the right to bear flintlocks and muzzle load rifles as per the Second Amendment.

Interpret away.

12clicks · 07-24-2002, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gutterboy

Me too. That is why I vigorously support the right to bear flintlocks and muzzle load rifles as per the Second Amendment.

Interpret away.

dude, I didn't expect you to fall apart so soon. most liberals can spin a better story before admitting defeat.

Gutterboy · 07-24-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

dude, I didn't expect you to fall apart so soon. most liberals can spin a better story before admitting defeat.

I don't interpret the Second Amendment that way either, the point was just that there is interpretation going on.

What leads you to believe I'm a liberal?

Pathfinder · 07-24-2002, 07:02 AM

Virtually every aspect of the constitution is interpreted, and the result of the interpretation is based upon the political bias of the ones doing the interpretation.

Pathfinder · 07-24-2002, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gutterboy

I don't interpret the Second Amendment that way either, the point was just that there is interpretation going on.

What leads you to believe I'm a liberal?

I like to think of myself as being a moderate.

hyper · 07-24-2002, 03:51 PM

why dont you and massivecock become roomies

Mr.Fiction · 07-24-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hyper
why dont you and massivecock become roomies

I pointed out blatant hypocrisy of right wingers using unarguable statistical data. The only argument came from 12 Clicks and even he basically agreed with Hillary Clinton and said that Bush is full of shit when he accuses lefties of judicial activism.

If you are talking about the fact that Massive Cock and I both post political threads on an adult webmaster board, then I can understand your comment.

Finally, if you don't think that right wing activist judges are an important issue to the adult industry, then you aren't paying attention.

Sly_RJ · 07-24-2002, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gutterboy
Also note that Dubya is making a conscious effort to stack the Federal Judiciary with anti-abortion conservative ideologues. That is plainly judicial activism, yet its not called that because the activism - to republicans at least - is going their way.

Before you bark about Dubya, you might want to go check a history book to see what FDR did about the Federal Supreme Court judges.

Mr.Fiction · 07-24-2002, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

Before you bark about Dubya, you might want to go check a history book to see what FDR did about the Federal Supreme Court judges.

Even if I were to agree with you about FDR, that's like saying we shouldn't complain about racism today because slavery was worse. We shouldn't complain about anti semitism or neo nazis because Hitler was worse, right? What does one have to do with the other?

Bush and the talk radio drones have gone on and on for years about how horrible activist judges are. This while the current conservative supreme court is one of the most activist political courts in the history of this country.

Even while Bush yells about "activist judges" out of one side of his mouth, he tries to appoint extremist activist judges out of the other side. Even Republicans in Texas admit that Priscilla Owen is an extremist, but Bush continues to support her. Why? Because she is an activist and an extremist who supports Bush's views.

Who can argue that there is not rank hypocrisy coming from the right on this issue?

Sly_RJ · 07-24-2002, 05:18 PM

Good Lord man! I was not arguing about anything in this thread but the claim that Dubya was planning on stacking the judges. ANY president with half a brain would do that. FDR wanted to ADD more judges just so he could get more Democrats on board. THAT was my sole argument, nothing else.

And the reasons FDR wanted to do so are completely irrelevant.

07-24-2002, 02:35 AM	#1
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	The truth about "activist judges" (political stuff) I was arguing with some talk radio ranter the other day on GFY and he was trying to claim that activist judges are usually liberal. Here is a statistic I just found today that I thought he might find interesting. Talk radio won't tell you this, because talk radio is not about truth, it's about propaganda. The most liberal Supreme Court in recent U.S. history was statistically far less "activist" than the current conservative activist Supreme Court. These statistics do nothing less than prove that conservatives, not liberals, are actually the activist judges, at least at the highest levels. Interesting that Rush Limbaugh and his followers scream all day about "activist judges" when they are the ones who own the most activist Supreme Court in recent United States history. I'm sure that's not hypocrisy, though. Here are the facts: Conservatives, including President Bush, have criticized "judicial activism," or the substitution of a judge's own views for established law. Conservatives have pointed to the civil rights-era decisions of the court under Chief Justice Warren Burger as examples of such activism. Critics on the left have countered, as Clinton did Tuesday, that activism is often in the eye of the beholder. While the court has the power to strike down federal laws, it has been historically reluctant to do so, Clinton noted. The (liberal) Warren court struck down federal laws in about 20 cases over 16 years, she said. The (conservative) Rehnquist court, in the last eight terms alone, has done so in 32 cases. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...0723_1999.html

07-24-2002, 05:31 AM	#2
Frank W Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: California Posts: 889	It really depends on how you define "activist" -- if you look at Scalia's record, he sides with liberals enough times to make you wonder if this guy really is on a crusade to steer the court's jurisprudence rightward. __________________ "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -- Herman Hesse

07-24-2002, 06:09 AM	#7
Gutterboy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Dis Posts: 4,751	The difference is simple.. Judge rules for a conservative cause = Prudent interpreter of the law. Judge rules for a liberal cause = Liberal, secular humanist, atheistic, ungodly, anti-american Judicial activist. See the reaction to the recent decision on the Pledge of Allegiance by the 9th Circuit for proof of this. Whether you like it or not, the 3 judge panel was exercising legitimate judicial power in deciding the Constitutionality of a State mandated practice. That is what courts do. Now you might not agree with the decision, but it certainly wasn't activism or "legislating from the bench" as conservatives have hysterically and dishonestly labelled it. Also note that Dubya is making a conscious effort to stack the Federal Judiciary with anti-abortion conservative ideologues. That is plainly judicial activism, yet its not called that because the activism - to republicans at least - is going their way. Last edited by Gutterboy; 07-24-2002 at 06:13 AM..

07-24-2002, 03:51 PM	#16
hyper Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mass Ass Posts: 5,294	why dont you and massivecock become roomies __________________

07-24-2002, 07:02 AM	#14
Pathfinder theking of trailer parks Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tehachapi, California Posts: 2,277	Virtually every aspect of the constitution is interpreted, and the result of the interpretation is based upon the political bias of the ones doing the interpretation.

07-24-2002, 05:18 PM	#20
Sly_RJ Live Hard - Die Hard Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ready to leave... Posts: 17,042	Good Lord man! I was not arguing about anything in this thread but the claim that Dubya was planning on stacking the judges. ANY president with half a brain would do that. FDR wanted to ADD more judges just so he could get more Democrats on board. THAT was my sole argument, nothing else. And the reasons FDR wanted to do so are completely irrelevant.