In response to:

Conservatives And the Courts

Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Apr 08, 2012 8:52 AM
The article's author states "For both sides, judicial activism has come to mean “any Supreme Court decision that I disagree with.” This is simply incorrect. Judicial activism, as generally decried by conservatives, occurs when judges "legislate from the bench." Judicial activism occurs when judges create legislation, or create wholly-new meanings of passages in the Constitution in order to support laws that are clearly NOT in accordance with the actual text of that foundational document. The poster child for this egregious practice, of course, is Roe v. Wade - which is based upon a judicial activism house of cards....first, a finding of a right to privacy in Griswold v. CT, then overturning all state laws on the subject of abortion...
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Apr 08, 2012 8:52 AM
... in order to "find" that right in the emanations of penumbras of the "right" to privacy created in the farcical Griswold ruling. I's tough to even read this tortuous "logic" with a straight face.

THAT's judicial activism....not simply judicial review (an appropriate, settled, and much-practiced part of the judiciary's proper performance of its job) that results in a ruling with which one disagrees.

I believe the article's author is, quite simply, incorrect in his assertion.

- Snark

Who says bipartisanship is dead? Left and Right have finally found something that they agree on. They are both unalterably opposed to judicial activism — except, of course, when they aren't.

The latest meme from the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, and much of the media is that if the Supreme Court were to strike down all or part of Obamacare, it would place the Court's legitimacy itself at risk. After all, since only 28 state attorneys general, at least two District Court Judges and five Circuit Court Judges (including a Clinton appointee), numerous law professors, the 52 organizations and hundreds...

Related Tags: Courts