Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Douglas doesn't have the guts to admit when he's wrong. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...activism</a> At the very end- surprise! caes cited as examples of judicial activism. It's Brown!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Matter of fact, just google judicial activism and Brown, forget SuperDry's cogent analysis. Douglas's little test, wherever he got it from, proves out that Brown would be considered judicial activism. But don't take our word for it. Look around. Ask around, take a class. The answer's the same!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder If it isn't gutless, what else is it when a thread is started by positing a subjective test about judicial activism, and then when someone rationally applies the test to a case such as Brown and it comes out as judicial activism, the OP says "no, it's not" but refuses to explain why?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<More obfuscation and diversion.>> <No, obfuscation and diversion is more like when you claim things happened differently than they happened, or seize on a irrelevant side argument rather than addressing the acutal issue.> You're projecting again, and the evidence is right here in this thread. Challenged to show why SuperDry's point by point analysis did not disprove your theory, you addressed everything BUT that. <<What is not factual about SuperDry's statement that the right to not be segregated in public education did not exist prior to Brown, and after Brown it did?>> <What is factual about it? How does SuperDry's opinion about an opinion (even the Supreme Court Justices don't claim their opinions are facts) become a fact?> FACT: Before Brown, no right to not be segregated in public education. FACT: After Brown, this right exists. Thus, it fits one of your criteria for "judicial activism." <<If that's supposedly not a fact, show us how it's not a fact.>> <How about you show us how it's a fact?> Just did.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If it isn't gutless, what else is it when a thread is started by positing a subjective test about judicial activism, and then when someone rationally applies the test to a case such as Brown and it comes out as judicial activism, the OP says "no, it's not" but refuses to explain why?> Yeah, it's the last part that makes it so gutless. Doug and SuperDry COULD have had an intelligent, interesting discussion on why Brown was or wasn't judicial activism; unfortunately, only SuperDry brought the intellectual goods to the table.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I know you're ganging up on my perspective; you gang up on every conservative. > Oh, and please - spare us the persecution complex, huh? Nobody gangs up on vbdad55, or DVDdad, say. Why? Because they make their points without your nonsense and eminently lampoonable methodology. They just make their points, a liberal like me disagrees with them, and we actually learn a little something from each other.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Nobody gangs up on vbdad55, or DVDdad, say. Why? Because they make their points without your nonsense and eminently lampoonable methodology./// I don't agree at all--- vbd and DVD don't have such conservative blood as a Dougie or an RC thus the liberal and/or politically luke warm wolf pack leaves them alone.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They're just as conservative. DVCdad proudly calls himself a "far-right Christian conservative" or words similar to that. But he doesn't engage in Doug's nonsense.
Originally Posted By barboy Are you saying DVC and vbd are just as 'right' as RC and Doug? If you are then I believe you're mistaken. Now DVC and vbd most definitely have a different style aside from their more moderate approach than RC and Doug, actually all four have very different styles from each other and none of the four I find offensive as I enjoy reading all of their works.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 vbdad is more of a moderate, but I'm taking DVCdad at his word when he describes his politics. Anyway, Doug contended that we ganged up on "all conservatives," and that's simply not the case. We also ganged up on liberals like "your pal ed" when he engaged in nonsense. It really isn't the ideology, it's the nonsense.
Originally Posted By barboy Fair enough, you have a good point about 'your pal ed' because he was one very liberal animal. And for what it's worth 'your pal ed' received a different treatment than Doug and RC. The 'pack' disregarded ed's nonsense as if he was some severely wounded/diseased canis but actively hunts down and attacks those who condone and sometimes even applaud US torture or those who oppose extending state recognized marriage to same gendered couples.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I remember some very harsh things said to your pal ed. One of us liberals (wasn't me) told him more than once, essentially, "you're giving us a bad name." On the other side, Beau called him some downright unprintable things. And there's a difference between many people disagreeing with a stance and "hunting down and attacking." I don't think many (if any) of us are attacking DAR on the torture thing, for instance, so much as there are just a bunch of us saying "why are you presenting a false choice between torture on one hand and some fantasy of treating them to 5-star accommodations on the other?" When a lot of people say similar things, it may seem like attacking, but it's really just numerous individuals responding to the same posts, which is allowed.
Originally Posted By woody I'm no lawyer, but I disagree with some of DouglasDubh's criteria for judicial activism. >>a. merely overturn relatively new law and therefore return conditions to what they were before the law was enacted? >>b. Necessitate the creation of new laws or include guidelines in order to execute the decision? Judges should not be overturning laws without the strict interpretation of the Constitution. However, it is worse if judges create new laws because it appears the Constitution demands it. Both a. and b. could be judicial activism. >>a. rely on the writings of the Founding Fathers to explain what they meant in the Constitution? >>b. rely on an evolving sense of what the phrase means to society? Typically, the plain meaning of the law should be sufficient especially on the simple text of the Constitution. >>a. Rely on precedent? >>b. Overturn precedent? Sometimes the precedent is the problem. If overturning a precedent gets the law back to the Constitution, I would call it a conservative and correct interpretation. >>a. Affirm a recognized, enumerated right? >>b. Discover a new right that has never been recognized before? I believe both a. and b. could be judicial activism if there are no laws that allow it. As for the Brown case, even a right decision could be considered judicial activism.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "As for the Brown case, even a right decision could be considered judicial activism." And that's the entire point vis a vis Douglas. He's anti-judicial activism, but Brown is perfect example of a great decision that would be considered judicial activism, if there is such an animal, but especially by the standard he found and posted. Why he doesn't man up and say so is known only to him.
