"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child"

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This same argument could be made in every single instance where the Supreme Court has overturned the laws of a state.

Only in instances where the court has said, "well, we don't have enough data, so we'll just fill in the rest with our own personal opinion on what the law should be."

Ergo, judicial activism.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If we could return to the issue here ...

Upon reflection, this revelation really illustrates my objection to this ruling. Here we have Congress--the body of the people, mind you, and as representative of national mood as any vehicle possibly could be--expressing their will on this issue in the form of the UMCJ, and the Court completely ignored it! And not only the majority, but the minority missed it as well.

It is near impossible for a single judge--or 5 or 9 of them--to properly and fairly gauge "national consensus" nor "evolving standards of decency" on a matter like this. What this amounts to nothing more than these justices inserting their personal opinions into the law.

You're smarter than 9 Supreme Court justices and a buttload of attorneys who worked on the appeal. Good for you.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You're smarter than 9 Supreme Court justices and a buttload of attorneys who worked on the appeal. Good for you.

No, just smarter than 5 of them, plus you.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, just smarter than 5 of them, plus you.

All nine missed that military statute.


Want to re-think that last point?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

All nine missed that military statute.


Want to re-think that last point?

I thought we were talking about the ruling. How is the missing of a military rule an issue of "smarts"?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Only in instances where the court has said, "well, we don't have enough data, so we'll just fill in the rest with our own personal opinion on what the law should be."

Ergo, judicial activism.

Data isn't the most important factor. The interpretation of the data is. You are interpreting the data the Court had available as "insufficient" and the justices are saying that the data available is sufficient and dictates that the statute must be overturned. Your argument is the exact same argument that is given anytime the Court overturns a state's laws. "Judicial activism" only means the Court acted in opposition to your wishes.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Data isn't the most important factor. The interpretation of the data is. You are interpreting the data the Court had available as "insufficient" and the justices are saying that the data available is sufficient and dictates that the statute must be overturned. Your argument is the exact same argument that is given anytime the Court overturns a state's laws. "Judicial activism" only means the Court acted in opposition to your wishes.

The Court more-or-less said the data was insufficient when they turned to "their own understanding."

Your redefining judicial activism as a disagreeable decision is just intellectually lazy, no surprise given your reading problems.

Ed Whelan gives a great definition of the term here:

Let me offer a few points of explanation of what I mean by the term “liberal judicial activism”:

1. For rulings on questions of constitutional law, I will identify judicial decisions that wrongly override laws or policies that flow from the democratic processes and instead entrench, in the name of the Constitution, liberal policy preferences.

2. I intend to use the term “judicial passivism” for judicial decisions that make the opposite error—that fail to enforce constitutional guarantees. Because the two errors are often related—it’s no surprise that justices and judges who embrace the make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach to inventing rights that aren’t in the Constitution also will ignore rights that are in it—I may occasionally include instances of liberal judicial passivism.

3. For rulings on non-constitutional questions, I will identify judicial decisions that implausibly construe legal texts to reach liberal policy results.

4. I will not be not probing the subjective motivations of judges. To identify a decision as an instance of liberal judicial activism does not necessarily mean that I am alleging that the judges responsible for the decision have indulged, deliberately or otherwise, their own policy preferences, though I certainly believe that often to be the case. It might instead be that they misconceive the judicial role or that they simply err. In terms of the injury done to American citizens’ power of self-governance, the cause of the error is of little interest.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post...M5Y2MxMzM3ZDU=

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I thought we were talking about the ruling. How is the missing of a military rule an issue of "smarts"?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=152

Come on, Tex, keep up!

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The Court more-or-less said the data was insufficient when they turned to "their own understanding."

Your redefining judicial activism as a disagreeable decision is just intellectually lazy, no surprise given your reading problems.

Ed Whelan gives a great definition of the term here:



http://bench.nationalreview.com/post...M5Y2MxMzM3ZDU=

In other words, anything that appears to be consistent with the "liberal agenda"; and therefore, anything inconsistent with your view.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=152

Come on, Tex, keep up!

If there's a way you could be less clear in this conversation, I can't come up with it.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

In other words, anything that appears to be consistent with the "liberal agenda"; and therefore, anything inconsistent with your view.

Is that all you got out of Whelan's points?