WTF? you say! Ha Ha!!

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/827/ This is the link to the relevant case: Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, Docket Number: 00-836 (lest you continue to wiggle) and decided unanimously. Another was a follow up case: Bush v. Gore, Docket Number: 00-949, Link: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/766/, which was decided 7-2. That was the case which stopped the recounts. Only Stevens and Ginsburg dissented in that one. This goes beyond what you might dream up as “activism.”

Here is a timeline of the 2000 election shenanigans from Stanford Law: http://election2000.stanford.edu/newtimeline.html.

Here is summary of the Florida Election cases from the US Supreme Court’s website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/florida.html

How’s that for facts?

Which case were you talking about?

Also, “per curiam” means “by the court.” Saying, “Majority by: per curiam” is like saying, “Red is a color.” Were you thinking that using latin made you sound smart? Or did you just not bother looking it up?

Re #102: Seems clear all the hate is coming from you. While you seem to think all republicans are evil, I just think you’re wrong.

Your conclusion is debatable in every way. You’ve come to conclusions based on your preconceptions, which are easily disputed. You ‘claim’ that roeVwade is based on a bad decision, but the 2000 election was more judicial activism based on a bad decision that roeVwade is, so clearly republicans have no problems with producing this sort of activism. You also say it’s based on a bad law, but many legal scholars disagree, therefore making it your ‘opinion’ and not fact. Just as your opinion of what judicial activism is, not only is strongly disagreed with by rational people, but it’s undermined by the Gore decision and many others.

So Pablo, you’re just being disagreeable, and you’ve brought nothing new to the argument other than a ‘repeat’ of the republican opinions that are not borne out by the facts.

Actually an activist judge would have a low percentage of overturning legislation. A constructionist would strike down laws he/she believed unconstitutional, and therefore have a high percentage on your scale. I suppose you can define it how you want, as it’s immaterial. What conservatives rail against are those who believe that the court should create laws. They consider an “activist judge” as one who allows laws to be created not supported by the constitution or other established law.

Roe vs. Wade actually had the effect of creating a law – legalizing abortion. This is “legislating from the bench.” Conservatives believe that Congress should pass laws. (i.e. if the majority believes abortion should be legal -> pass a law.) The courts are not representatives of the people, they are representatives of the law. In Roe v. Wade, the Court should have declined to hear the case. (Even taking the case is a form of Judicial Activism.) If reproductive rights are important to people, as civil rights are, Congress can pass a law (or an amendment in the case of civil rights.)

You may have heard liberals use the term, “living breathing document.” The Constitution allows for amendments to to be enacted with approval of 3/4 of the states. This is representative government. But if nine people can hijack the Constitution when they aren’t elected and serve for life, that’s troubling. I am actually surprised this doesn’t bother liberals.

Re: #69 – Judicial Activism is not “the overturning of Congressional laws.” To the extent that a law is contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, allowing that law is what conservatives call “activism.” The difference may be semantic, (in the strict sense that to allow an unconstitutional law exist requires that a justice do nothing), but the idea is that an “originalist” or a “constructionist” would overturn a law in conflict with the constitution. This is the idea behind the semantics.

Mr. Neat, you seem to be stuck in your thinking. How you define “Judicial Activism” isn’t important, it’s the reasoning behind it. If striking down conflicting laws is “activism” – well, okay. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. If you call courts creating laws where none exist, “non-activism” – well, okay. But it’s still a bad idea. Even if the results go your way.

Roe v. Wade may be a desirable end, but it’s still a bad legal decision.

Similarly, you might consider letting your readers know whether the comments to which you cite were part of majority opinions or dissents. If, for example, your scare brackets around [Judge Alito] are an indication that you substituted “the majority” for “Judge Alito,” then you are being misleading at best and dishonest at the worst. Not that I would expect any better, of course.

Not a Liberal Smear: Here is the American Enterprise Institute echoing the comments about Interstate Commerce I made above. Some excerpts:

Roberts respects Congress and its constitutional primacy; Alito shows serious signs that he does not.

Too many judges, including some of the brightest, talk a good game of judicial restraint, but somehow find that deference is due Congress only when it passes laws they like.

” Mr. Wasserstein specializes in the areas of healthcare and food and drug law, focusing on healthcare fraud and abuse, health privacy issues, as well as general food and drug law. Mr. Wasserstein primarily counsels pharmaceutical and medical device companies on compliance issues. ”

He doesn’t sound like a liberal to anyone with a brain. He doesn’t work to protect against the pharmaceutical industry, he works FOR the pharmaceutical industry.

