Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona clean elections law (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nah, like most phrases, "judicial activism" means (7+ / 0-)

    what they want it to mean. In this case, it usually means "courts whose decisions I disagree with". They're not going to stop complaining about things that they don't like anytime soon.

    •  Yes and No. Normally the SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

      does not extend itself beyond the decision necessary to decide the case at hand.

      On any number of cases this Reagan/Bush majority has very actively sought to reach the larger issue of judicial policy-making.

      In addition, it has given scant respect for prior decisions of the SCOTUS.  

      The Citizens United decision is one that would benefit from some statistical analysis.

      I do not remember ever seeing a higher proportion of supporting citations being both self-referential (quoting from the CU majority members) and dissent-sourced (quoting as prior 'authority' excerpts of dissenting opinions that were disagreeing with the what then constituted the prior body of law as ennunciated by the US Supreme Court in its majority decisions.

      For those two reasons alone, this is a very activist court.

      We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

      by Into The Woods on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 05:01:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site