Chief Justice Roberts = Chief Judicial Activist

[Robin]

r.f.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by grapevine

Abortion and queer rights are state rights issues that the court overstepped its bounds in.

"queer rights"? Are you kidding me? Please explain how the supreme court has overstepped it's bounds with regards to "queer rights"?

[FMCoug]

After Alito is confirmed, I suspect we'll hear a lot of this from the liberals, as the conservative leaning court makes decisions which undo some of the damage done to the constitutions over the past decade or so.

If a judge considers himself a strict constructionist, and rules to overturn a precedent set by a prior court / judge that was a true judicial activist, does that make the new judge an "activist"?

[Robin]

r.f.

[Archaea]

Robin, you're not a lawyer and probably don't understand how legal precedents evolve.

I have not read the opinion, only silly excerpts written by journalists. A decision to vote to overrule assisted suicide doesn't sound like too much judicial activism to, but as of this moment, I'd have to hear the legal arguments to be a fair judge of it.

And you're neither a lawyer nor a judge. so you're make herculean leaps in logic here, aren't you?

[Robin]

r.f.

[creekster]

Well, Mr. American Heritage Honors, it's your premise so what's your analysis? I am sure that your class discussed burden of proof, didn't it? If your opinion is indeed intelligent then I am sure you can offer some cogent analysis as to why Roberts' vote constitutes judicial activism.

[Robin]

r.f.

[creekster]

Of course this opinion deals with the interpretation and application of an exisiting federal statute that governs not the relationship of drs. and patients but the prescription of controlled substances to patients. Was the Ashcroft regime incorrect in their interpreation? Certainly 6 justices thought so. It is incorrect, however, to say that Roberts was being activist, at least IM-not-fully-informed-O. He simply contended that an existing statute applies not only to prevent the mis-prescription of controlled subtances for conditions that they are not intended to ameliorate, but also to efforts to kill.

Another way to look at this is this: If one ignores the fact that one likes or doesn't like the result of the opinion, what is it baout this opinion (or any other opinion, for that matter) that makes this deciison "activist?" Activism, after all, must be defined apart from the results in order to allow reasonable analysis, so how so you define it?

btw, sorry for the lame typing; not my strong suit.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Of course this opinion deals with the interpretation and application of an exisiting federal statute that governs not the relationship of drs. and patients but the prescription of controlled substances to patients. Was the Ashcroft regime incorrect in their interpreation? Certainly 6 justices thought so. It is incorrect, however, to say that Roberts was being activist, at least IM-not-fully-informed-O. He simply contended that an existing statute applies not only to prevent the mis-prescription of controlled subtances for conditions that they are not intended to ameliorate, but also to efforts to kill.

Another way to look at this is this: If one ignores the fact that one likes or doesn't like the result of the opinion, what is it baout this opinion (or any other opinion, for that matter) that makes this deciison "activist?" Activism, after all, must be defined apart from the results in order to allow reasonable analysis, so how so you define it?

btw, sorry for the lame typing; not my strong suit.

As a guarded fan of Scalia and Thomas I will say, nevertheless, I do feel they sometimes do reveal a usually concealed penchant for moralizing. No, they weren't interpreting the Constitution, so technically strict construction doesn't apply. But the objective of strict construction is to err on the side of the democratic process, adhere to some neutral principle so that judges elected for life don't devour the majority's will. Scalia and Thomas condemn judges who permit their own subjective moralizing preoccupations to override the will of the majority expressed through legitimate democratic process. On that principle, they should be sensitive about the federal executive branch using a strained interpretation of a federal statute to invalidate the will of the majority in the state of Oregon. At times like this I get the queezy feeling that "strict construction" is just a cover for subjective moralizing on their part.