Comments on: A Libertarian View on The Reaction To Sotomayor

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:04:00 +0000

To those of us suffering under the delusion that the Constitution was supposed to “secure the Blessings of Liberty,” Breyer reveals that its purpose was “to create a framework for democratic government — a government that, while protecting basic individual liberties, permits citizens to govern themselves.” But how can it protect “individual liberties” when such protection is precisely what doesn’t allow “citizens to govern themselves”? Or is “basic” actually Breyerspeak for as few as possible?

At this point a certain feeling may be creeping over many, an eerie kind of déjà vu. It grows only stronger when Dionne reclaims the mic. “Breyer’s argument,” he explains, “leads not to judicial activism but to judicial humility. He insists that courts take care to figure out what the people’s representatives intended when they passed laws. You might say that justices should not behave like imperious English professors who insist they can interpret the true meaning of words better than those who actually wrote them.” Now that tore away the disguise, didn’t it? This isn’t the “living document”/”evolving Constitution” rhetoric that the Left’s been blaring all these years. The exalting of majoritarian democracy over individual liberty, the insistence that this view reflects the “intentions” of the Framers of the Constitution — who can mistake it? Who can still not see that behind the meek figure of Stephen Breyer looms — as his alter ego — the monstrous presence of …

Http://Abcdunlimited.com/ideas/supremecourt.html

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:45:35 +0000

Besides that, bogus complaints about “judicial activism” let the right pretend to be taking the high ground when they attack judges they disagree with, pretending that it is over a high principle such as this rather than over ideological disagreement.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:16:59 +0000

‘Judicial activism’ is merely the modern GOP attack phrase intended to discredit the theory and tradition of judicial review and judicial prerogative. In our system of checks and balances, the judiciary’s role is to prevent the legislature and executive from violating Constitutional principles. This makes ‘judicial activism’ pretty much necessary. It is also important to note that judges are not only expected to uphold the law, but also principles of justice that frequently conflict with the law.

By: b-psycho

b-psycho — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:59:31 +0000

In reality virtually everyone supports judicial activism, as long as they are pleased with the decision.

Exactly. The average person doesn’t think about the law in terms of precedent or intent anyway, only whether they like it or not. Besides, if judicial appointments weren’t made w/r/t opinions there wouldn’t be such predictability about who falls where.

This is actually the reason why the Right had such animosity for Souter for the longest — he surprised them.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:51:17 +0000

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not officially incorporate the 2nd in the 14th in Heller. The subject will come up in the near future, because municipal gun bans (like Chicago’s) are being litigated. So “reversal” is not necessary for a whole bunch of constraints.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:43:52 +0000

It will be interesting to hear what she has to say about guns at this point, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. Even if she opposes a right to bear arms, would she oppose what is now precedent established by the Supreme Court? How likely is it to even come up in the near future?

My gut feeling is that even liberals who oppose ownership of guns are going to be reluctant to reverse such a Supreme Court decision, not wanting to encourage those who desire the reversal of a certain more controversial decision.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:39:37 +0000

I am quite unhappy that Sodomayor is opposed to an individual right to bear arms, and opposed to any incorporation of that right to state action.

But that’s certainly would I would expect from this administration.

By: Mike Ortiz

Mike Ortiz — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:14:59 +0000

I think judicial activism is wrong. I don’t care whether it’s liberal, libretarian or conservative. It’s not the job of the Supreme Court to make decisions based on their own feelings or opinions on a given issue. It is their job to rule based on the letter of the law and the constitution.