DAR
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).

Pitiful!

D.

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.

DAR
Blatant, self-serving, question begging.

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

DAR
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.”>>

DAR
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.

D.

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.

what would be?!

D.

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.

D.

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.

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.