Plan B Forum

American Liberals are in a snit because they can see that the Supreme Court is preparing to strike down much, if not all, of the legislation commonly known as "Obamacare."

A large portion of the law is blatantly unconstitutional as it provides machinery for Congress to expand its powers ridiculously beyond anything authorized by Article I of the Constitution (which articulates the powers of Congress). The only "constitutional" question to be answered is, Since the Supreme Court decided to circumlocute the Tenth Amendment during the Roosevelt Administration, is there any limit whatsoever on what Congress may do? And if there is, what do you base it on? Section 8 of Article I has been bent, folded, and mutilated beyond any rational recognition.

As became manifest during the second day of argument, the Administration (representing the entire Left spectrum of the Federal Government) takes the position that "regulating interstate commerce" encompasses regulating, demanding, or prohibiting any act, contemplated or actual or refused, that might have any tangential or indirect effect on anything that might conceivably slip across any border between two states. For example, if I buy a tomato from a farmer's roadside vegetable stand, Congress may regulate that transaction. Actually, under the Administration's reading it goes much further than that: If I decline to buy that tomato it comes within Congress' power to "regulate." Congress can force me to buy that fucking tomato, like it or not, and if I decline to buy it, they can fine me what I would have paid for it, had I taken the plunge.

But the Liberal World knows that the American public needs a catch-phrase to grab onto if they want to sell this argument as anything more than legal sophistry. The LW also knows that the expression, "Judicial Activism" gives the public a virtual erection of indignation, fueled by disdain for the black-robed, unelected bastards who reside in virtual perpetuity on our federal courts.

So they have re-defined the expression, "Judicial Activism," and adopted it as their own, and they hope that nobody will notice that they have turned the term on its head.

Judicial Activism, as commonly understood, has always referred to Courts that ignore the clear meaning of the State and Federal constitutions, and the laws they are interpreting, modifying them to mean whatever the judges thing the laws ought to have said, if they (the judges) had written them. The classic case of judicial activism might be said to be the practice that came to be known as "Affirmative Action." The Fourteenth Amendment basically says that no state can abridge the "priveleges and immunities" of any American citizens. In effect, the States cannot discriminate in favor of or against citizens, which in historical context meant that they (the States and their various instrumentalities) could not discriminate against so-called Negroes. The USSC took this fairly innocuous prohibition and contrived a veritable institution by which the States were COMPELLED to discriminate in favor of so-called Negroes, in order to compensate them for past discrimination against them by the States. It was an interesting and maybe even beneficial concept - one that some imaginary Congress that was immune from pedestrial political considereations might have enacted. But the creation of Affirmative Action was entirely outside the scope and powers of the United States Supreme Court.

Thus, it a prime example of "Judicial Activism."

Now the Left wants to define "judicial activism" as the phenomenon that is manifest any time the USSC strikes down an unconstitutional law. But striking down unconstitutional laws and provisions is EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO DO; it's not "activism." Or so we've been told ever since Marbury v. Madison.

But the Left now ways that striking down unconstitutional laws constitutes "activism" because the Court shouldn't fuck with what Congress does. The operative principle seems to be that the Court should defer to the wishes of the Congress, regardless of what the Constitution says.

One hundred eighty degrees opposite the known and accepted meaning of "judicial activism."

Between now and the time when the Court actually sets forth the extent to which Obamacare is overturned (and possibly forever), we apparently will be hearing our whacko Lefties shouting from the rooftops about how the USSC is engaging in "unprecedented Judicial Activism." Typical liberal bullshit.

Just like always with Libs, words mean whatever they want them to mean.

The shoe pinches a bit when it's on the other foot, eh Dave?

"Judicial activism" has never meant anything other than "a court ruling someone doesn't like." Its use by conservatives in criticizing the majority opinion in Kelo v. New London, a ruling founded on a deference to state legislative action and over a century of precedent, gives the lie to any other purported definition.

And I'd be curious to hear the names of any cases you can come up with whereby the Supreme Court "created" affirmative action.

dgs49 wrote:If I decline to buy that tomato it comes within Congress' power to "regulate." Congress can force me to buy that fucking tomato, like it or not, and if I decline to buy it, they can fine me what I would have paid for it, had I taken the plunge.

Congratulations on throwing all rational thought out the window, running it over, and then leaving it to die on the side of the highway.

Libs are fond of saying that Bush43 was a "liar."

Consider the following quotation from President Barry, stated yesterday: "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."