Republicans always throw out people that pretend to be liberals as ’sympathy trolls’, but it’s just a tactic of propaganda.

““Judge Edward R. Becker, ” is a REAGAN APPOINTEE.

You’re supposedly list of ‘liberals’ is nothing more than free republic libertarians and rightwing idiots. You’re such a LIAR AND A FOOL!

Send links. An opinion page article or a partisan hack job does not make your lies into truths, but it does show you are the partisan propagandist fool.

There’s no opinions here folks, just the man’s work. It’s up to you to do your homework and formulate your own opinion, folks.

The LA Times article (”Nominee Has Some Unexpected Supporters,” November 2, 2005) can be found at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/na-la-legal2nov02,u,4962703.story?coll+la-home-headlines. Among the interesting observations in the article [which also is linked and accurately quoted at http://www.powerlineblog.com ("Judge Alito: A Clerk's Eye View," November 3, 2005)]:

“Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court.

“Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito.

“Kate Pringle, a New York lawyer who worked last year on Sen. John F. Kerry’s presidential campaign, describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of Alito’s.

“She worked for him as a law clerk in 1994, and said she was troubled by the initial reaction to his nomination. ‘He was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense; his opinions don’t demonstrate an ideological slant,’ she said.

“Jeff Wasserstein, a Washington lawyer who clerked for Alito in 1998, echoes her view.

” ‘I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate — but Judge Alito was not interested in the ideology of his clerks,’ he said. ‘He didn’t decide cases based on ideology, and his record was not extremely conservative.’ . . .

“It is not unusual for former law clerks to have fond recollections of the judge they worked for. And it is common for judges to speak respectfully of their colleagues. But for a judge being portrayed by the right and left as a hard-right conservative, Alito’s enthusiastic backing by liberal associates is striking.

“Former federal Judge Timothy K. Lewis said that when he joined the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, he consulted his mentor, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. The late Higginbotham, a legendary liberal and a scholar of U.S. racial history, was the only other black judge on the Philadelphia-based court at the time.

” ‘As he was going down the roster of colleagues, he got to Sam Alito. I expressed some concern about [him] being so conservative. He said, “No, no. Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn’t have an agenda. He is not an ideologue,” ‘ Higginbotham said, according to Lewis.

” ‘I really was surprised to hear that, but my experience with him on the 3rd Circuit bore that out,’ added Lewis, who had a liberal record during his seven years on the bench. ‘Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a “home run.” He is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference.’ . . .

“Judge Edward R. Becker, former chief judge of the 3rd Circuit, said he also was surprised to see Alito labeled as a reliable conservative.

” ‘I found him to be a guy who approached every case with an open mind. I never found him to have an agenda,’ he said. ‘I suppose the best example of that is in the area of criminal procedure. He was a former U.S. attorney, but he never came to a case with a bias in favor of the prosecution. If there was an error in the trial, or a flawed search, he would vote to reverse,’ Becker said.

“Some of his former clerks say they were drawn to Alito because of his reputation as a careful judge who closely followed the text of the law.

“Clark Lombardi, now a law professor at the University of Washington, became a clerk for Alito in 1999.

” ‘I grew up in New York City, and I’m a political independent. But I liked Judge Alito because he was a judicial conservative, someone who believed in judicial restraint and was committed to textualism,’ he said. ‘His approach leads to conservative results in some cases and progressive results in other cases. In my opinion, he is a fantastic jurist and a good guy.’

“Some of Alito’s former Yale Law School classmates who describe themselves as Democrats say they expect they will not always agree with his rulings if he joins the Supreme Court. But they say he is the best they could have hoped for from among Bush’s potential nominees.

” ‘Sam is very smart, and he is unquestionably conservative,’ said Washington lawyer Mark I. Levy, who served in the Justice Department during the Carter and Clinton administrations. ‘But he is open-minded and fair. And he thinks about cases as a lawyer and a judge. He is really very different from [Justice Antonin] Scalia. If he is going to be like anyone on the court now, it will be John Roberts,’ the new chief justice. . . ”

TP and other left wing groups should stop trying to smear this fine judicial nominee, and instead should take an honest look at his record – one that incorporates the views of liberals who know, like and trust Judge Alito for his fairness and impartiality.