• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump says he would require schools to teach patriotism

Next, he'll want to establish a Ministry of Propaganda.
 
Is this another idea he took from Russia? This actually kind of reminds me of the Soviet propaganda Russian schools used to teach kids... :sick:

They're following the more modern version that is RT. That's why they source it so much.
 
She was a liberal to me before she got in the race against Sanders and now she's caught between being Obama-plus and "Forget Obama," thanks to Sanders, she's incapable of staying away from trouble, and she's going to be an ineffective President. Ordinarily this should tank her, but it hasn't. Why? Trump: the single-most inexperienced, one of the most divisive major party nominee in American history.

We could have had a President that would accomplish mediocre or potentially good things, but we elected not to. We chose a nominee that can only spell trouble for the U.S. and its way of life. Given that, does Clinton look appealing? Yes, but only because we know how damn rank the stench is from her opponent. If it's the choice between an ineffective and ordinarily controversial President that knows the ropes, and a President that stirs controversy for breakfast and then throws gasoline on it before sunset and has no earthly idea what the hell he is doing, I choose the former every. single. time.

She was never particularly liberal.

I'm in the same boat. Running against pretty much anybody else, I would have not bothered. But she's running against a resurgence of literal fascism so I have to vote.
 
I think that stagnation is an undesirable political balance and I think that ought I be changed. But I didn't think someone like Trump could waltz on in.

I don't think Clinton is the death of the Republic so much as the continuation of stagnation. Revolution v stagnation or that Thucydides passage about the circle of governments. I'm not a revolutionary and I vastly prefer stagnation to revolution or accelerated descent.
I agree with you to a great extent....stagnation is most certainly preferable to accelerated decline. However; not to sound too "mainstream" but I do fear that one major source of political decline has been unfettered judicial activism.......and Clinton's list of potential SCOTUS appointments does indeed worry me. That being said, I'm certain that I have no confidence in the Don's ability to put together a rational search committee either. I do know from history that Liberal activist judges have had more of a tendency to promote social and political instability.....of course, that goes without saying..
 
I agree with you to a great extent....stagnation is most certainly preferable to accelerated decline. However; not to sound too "mainstream" but I do fear that one major source of political decline has been unfettered judicial activism.......and Clinton's list of potential SCOTUS appointments does indeed worry me. That being said, I'm certain that I have no confidence in the Don's ability to put together a rational search committee either. I do know from history that Liberal activist judges have had more of a tendency to promote social and political instability.....of course, that goes without saying..

"Activist judge."

AKA "Judge who ruled in a manner I disagree with."
 
"Activist judge."

AKA "Judge who ruled in a manner I disagree with."

Nah....I'm a constitutionalist. I'm referring to judges who push or exceed the boundaries of their constitutional limitations by not simply interpreting law, but by also using their power to bypass Congress in order to formulate it.
 
You demonstrate my point by opposing it.

Patriotism, taught properly would definitely have helped to avoid the the Iraq invasion. The congress would have been forced by the educated public to either declare war or not do so. Instead they reneged on their responsibility and the rest is literally history.

Specific emphasis on the advice of Washington to avoid foreign entanglements would be a strong deterrent to the international adventurism of the American Military. This advice from one of our patriots is routinely shunned by modern day leaders.

Patriotism would encourage the ongoing aspiration toward the ideal.

You're conflating patriotism and political awareness. For instance, none of the countries that opposed the Iraq war taught patriotism at school; their opposition was the product of political awareness, not of patriotism. You seem to think that since the Iraq invasion was detrimental to the U.S, the people that supported it were unpatriotic. This, however, is a fallacy, as those that supported the war assumed that they were doing the patriotic thing. The apt description of this reality is that a misguided citizenry perverted patriotism, and the remedy of that would be to spread political awareness.
 
Every candidate runs in the primaries to the extreme and returns to the middle during the campaign as Trump is currently doing. If I'm not mistaken, Hillary is doing this as well.

Unique to Trump's campaign using modern politics as the backdrop is that EVERYONE in both party establishments opposes him.

This screams that everyone in the political establishment doesn't want Trump to win. He has promised to be the outsider and attack the current failed system THAT BOTH PARTIES WORK TOGETHER TO MAINTAIN. BOTH parties oppose him and are actively working to undermine his candidacy. Judging anyone by their enemies helps to define that person. He is opposed by the most deceptive and manipulative vipers ever to walk the Earth.

What is it that trump has said that you find to more objectionable than allowing Americans to die in a war zone without sending them any aid and then lying about it?

He is certainly different. He is certainly less than delicate in his words. He hasn't had 40 years of instruction in political speak as have most of the political liars we hear.

In Washington, it is accurately said that a gaff is anytime a politician tells the truth.

Trump is returning to the middle? oh dear.