Surely he is aware that the Supreme Court has, on no less than 150 occasions since 1803, "overturned a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress." Barry claims to have taught a course called, "Constitutional Law," prior to coming to the Senate. Surely this came up once or twice.

This is not a difference of opinion. It is not shading the truth. It is not "taking a position." It is a LIE.

Which is becoming a daily occurrence with this President-by-accident.

dgs49 wrote:Libs are fond of saying that Bush43 was a "liar."

You mean like the WMDs that were supposedly all over Iraq? Yes, President George W. Bush did lie to the American people. But of course he gets a pass from you, the supposed hater of hypocrisy. And his lies cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.

And President Obama backed off from his statement, President George W. Bush plowed straight ahead with his lies.

Grim Reaper wrote: You mean like the WMDs that were supposedly all over Iraq? And claiming Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda had joined forces to attack the U.S.? Yes, President George W. Bush did lie to the American people. But of course he gets a pass from you, the supposed hater of hypocrisy. And his lies cost the lives of tens hundreds of thousands of people.

FTFY.

Sue, your comment is disappointing. Rubato doesn't know a "lie" from an error, but you should. Bush43 drew exactly the same conclusion from the available intelligence as such noteworthy doves as Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and all the other leading democrats at the time - virtually all of whom voted to support the invasion.

It is legitimate to dispute whether toppling Saddam was a good initiative, but to call Bush a "liar" says more about you than it does about him.

Honestly.

It's a shame that the old CSB isn't available to link to, but of course you will not lie and say the following exchange never happened, because you know full well it did...

In a discussion about what did and did not constitute a lie about the presence (or lack thereof) of WMD in Iraq, you said that it would be a lie if someone said that WMD had been found in Iraq. I then produced no less than 20 quotes from GWB and others in his administration claiming precisely that. So by the standard set by you, GWB did, in fact, lie about the presence of WMD in Iraq.

Of course, you lacked the honesty and integrity to acknowledge that at the time, and I doubt anything has changed on that score.

dgs49 wrote:Sue, your comment is disappointing. Rubato doesn't know a "lie" from an error, but you should. Bush43 drew exactly the same conclusion from the available intelligence as such noteworthy doves as Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and all the other leading democrats at the time - virtually all of whom voted to support the invasion.

Except President George W. Bush deliberately ignored evidence that didn't support his invasion dream.

And Rubato hasn't posted in this thread.

dgs49 wrote:It is legitimate to dispute whether toppling Saddam was a good initiative, but to call Bush a "liar" says more about you than it does about him.

To call President George W. Bush a liar is to acknowledge the truth.

And President Obama showed how a task force can work with the removal of Gaddafi. But then it helped that the Libyan people wanted a change in leadership enough to start a civil war themselves.

Democrats take note:

The Connecticut Senate voted on Thursday to repeal the state's death penalty, moving it one step closer to becoming the fifth U.S. state in five years to abandon capital punishment.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 20-16 to repeal the death penalty in an early morning vote after 10 hours of debate, and the measure now moves to the state House of Representatives, where it was seen as having strong support.

Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy has promised to sign the bill into law.

This is the way Democracy (at least our form of it) is supposed to work. If you want to repeal the death penalty, follow the democratic processes and repeal it. Don't appoint judges who spurn the Constitution and repeal it by judicial fiat.

dgs49 wrote:This is the way Democracy (at least our form of it) is supposed to work. If you want to repeal the death penalty, follow the democratic processes and repeal it. Don't appoint judges who spurn the Constitution and repeal it by judicial fiat.

That is fine. But if, in the meantime, the death penalty is being applied in a way that grossly violates fundamental constitutional protections, then judges have every right, nay, they have an absolute obligation to suspend its application unless and until those violations can be remedied.

Wrong. Judges (and justices) rule on individual cases. The do not make policy (at least under the United States Constitution). If they find an unconstitutional violation in a particular case, they can overturn it or send it back to a lower court for a re-do. In the rare cases where a particular statute is unconstitutional, the statute can be overturned, which would affect anyone convicted under it.

But our SC (and many, many lower and state courts) attempted to eliminate the death penalty by crafting phony "constitutional" guidelines that were essentially impossible to meet. Hell, Justices Brennan and Marshall voted against the death penalty in essentially every case, providing bogus arguments to support their votes, then they finally admitted that they didn't give a shit what the Constitution said, they were going to try to abolish the DP regardless.

This, by the way, is pure "judicial activism."

For which they have been enshrined by today's liberals.

Nice citations there.