The Roberts Court Defines Itself
They're having temper tantrums over at DU because our laws and policies have to conform to the constitution. Of course with them it's all about not getting their way.
The ignorance that masquerades as "smart" is astounding. Then again it is DU.
PourMeADrink (11,127 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
The Roberts Court Defines Itself
For anyone who still thought legal conservatives are dedicated to judicial restraint, the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the health care case should put that idea to rest. There has been no court less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.
This should not be surprising. Republican administrations, spurred by conservative interest groups since the 1980s, handpicked each of the conservative justices to reshape or strike down law that fails to reflect conservative political ideology.
When Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy were selected by the Reagan administration, the goal was to choose judges who would be eager to undo liberal precedents. By the time John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. were selected in the second Bush administration, judicial “restraint” was no longer an aim among conservatives. They were chosen because their professional records showed that they would advance a political ideology that limits government and promotes market freedoms, with less regard to the general welfare.
MORE AT LINK
Star Member rhett o rick (20,359 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. The balance of power is out of balance.
IMO our founders wanted the legislative branch to be the most powerful as they are elected by the people and more directly representative. The president was next with the SCOTUS given little power. The Constitution does not directly give the SCOTUS the power of striking down laws passed by the other two branches. This power was assumed by Justice John Marshall. While is sounds good in theory, we have seen how easily it can be abused and how hard it is to undo abuse.
indepat (17,716 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
4. A moniker of "fascist" would be impotent, shallow, and much too polite: they are bona fide treasonous
meow2u3 (11,657 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. In other words, the Roberts court is a judicial dictatorship
They're entirely hellbent on usurping and overruling Congress and not only making up the law as they go along, but also acting to supplant democracy with a de facto--or de jure--permanent plutarchy, and to hell with our Constitutional rights.
They consistently strike down constitutional laws and unconstitutional and uphold acts of Congress that would cause the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves.
Laura PourMeADrink (11,127 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
3. Hypocrisy continues. How many times have we heard that schpiel about activist judges
what a bunch of bullshit.
Someone should write a book about how the repukes have taken hypocrisy to new heights.
Ikonoklast (16,776 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
5. Bow Down To Your Corporate Masters!
They're people too, you know.
Really shitty people that will destroy Democracy as we knew it, but, people all the same.