Also, I don't subscribe to the twaddle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For all I know, the enemy of my enemy could be a much worse enemy of mine. My repudiation of Trump and his movement has nothing to do with the establishment and the two parties.
 
Nah....I'm a constitutionalist. I'm referring to judges who push or exceed the boundaries of their constitutional limitations by not simply interpreting law, but by also using their power to bypass Congress in order to formulate it.

Give an example.
 
Give an example.

How about several:
United States v. Blewett, 5/7/2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decides to retroactively punish drug offenders
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Argued March 24, 2009, Court decided to override voters by uncapping Fed election donations
Atkins v. Virginia 06/20/2002 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 03/27/1990 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Baker v. Carr 03/26/1962 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
BMW v. Gore 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington 05/28/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism
Dabit v. Merrill Lynch 01/11/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Doe v. Bolton 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp. 02/10/1947 Supreme Court Contorting Text
Fierro v. Gomez 02/21/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Flast v. Cohen 06/10/1968 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 02/19/1985 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Gonzales v. Raich 06/06/2005 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Griswold v. Connecticut 06/07/1965 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 06/29/2006 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 05/30/1984 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Hayden v. Pataki 04/04/2006 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Hill v. Colorado 06/28/2000 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Hudson v. McMillian 02/25/1992 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Hunter ex rel. Brandt v. The Regents of the University of California 09/09/1999 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Playing Legislator
Katzenbach v. McClung 12/14/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. 06/23/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kennedy v. Louisiana 06/25/2008 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Lawrence v. Texas 06/26/2003 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Lemon v. Kurtzman 06/28/1971 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp. 10/06/2000 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent
Maloney v. Cuomo 01/28/2009 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Mapp v. Ohio 06/19/1961 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Playing Legislator
Missouri v. Jenkins 04/18/1990 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Morrison v. Olson 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Planned Parenthood v. Casey 06/29/1992 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Rasul v. Bush 06/28/2004 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Reynolds v. Sims 06/15/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Living Constitutionalism
Ricci v. DeStefano 06/13/2008 Second Circuit Contorting Text, Judicial Dishonesty
Roe v. Wade 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Romer v. Evans 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Roper v. Simmons 03/01/2005 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Saenz v. Roe 05/17/1999 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Silveira v. Lockyer 12/05/2002 Ninth Circuit Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
The Slaughterhouse Cases 04/14/1873 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley 09/15/2003 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 12/10/1986 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent
Thompson v. Oklahoma 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
United States v. Bad Marriage 12/30/2004 Ninth Circuit Playing Favorites
United States v. SCRAP 06/18/1973 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
United States v. Virginia 06/26/1996 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
United Steelworkers v. Weber 06/27/1979 Supreme Court Contorting Text
 
Last edited:
Fluffy, if you're going to paste someone's list I suggest two things:
1) Credit the source
2) Actually read it and check a few to see if it's remotely accurate.

United States v. Blewett, 5/7/2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decides to retroactively punish drug offenders False. In this decision, court declined to retroactively change sentences.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Argued March 24, 2009, Court decided to override voters by uncapping Fed election donations - I disapprove of the decision, but "override voters" is nonsense. We're not a direct democracy and you never voted on the law in question.

Atkins v. Virginia 06/20/2002 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism "Imperialism" is a vague and nonsensical term. This ruling declared it unconstitutional to execute the mentally impaired because it violates the 8th amendment

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 03/27/1990 Supreme Court Playing Legislator Actually the court chose not to overturn a law.

Baker v. Carr 03/26/1962 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism This decision was a blow against gerrymandering. I suppose you think there should be no checks and balanced against legislative abuse.

BMW v. Gore 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator Declaring excessive punishment to be a violation of the constitution. Don't you agree?

Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington 05/28/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism Declaring individuals have the right to die.

I'm going to stop there because all of these are presented deceptively so far and I have no reason to expect the rest are any different
 
Fluffy, if you're going to paste someone's list I suggest two things:
1) Credit the source
2) Actually read it and check a few to see if it's remotely accurate.

United States v. Blewett, 5/7/2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decides to retroactively punish drug offenders False. In this decision, court declined to retroactively change sentences.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Argued March 24, 2009, Court decided to override voters by uncapping Fed election donations - I disapprove of the decision, but "override voters" is nonsense. We're not a direct democracy and you never voted on the law in question.

Atkins v. Virginia 06/20/2002 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism "Imperialism" is a vague and nonsensical term. This ruling declared it unconstitutional to execute the mentally impaired because it violates the 8th amendment

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 03/27/1990 Supreme Court Playing Legislator Actually the court chose not to overturn a law.

Baker v. Carr 03/26/1962 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism This decision was a blow against gerrymandering. I suppose you think there should be no checks and balanced against legislative abuse.

BMW v. Gore 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator Declaring excessive punishment to be a violation of the constitution. Don't you agree?

Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington 05/28/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism Declaring individuals have the right to die.

I'm going to stop there because all of these are presented deceptively so far and I have no reason to expect the rest are any different
I have read the case summaries for EVERY SINGLE DECISION in that list. Have you?

Incidentally....your OPINION about what is "vague" or "nonsensical" has absolutely zero bearing on the actions of the Federal judiciary in these cases. Also, I might point out that it makes no difference if existing law was overturned or not....what is important and what we are discussing here, or so I thought, was the ACTIONS (including THE ATTEMPTED ACTIONS) of activist judges who've sought to legislate as opposed to simply interpret the constitutionality of existing or otherwise proposed law.

Whether I agree with the results of judicial activism is irrelevant. The Brown ruling in 1954 was also judicial activism....but the outcome was absolutely good and necessary.
Roe v. Wade on the other hand...also judicial activism....but in an area and to a degree which I feel was detrimental to the democratic process and to the jurisdiction of state law.

The simple question....which you seem to be cleverly evading is, HAS THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY EVER OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET LAW BY EXTENDING ITS POWER IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE LAW? By challenging me to "give an example" and by waving off this extensive list of court decisions that I have provided, as insignificant, I can see your mind is made up and it is pointless for me to try and argue this further. If you truly believe that the Federal courts, including the SCOTUS, have always acted within their constitutionally prescribed jurisdictions.......I pity you. You cannot possibly be this obtuse?
 
Last edited:
I have read the case summaries for EVERY SINGLE DECISION in that list. Have you?

Incidentally....your OPINION about what is "vague" or "nonsensical" has absolutely zero bearing on the actions of the Federal judiciary in these cases.

"Judicial imperialism" is vague. That's not an opinion.

Feel free to give an actual example where law was "created." Don't spam a list of vague one-liners someone else wrote for you. Pick a case, explain what they did, and why that created law.

And since your world is black and white, and I clearly believe every court decision in history was correct, you must be the opposite. Clearly, you believe every single court decision in history was improper. Which means you think we shouldn't even have a judicial branch. That's how your world works. This is your standard. Surely you cannot possibly be this obtuse.
 
Give an example.

Does the Constitutional right to an abortion ring a bell? How about the elimination of the Constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy? And, we could consider the laws making it a crime to lie to the police, a violation of the Constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination. Keep in mind, lying to the police is not lying under oath.
 
How about several:
United States v. Blewett, 5/7/2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decides to retroactively punish drug offenders
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Argued March 24, 2009, Court decided to override voters by uncapping Fed election donations
Atkins v. Virginia 06/20/2002 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 03/27/1990 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Baker v. Carr 03/26/1962 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
BMW v. Gore 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington 05/28/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism
Dabit v. Merrill Lynch 01/11/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Doe v. Bolton 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp. 02/10/1947 Supreme Court Contorting Text
Fierro v. Gomez 02/21/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Flast v. Cohen 06/10/1968 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 02/19/1985 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Gonzales v. Raich 06/06/2005 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Griswold v. Connecticut 06/07/1965 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 06/29/2006 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 05/30/1984 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Hayden v. Pataki 04/04/2006 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Hill v. Colorado 06/28/2000 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Hudson v. McMillian 02/25/1992 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Hunter ex rel. Brandt v. The Regents of the University of California 09/09/1999 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Playing Legislator
Katzenbach v. McClung 12/14/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. 06/23/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kennedy v. Louisiana 06/25/2008 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Lawrence v. Texas 06/26/2003 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Lemon v. Kurtzman 06/28/1971 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp. 10/06/2000 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent
Maloney v. Cuomo 01/28/2009 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Mapp v. Ohio 06/19/1961 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Playing Legislator
Missouri v. Jenkins 04/18/1990 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Morrison v. Olson 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Planned Parenthood v. Casey 06/29/1992 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Rasul v. Bush 06/28/2004 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Reynolds v. Sims 06/15/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Living Constitutionalism
Ricci v. DeStefano 06/13/2008 Second Circuit Contorting Text, Judicial Dishonesty
Roe v. Wade 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Romer v. Evans 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Roper v. Simmons 03/01/2005 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Saenz v. Roe 05/17/1999 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Silveira v. Lockyer 12/05/2002 Ninth Circuit Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
The Slaughterhouse Cases 04/14/1873 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley 09/15/2003 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 12/10/1986 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent
Thompson v. Oklahoma 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
United States v. Bad Marriage 12/30/2004 Ninth Circuit Playing Favorites
United States v. SCRAP 06/18/1973 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
United States v. Virginia 06/26/1996 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
United Steelworkers v. Weber 06/27/1979 Supreme Court Contorting Text
So you found a couple of isolated incidents... big whoop 😎

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Doesn't look like "a couple" to me.
 
