The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Those wonderful Supremes (17 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..15~16~17 [Next]
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
It's only judicial activism when the other side does it.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
The Brown decision (regarding segregation) was 9-0. That might (or might not) be activism, but my guess (without knowing the exact composition of the court at that time) is that it was not partisan.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Yes, the reference to Brown was in response to Obama's comments (as quoted by Marlin), not in response to the allegations of partisanship.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 16:40, balducci wrote:
The Brown decision (regarding segregation) was 9-0. That might (or might not) be activism, but my guess (without knowing the exact composition of the court at that time) is that it was not partisan.


No it clearly didn't breakdown across political lines(or break down at all), but I think the point was that an unelected group of people knocked down a policy that was put in place by a group of elected people. In many southern states segeration was REQUIRED by law.

So if the Court were to throw out some, or all, of the Affordable Care Act it wouldn't be "unprecedented". It wouldn't even be particularly "extraordinary". But the President knew that full well when he made his comments. His comments were made to rile those who don't know that.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Yes- it would be the first time since the Lochner decision in the 1930's that the Court overruled this type of legislation. That's relatively unprecedented, as the President accurately stated. His comments weren't made to rile anyone, they were just statements of fact.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

That's what he said.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Yes- and he was correct.

From Justice Harlan's dissent in Lochner:

"The power of the courts to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare exists only "when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law."
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
Oh. I didn't see anything in the quote about a law affecting the general welfare, or any other qualifier. I saw "a law".

Maybe we should quibble about why he decided to use the term "strong" majority, or why he felt a need to point out thatthe Supreme Court is an unelected body as well while we are at it.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Bob, are you actually saying that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law that was passed by Congress??? And here, I always thought it was their job to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. In fact, isn't the Justice Dept currently asking the Supreme Court to overturn a recently passed law?

You've got me totally confused.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 17:15, mastermindreader wrote:
That's relatively unprecedented, as the President accurately stated.

I didn't notice the President using the adverb "relatively", and I'm not sure that something can be "relatively" unprecedented anyway: either there's a precedent or else there isn't. Here, there is.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
His comments weren't meant to inform, and they weren't meant to rile; he was just playing politics.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I thought he was sending a warning shot across the bow.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 18:30, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 17:15, mastermindreader wrote:
That's relatively unprecedented, as the President accurately stated.

I didn't notice the President using the adverb "relatively", and I'm not sure that something can be "relatively" unprecedented anyway: either there's a precedent or else there isn't. Here, there is.


Perhaps I should have rephrased that to read "unprecedented since the 1930's."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 18:26, rockwall wrote:
Bob, are you actually saying that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law that was passed by Congress??? And here, I always thought it was their job to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. In fact, isn't the Justice Dept currently asking the Supreme Court to overturn a recently passed law?

You've got me totally confused.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I am referring to health and welfare related legislation as noted in the dissenting opinion in Lochner that I quoted previously.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 18:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
His comments weren't meant to inform, and they weren't meant to rile; he was just playing politics.


I would use the word "remind" rather than "rile."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 19:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 18:30, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 17:15, mastermindreader wrote:
That's relatively unprecedented, as the President accurately stated.

I didn't notice the President using the adverb "relatively", and I'm not sure that something can be "relatively" unprecedented anyway: either there's a precedent or else there isn't. Here, there is.


Perhaps I should have rephrased that to read "unprecedented since the 1930's."


I think it's The Prez, not you, who should have chosen his words with greater care.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Maybe he'll take me on as a speech writer! Smile
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 19:06, mastermindreader wrote:
Maybe he'll take me on as a speech writer! Smile

So that you can infuse his speeches with NLP?
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 19:03, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-04-05 18:26, rockwall wrote:
Bob, are you actually saying that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law that was passed by Congress??? And here, I always thought it was their job to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. In fact, isn't the Justice Dept currently asking the Supreme Court to overturn a recently passed law?

You've got me totally confused.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I am referring to health and welfare related legislation as noted in the dissenting opinion in Lochner that I quoted previously.


Maybe that is what you meant but it is certainly not what you said..

Maybe congress hasn't passed any unconstitutional laws regarding health and welfare since then is why the supremes didn't need to strike them down.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I know, I am not being my usual model of clarity today. Smile

And now some world news- How Europe Views Our Supreme Court:

http://news.yahoo.com/europe-baffled-u-s......850.html
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Those wonderful Supremes (17 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..15~16~17 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.16 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL