Obama Looks For Quick Confirmation

Now that Obama has selected the anti gun, empathetic, racist Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court he is asking the Senate to make quick work of her confirmation. There is no doubt in my mind she will be confirmed because the Republicans do not have the numbers to stop her. She will only be stopped if there is a major issue or she stumbles. This means that Republicans need to be diligent and take a long hard look at her and her record. They need to do this slowly and deliberately. Obama wants it done quickly before more negatives pop up. We need to take our time and dig as deep as we can.

This judge does not belong on the Supreme Court. Justice is supposed to be blind but she has already admitted that she uses her life experiences to guide her. She does not interpret the Constitution and apply the law, she allows her emotion to dictate her decisions. It is also true that she believes that policy is made in the court which means she lacks an understanding of our system of governance or she does not care about it.

I have demonstrated that she does not understand the Constitution by showing that her view of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that is indisputable. Only people who lack intelligence or wish to rewrite history or enact a personal agenda see it otherwise.

Sotomayor is also a racist. People have been accused of taking her comment out of context but I have read the entire quote. It is racist. The assertion is that she will understand the downtrodden before the court because of her background and because she is a person of color. Does this mean that she could not get decisions right if the dispute involved privileged white men? I mean, if she had been on the court in 2000 would she have to recuse herself from Gore v Bush because she did not live their lives and could not understand their issues?

Or is it more accurate to say that justice is supposed to be blind and that it does not matter what color, nationality, sex, or ethnicity a judge is, the law should be applied equally across the spectrum and that the only experience required to get it right is a thorough understanding of the Constitution? Her comment was racist and those who deny it are the same ones who see racism when a noose is hung at a house on Halloween or when someone says that welfare recipients should get off their lazy butts and get a job. The immediate assumption is that the speaker was talking about minorities. I would ask; who is the racist, the one who made the statement or the one who made the assumption?

Sotomayor seems to think that because she is a Latina with a humble beginning that her experiences will allow her to make better decisions and to get it right more often than some white guy who did not live her life. So did her life experiences lead her to mess up Ricci v. DeStefano? Did she have such a loathing for white people that she decided that they did not deserve the same protection against discrimination as a minority group would? Is there any doubt that if this had been reversed and the blacks were suing that she would have sided with them?

This is the heart of the issue. The law was ignored in Ricci and several very serious Constitutional issue were ignored. Evidently, her life issues did not allow her to get it right and the Supreme Court will likely overturn her decision in the case.

That should not be surprising since 60% of her cases that have gone before the Supreme Court have been overturned. This is but one more indication that she does not understand the law or the Constitution and it puts a big dent in her assertion that she would get it right more often than some white guy. 60% of the time she was wrong and this is just in cases that went to the SCOTUS. How many of her lower court decisions have been overturned?

Sotomayor does not belong on any bench much less the Supreme Court. Republicans need to aggressively push her and dig up all the things that she has done that run counter to the way good law is practiced. She might end up being confirmed but the detailed analysis will demonstrate what Obama is and what he is doing to this country.

We also need to target Democrat Senators from red states who have a fairly conservative base. Make sure the gun issues are well played and ensure the gun owners know. Tell these Senators they will be in danger of losing if they support this person who does not understand our rights.

As for you liberals who are whining that she was attacked from the start, Ted Kennedy attacked Bork within 45 minutes of his selection by Reagan and what Kennedy said was not very nice. Democrats have been nasty and played lots of games with nominees of Republican presidents. Now it is time to ensure this nominee is asked tough questions and that she is asked to explain law and her statements.

Let’s see if she can do it like John Roberts, without notes.

But be careful how you discuss her because the White House is warning to watch what you say about her. Gibbs, the Obama butt boy, said that people who are criticizing her intelligence probably did not graduate number 2 in their classes. I don’t question her intelligence but being smart does not mean she knows the law or is not an activist. There are really smart people who passed law school and they are terrible lawyers.

The National Black Republican Association is not happy with the pick either.

Ann Coulter has a great article up.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

43 Responses to “Obama Looks For Quick Confirmation”

  1. Adam says:

    As for you liberals who are whining that she was attacked from the start…

    Attack away. The sooner the better. It only hurts you. While some of the things you bring up are legitimate disagreements between those who study law, most are just snap judgments and myths which you are propagating.

    I’m glad we’ve gone away from that 80% that the liar Limbaugh spread around. Still, the 60% is 3 out of 5 cases. You act like 60% of every decision she made was overturned. She has hundreds of decisions and a mere fraction were reviewed and overturned. If 1 case was sent to the court and overturned you would say “100% of her cases that have gone before the Supreme Court have been overturned!”

    You pretend that you have read the whole quote about being a Latina and that she is racist but that is nonsense and you know it.

    You said:

    The assertion is that she will understand the downtrodden before the court because of her background and because she is a person of color. Does this mean that she could not get decisions right if the dispute involved privileged white men?

    She said she would hope that would be the case but she goes on to say it isn’t always true:

    I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

    In reality you are the last person I’d trust to judge what is and is not racist. You have proven your inability over and over. This is yet another case.

    Gibbs, the Obama butt boy…

    Right. Obama’s press secretary is his butt boy? How mature of you…

    • Blake says:

      Yea, yea, yea, – you made the prof. Carter quote in the last sonia post- running out of words?
      The Republicans probably can’t keep her from being confirmed, but this does not mean that they should not hold her to account- she’s an activist, and that is not nor should it EVER be a part of the Supreme Court.
      And Adam- 60% of her decisions that went to the Supreme Court were overturned- that’s still over half. How many of her lower court decisions were overturned?
      Would you want a doctor to operate on you if his success rate was 60% ? I’ll bet not.

    • Blake says:

      It is true that Gibbs is Barama’s version of Igor- the Marty Feldman version, of course.

    • Big Dog says:

      First of all sunshine, I never quoted 80% and Blake has stated that he misread the paper.

      You fail to address the issue of the Second Amendment, because you cannot argue that one and you know she is wrong. I have read your rants over things taken out of context. S noose at Halloween and you said it was a racist symbol. At Halloween? Only a moron would think that. Out of context but you blew it out of proportion.

      In the story from Baltimore where the noose was placed you were all over it when I said that they should wait and see what went on. Turns out a black guy placed it. You and that racist Doc Cheatham of the NAACP refused to apologize for the mistake. Sharpton, incites a riot and falsely accuses then fails to apologize because, well it happened in the past.

      Sotomayor made a racist comment when she injected the Latina/white part of the argument. You can dismiss it and you can try to rationalize but she said it.

      And she is part of La Raza and that IS a racist organization.

  2. Blake says:

    Personally, I do not give a rat’s a** what Barama fama fo fama says or threatens. If I was a Republican, I would hold her feet to the fire regarding her qualifications.
    The Dems want this done by August vacation- I would tell them it is done when it is done.
    She deserves a complete vetting that comes close to that of a cavity search when it comes to her decisions, and it should be with all deliberate slowness.

    • Darrel says:

      The republicans will hold her feet to the fire, as they should.

      But for fire these days they are holding a small lighter, and it’s nearly out of gas.

      From what I have read, she seems like an *excellent* choice. And typical Obama, very moderate, very qualified (most judicial experience of a nominee in 70 years). Reasonable.

      She’ll sail through. He ought to pick another one. He could do that you know.

      “Harriet Miers!”

      Just kidding.

      • Big Dog says:

        Did not agree with Miers, only that Bush had the right to select her. Do not agree with Sotomayor but Obama has the right to select who he wants.

        In both cases the people making the selections show a lot about themselves.

        In Obama’s case he showed that he does not give a damn about the Constitution and that his idea of justice is not blind, it is quota based.

  3. Adam says:


    You seem to be attacking me for saying the Republicans shouldn’t fight her. I haven’t said that. They should and will, but I’m with Darrel on this one: The GOP isn’t exactly burning brightly right now.

    Am I running out of words? Don’t be a child either. The quote disproves you and Big Dog’s nonsense about her being a racist based on that one snippet you keep talking about. You can keep ignoring it if you want but I’m going to post it any time one of you tries to use that speech to call her racist.

    You are also on the list of those I consider to be the most inept when it comes to determining what is and isn’t racism.

    • victoria says:

      Yea we know, only white people can be racist against people of color. You are the most inept at deciding what is and is not racist I have ever seen. You can’t seperate ideology and policy from skin color can you.

    • Big Dog says:

      Yeah Adam, like I need a wet behind the ears, lacking in life experiences young man whose sum total of what he has learned has come from a book to tell me what is and what is not racist. I actually lived through the race riots, you were not born yet. I have been to many foreign nations and worked side by side with the people of those nations. I have worked in some of the toughest conditions alongside people of evvery demographic imagined, none of whom called me racist. Yet I am supposed to be concerned that a snot nosed young man with little experience thinks differently. Like that will happen.

