Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Seeing a lot of chatter in the air lately about conservative justices on the Supreme Court going “activist.” Sweetness & Light does an effective slice-and-dice on some New York Times and other nonsense to this effect (hat tip to Boortz)…I’ve seen it in other places as well, and it seems to be a campaign of “pre-blaming” ObamaCare’s bad day in court on conservatives, before the bad day is announced — or even known.
I’m not sure what this means. It comes down to what the propaganda-putter-outers know, about what SCOTUS will be announcing. They’re very well informed about their own feelings, fer sure, but how well informed are they about the facts on the ground that mold and shape those feelings? Can they really know something about the Supreme Court decision that the rest of us don’t?
I hope so. Their confidence is failing, visibly.
The Volokh Conspiracy did a good taxonomy a couple months ago of the various meanings of the phrase “judicial activism.” I prefer the first definition…I think most other people do, too. I think it is foremost in people’s minds when they hear the phrase.
The decision was motivated by the Justices’ personal policy preferences or was result-oriented. In some instances, a decision is labeled “activist” when we think that the decision was based on the Justices’ own personal policy preferences or preferred outcomes. Of course, it’s hard for us to know what subjective motivated the Justices. But we have an idea that judges should follow law, not just strike down laws and practices that they don’t personally like. So when we think that a judge struck down a law in large part because he didn’t like the law as a matter of policy, or because he wanted one side to win and the other side to win for reasons not concerning the legal merits of the case, we might call the decision “activist.” This version of judicial activism stands in opposition to the rule of law; it expresses the fear that judges are just doing what they personally like. (A sample statement from the right: “Roe v. Wade is an activist decision because the Justices in the majority just tried to enact their pro-choice views.” A sample statement from the left: “The activist Justices in the Bush v. Gore majority voted as they did because they wanted Bush to be President.“)
What we hear from the progressives about the ObamaCare ruling (which hasn’t yet been ruled), is more in line with definitions #3 and #5: Inconsistent with precedent — which they happen to like — and, as a plus, they do not like it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Judicial activism” really just means “the court made a decision we don’t like.” Normally, of course, it’s a decision the left doesn’t like, since they control the media (obviously partisan decisions that favor the left are just “rational jurisprudence” or “a vindication of the separation of powers” or “respect for the Constitution” in the eyes of the New York Times et al, natch). Still, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and they’ve actually got a semi-legit gripe here.
Judges decide the right way for the wrong reason all the time. Brown v. Board, for example — the decision was based on little more than the flimsiest pseudoscience and loud, public leftist hand-wringing, but the overarching principle was right (“separate but equal” violates the equal protection clause, de facto if (perhaps) not entirely de jure). But that’s the thing — the decision establishing “separate but equal” (Plessy v. Ferguson) was much more closely reasoned, footnoted, etc. Same Constitution, same logic (unless you buy the left’s weird assertion that rationality itself is “socially constructed”), two wildly divergent views.
The fact that nobody on either side (Antonin Scalia excepted*) complains about “judicial activism” in this particular instance tells us all we need to know about the logical, legal, and philosophical foundation of the concept of judicial review.
.
- Severian | 06/26/2012 @ 08:34.
.
*This is one of the left’s favorite sticks for beating on Scalia. They got it wrong, of course — too good to check and all that — but he did say that Brown was decided poorly. His actual quote was that he would’ve dissented on Plessy — you know, the case that set this all up in the first place. Which would’ve made him anti-segregation. Which would eliminate the basis for the left’s entire gripe. No wonder they never fucking fact-check anything — so much easier to be Smarter and Better than everyone when you don’t let facts get in the way.
Words matter.
- TMI | 06/27/2012 @ 13:34.