How about several:
United States v. Blewett, 5/7/2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decides to retroactively punish drug offenders
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Argued March 24, 2009, Court decided to override voters by uncapping Fed election donations
Atkins v. Virginia 06/20/2002 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 03/27/1990 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Baker v. Carr 03/26/1962 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
BMW v. Gore 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington 05/28/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism
Dabit v. Merrill Lynch 01/11/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Doe v. Bolton 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp. 02/10/1947 Supreme Court Contorting Text
Fierro v. Gomez 02/21/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Flast v. Cohen 06/10/1968 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 02/19/1985 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Gonzales v. Raich 06/06/2005 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Griswold v. Connecticut 06/07/1965 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 06/29/2006 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 05/30/1984 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Hayden v. Pataki 04/04/2006 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Hill v. Colorado 06/28/2000 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Hudson v. McMillian 02/25/1992 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Hunter ex rel. Brandt v. The Regents of the University of California 09/09/1999 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Playing Legislator
Katzenbach v. McClung 12/14/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. 06/23/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kennedy v. Louisiana 06/25/2008 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Lawrence v. Texas 06/26/2003 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Lemon v. Kurtzman 06/28/1971 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp. 10/06/2000 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent
Maloney v. Cuomo 01/28/2009 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Mapp v. Ohio 06/19/1961 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Playing Legislator
Missouri v. Jenkins 04/18/1990 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Morrison v. Olson 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Planned Parenthood v. Casey 06/29/1992 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Rasul v. Bush 06/28/2004 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Reynolds v. Sims 06/15/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Living Constitutionalism
Ricci v. DeStefano 06/13/2008 Second Circuit Contorting Text, Judicial Dishonesty
Roe v. Wade 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Romer v. Evans 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Roper v. Simmons 03/01/2005 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Saenz v. Roe 05/17/1999 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Silveira v. Lockyer 12/05/2002 Ninth Circuit Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
The Slaughterhouse Cases 04/14/1873 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley 09/15/2003 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 12/10/1986 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent
Thompson v. Oklahoma 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
United States v. Bad Marriage 12/30/2004 Ninth Circuit Playing Favorites
United States v. SCRAP 06/18/1973 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
United States v. Virginia 06/26/1996 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
United Steelworkers v. Weber 06/27/1979 Supreme Court Contorting Text

You should consider the Sparf decision in 1895 to be included on your list.
 
"Judicial imperialism" is vague. That's not an opinion.

Feel free to give an actual example where law was "created." Don't spam a list of vague one-liners someone else wrote for you. Pick a case, explain what they did, and why that created law.

And since your world is black and white, and I clearly believe every court decision in history was correct, you must be the opposite. Clearly, you believe every single court decision in history was improper. Which means you think we shouldn't even have a judicial branch. That's how your world works. This is your standard. Surely you cannot possibly be this obtuse.
All fine and good, but I will repeat my question once more: HAS THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY EVER OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET LAW BY EXTENDING ITS POWER IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE LAW? Will you say here and now that it never has?
 
I agree with you to a great extent....stagnation is most certainly preferable to accelerated decline. However; not to sound too "mainstream" but I do fear that one major source of political decline has been unfettered judicial activism.......and Clinton's list of potential SCOTUS appointments does indeed worry me. That being said, I'm certain that I have no confidence in the Don's ability to put together a rational search committee either. I do know from history that Liberal activist judges have had more of a tendency to promote social and political instability.....of course, that goes without saying..

Here's where I diverge. More often than not, I look toward judicial activism (on the Left typically) to be the only way things move forward on certain key areas I pay attention to. They are largely civil and human rights matters.
 
All fine and good, but I will repeat my question once more: HAS THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY EVER OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET LAW BY EXTENDING ITS POWER IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE LAW? Will you say here and now that it never has?

I offer up Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his God damned sick fascination with testicles to bolster your case, sir.
 
I offer up Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his God damned sick fascination with testicles to bolster your case, sir.

Haha! Excellent reference. Good ol' Oliver Wendell Holmes and his apparent infatuation with the Eugenics movement!

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their
imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. ... Three generations of
imbeciles are enough [4]." – US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his support of the Eugenics movement
in Buck v. Bell
 
Haha! Excellent reference. Good ol' Oliver Wendell Holmes and his apparent infatuation with the Eugenics movement!

Holmes didn't seem as infatuated with eugenics as he did with his, nearly sexual, love of his own court opinions. ;)
 
Here's where I diverge. More often than not, I look toward judicial activism (on the Left typically) to be the only way things move forward on certain key areas I pay attention to. They are largely civil and human rights matters.

Yes, it is the only way to move things forward when there isn't enough support to do what the leftists want. That's why the left loves dictatorships. People having a say by electing legislators just doesn't work for the leftists. And, the amendment process is totally unworkable for the minority elite.
 
Back
Top Bottom