      Of, to put it like your buddy Sotomayor:

      I would like to believe that a man with world experience who has worked side by side with a diverse set of people would get it right more often than a southern hillbilly liberal who does not have any of those experiences.

      • Adam says:

        Big Dog:

        You can save your blah blah blah childish name calling and all that bull about your life versus mine. As long as you keep saying things like being called a redneck or a honky is as equal as calling a black person the N-word then it is clear to the world how little you understand about history or race relations or discrimination. I don’t even have to break a sweat to make you look like an idiot on this subject but by all means keep talking.

        If you’re lucky people like Victoria will swoop in again to defend you with her racist bullshit and further destroy your credibility on this subject.

        • Blake says:

          Its not “name- calling ” if its true,Adam.
          And racist is racist, at least until you show me a “Race-o-meter” that clearly indicates that redneck, or honky, or cracker is not as bad as other slurs.
          Perhaps while you are back in Arkansas you can ask some people how they feel about slurs.

      • Adam says:

        I’m heading back to AR for a few days so I guess y’all get a reprieve from my liberalism for just a few days. I’ll see you in a week or so.

    • Blake says:

      Anytime a white guy would have said that his experience was better than that of a latina woman, the rest of the quote wouldn’t matter to you libs- you would be all over the guy.
      As for you keeping a list- whoa, I AM impressed- numerically?
      You judging me is like being spit on by a gnat.

    • Blake says:

      You are on my list as well- for the same reason.

  4. Darrel says:


    “In fact, contrary to the claim that a reversal rate of 60 percent is “high,” data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year.

    The Times reported that “[t]hree of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents.” The article then quoted Wright’s assertion that Sotomayor’s “high reversal rate alone could be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record.” But according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, Sotomayor’s reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present — both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term.”


    • Blake says:

      Now THAT’S some cherry picking, comparing Sotomayor’s reversal rate to ALL the rest, instead of against other INDIVIDUAL judge’s decisions- 60% is still high, indicating perhaps her intellect may not be up to the task. These are questions that should be asked by Republicans.
      I’ll bet we do not get nasty as the Libbies do like with Clarence Thomas, or Alito.

      • Darrel says:

        It’s “cherry picking” to compare her average to all the rest? You’re funny.

        “…data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year.”

        Nine myths and falsehoods being spread by the right on this is issue, dismantled here:


        Do you research first. Saves time, prevents embarrassment.

  5. victoria says:

    The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Ricci v. DeStefano before the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. It would be an extraordinary rebuke were a current nominee to be overruled on such a controversial case by the very justices she is slated to join. This is the one where she ruled against the white firefighters who did good on their tests as opposed to the black firefighters who did pass the test.

  6. victoria says:

    Michael Richards makes his point…
    Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.
    This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act.
    He makes some very interesting points…
    Someone finally said it… How many are actually paying attention to this?
    There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
    You call me ‘White boy,’ ‘Cracker,’ ‘Honkey,’ ‘Whitey,’ ‘Caveman’ … and that’s OK.
    But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink … You call me a racist. You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you… so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
    You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day
    You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah.
    You have Ma’uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET…
    If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we’d be racists.
    If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
    If we had White History Month, we’d be racists.
    If we had any organization for only whites to ‘advance’ OUR lives we’d be racists.
    We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
    Wonder who pays for that??
    A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.
    If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships…You know we’d be racists.
    There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US .
    Yet if there were ‘White colleges’ That would be a racist college.
    In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.
    If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
    You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you’re not afraid to announce it.
    But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
    You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
    I am proud…But you call me a racist.
    Why is it that only whites can be racists??

  7. victoria says:

    Oh, yea I know that Michael Richards did not actually say that but it makes a point.

  8. Schatzee says:

    That’s an excellent point, Victoria and most people would in fact call that a racist rant just because it was done by a white person rather than a minority. I actually completely agree..

    However, to the point of this post, judges are not supposed to make determinations based on personal experience and empathy with the downtrodden or anything else. They are to apply the law as it is written and that is all. They are to instruct juries to do the same and that is all. A judge should not be a sociologist looking at the situation and making excuses and curtailing punishment for those s/he feels a kinship with. If that is the case, then if a white judge starts handing down harsher punishments to blacks because he personally has had bad experiences with them, then that is just. Come on – get a grip people. She is a bad choice and has a sketchy record. Hell, some of her quotes she even admits she should not say them when they’re being taped (like stating that they make law rather than interpret it). This is just another step down the road to hell and chaos for our country.

  9. Barbara says:

    Hey Adam, go live with the rattle snakes while you are away. You are so childish that you are funny. It appears you think it is okay to say what you want, but God help anyone who disagrees with you. If you listened to others, you just might learn something.

  10. a mother says:

    Disparaging words can’t really be marginalized into levels of insult. Calling a black person the N-word should be just as insulting as calling a white person a hillbilly if it is meant as one.
    Senario 1: Black people call each other the N-word all the time and no one says anything because they don’t mean it negatively. BUT, if some white guy hears them and says it, still not meaning any insult, the NAACP and every other “minority interest group” would be all over it “like white on rice”.
    Senario 2: Same group of black people, same white guy but he doesn’t say the N-word. They call him hillbilly/inbred/cracker, etc (meaning it as an insult), and the white guy is just supposed to take it and if he takes it as an insult and says something about it he becomes a white supremisist.
    If you insult me because I’m a woman, I’ll insult your manhood. If you insult me because I have tattoos and piercing, I’ll insult your fear of needles. If you insult my ethnicity, I’ll have to eat crow because that’s the “politically correct” way of life. F-ing BS, man!

  11. victoria says:

    OBAMA in LA at a fundraiser this week: This woman is brilliant. She is qualified. I want her confirmed. I want her walking up those marble steps and starting to provide some justice.

    Meaning, it ain’t justice coming out of there now. Justice as she defines it, based on what she said. She’s better at justice ’cause she’s Latina, better at justice than a white guy.

  12. Big Dog says:

    Adam, the term redneck is listed as a racist and offensive term. It is either racist or it is not. There is no degree to it.

    As far as history goes, I am well aware of it. The Democrats were the party of slavery, opposed civil rights and imposed Jim Crow laws.

    I also know that just because some twit says it is racist does not make it so. You can claim to be good at what you do but if you would ever like to have a debate I think you would end up embarrassed.

    Once again, just because Adam says it, does not make it so.

    But Adam, Sotomayor was racist in her decision against the firefighters. They were discriminated against and they were treated differently because they were not black. Will you defend that?

  13. Big Dog says:

    Have a safe trip Adam.

  14. Big Dog says:

    Andrew Cline nails it:

    Were Sotomayor a white male who grew up in economic comfort, but who had exactly the same legal experience and judicial record, would the praise of Obama’s choice be so widespread and so fawning? Not a chance. More likely, these same writers would find Sotomayor lacking in qualifications. And that says a lot, none of it good, about how the left views the role of the courts in this country.

  15. Blake says:

    The left has always viewed the courts as the place to “make” law, instead of interpreting it. This is one of the central tenets of their activist agenda.
    The truth is that courts do not work as they should if “empathy” is injected into the judicial mix. Courts are supposed to view both defendant and plaintiff equally and draw their decision from the evidence alone- empathy has NO place in the decision process.

    • Darrel says:

      Actually, that’s not right. Observe:

      (4) MYTH: Liberal judges like Sotomayor are “activist[s]”

      CNN’s Gloria Borger and Bill Schneider have uncritically repeated Republican claims that Sotomayor is — in Schneider’s words — a “liberal activist,” and in doing so have also advanced the baseless conservative claim that judicial activism is solely a “liberal” practice. But at least two studies — looking at two different sets of criteria — have found that the most “conservative” Supreme Court justices have been among the biggest judicial activists.

      A 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder indicated that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled “conservative” were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism — the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Indeed, Gewirtz and Golder found that Thomas “was the most inclined” to do so, “voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws.” Additionally, a recently published study by Cass R. Sunstein (recently named by Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism — the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court’s “conservative” justices were the most likely to engage in “judicial activism,” while the “liberal” justices were most likely to exercise “judicial restraint.”


      • Big Dog says:

        Sure, it was the liberal judges who exercised restraint in the Kelo decision where they allowed government confiscation of property in an unconstitutional manner. The unrestrained conservatives were against that.

        Like I said, just because a justice votes to invalidate a law does not mean he is activist. It could mean the law was unconstitutional. Media Matters is a liberal organization and it is not unbiased.

        • Darrel says:

          Then what definition of “activist” are you using? Careful not to be ad hoc here. That is:

          They are an “activist” if they overturn laws and you disagree with their decision, and… they are NOT “activists” when they over turn laws and you agree with their decision.

          In order to not fall in that self serving trap you need an objective measurement, a standard, of what an activist judge is beforehand and then you look at the record and see what you find.

          That’s the method my above reference refers to. These guys use an objective measurement and on this criteria find conservative judges being the activists going against precedent and overturning law much more so than the liberals. That would seem to be a normative definition of “activist” judge. If you have a better one, let’s see it. I have seen this referenced elsewhere also.

          You are right about media matters. Use their material with caution. I don’t necessarily agree with their editorial opinions but I have found their factual claims to be consistently correct and well referenced.


      • Big Dog says:

        I think the 9th Circus Court demonstrates the activism of liberals.

        Those who do the surveys would have to know what activism was. Since liberals believe in legislating from the bench then they would not know that it was wrong.

        Sotomayor is an activist by her own admission so whether libs or conservatives are more or less is not relevant. She is an activist and she said so.

      • Big Dog says:

        Yale professors? No bias there…

  16. Big Dog says:

    Media Matters is not impartial.

  17. Big Dog says:

    So because Thomas voted against laws that Congress passed he was an activist? Maybe the laws were in violation of the Constitution.

    Liberals believe upholding the Constitution is activism.

    • Darrel says:

      If voting “against laws that Congress passed” isn’t PRECISELY and exactly “legislating from the bench” then pray,…

      what would be?!


      • Big Dog says:

        If the law violated the Constitution then how can it be activism?

        I say if you vote to overturn something based on ANYTHING OTHER than the Constitution than you are an activist. If you justify something by finding it in the Constitution even though it does not exist there then you are an activist.

        I know you have a hard time understanding the Constitution but that is how it is.

        Sotomayor feels the Second Amendment is not an individual right. That is wrong, goes against the Constitution and the people who wrote it. If she votes that way she is an activist.

        • Darrel says:

          BIGD: “finding it in the Constitution even though it does not exist there”>>

          Blatant, self-serving, question begging.

          BIGD: “I know you have a hard time understanding the Constitution but that is how it is.”>>

          When someone has no argument, their last resort is to say their belief is an axiom: “that is how it is.” Which is no argument at all.

          So you disagree with her understanding of the 2nd (let’s pretend you are accurate about her position). Big whoop. The only people who have an opinion about the constitution, that matter, are the people with fannies sitting on the high court. She’ll be there soon so her opinion will matter, yours does not.

          BIGD: “If she votes that way she is an activist.”>>

          So you provide no objective definition of an “activist” and then proceed to use the exactly useless ad hoc method I warned you about.

          If she votes in a way you disagree with, then she’s an activist. When Clarence votes to overturn laws and overthrow precedent (as he does more than any other), his action doesn’t make him an “activist” judge because… you agree with him.

          What a joke.


  18. Big Dog says:

    Pretend I know what I am talking about with regard to the Second. You don’t need to pretend, I am absolutely, demonstrably correct.

    You miss the point, if it is a violation of the Constitution then it is activism. If Jefferson wrote that all people may have a gun and she says they may not then she violated the Constitution, not my interpretation of it but the people who wrote it.

    I gave you a very good definition. As for the second, don’t embarrass yourself on the issue.

    You continue to twist words in that typical liberal fashion. I said nothing of the sort about Thomas or her. You claim if she votes the way I do not like or if Thomas votes the way I like…

    I said votes in accordance with the Constitution. It is very simple and there are thousands of words written by the founders on what they meant. I want a justice to read those words and follow what they wanted when they wrote it.

    To do otherwise is activism. Finding something that is not there is activism. If you can’t find it then the Tenth applies and send it to the state.

    Very simple.

    Don’t twist my words and don’t change them.

    I am not playing the BS games with you.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “You miss the point, if it is a violation of the Constitution then it is activism.”>>

      You can pretend *you* know what the constitution means but:

      a) your opinion has no relevance because you are not on the SC
      b) it means precisely what the SC says it means.

      No exceptions. You may not like that fact but it’s exactly “the way it is” (as the Bruce Hornsby song goes). You saying “violation of the Constitution” is practically a meaningless statement because you have no say, none, as to whether something is in violation of the constitution.

      The idea that the US Constitution has a specific meaning is absurd on it’s face. Laughable. The document is FILLED with ambiguity (especially the 2nd) and the rule is this: The Supreme Court decides.

      To quote my TIME mag:

      “equal protection of the laws” and “due process” are “inherently elastic concepts” and justices “inevitably make subjective judgments that are colored by their individual views about right and wrong, fair and unfair, wise and unwise.”

      The rest of your comment is non responsive to the problems I pointed out. You just beg the question and pretend that activist judges are activist because they disagree with your pet interpretations. And you provide no alternate objective definition of activist judge (because there is none).