The Redhunter

This is a bit of a rant and not up to your usual standards. That said, I am reminded of the axiom we were taught in law school to which I will add my two corollaries:

"People who get A's in law school become law school professors; people who get B's in law school become judges; people who C's become lawyers."

Corollary the First: "People who get D's in law school become politicians."

Corollary the Second: "People who get F's in law school become lobbyists."

So am I surprised that many politicians are unfamiliar with the Constitution? Not in the least. Unfamiliar with history? Not that either.

But such ignorance is not confined to the Democrats.

Meanwhile, is citing the portion of the Constitution which enables any particular piece of legislation a showboating gimmick? You betcha.

Let us consider that La Palin, the self appointed, or perhaps Fox News appointed, spokes person for he new Conservatism, probably could not pass either a high school Civics final or a high school American History final. Certainly, she is not alone.

Meanwhile, as for judges, we are living with a SCOTUS that is the most activist--and I use that term in a negative sense--and conservative in generations. Yes, J. Roberts, J. Scalia, J. Thomas, and J. Alito are certainly substituting their conservative, corporate agenda for what is in the Constitution, trampling on the Doctrine of Stare Decisis all the while.

So the House GOP ushered in the new era of fiscal responsibility with a $2,500 per head bash at a swanky Washington Hotel with Leann Rimes providing the entertainment. At least John Boehner had the good taste not to attend.

With the GOP, its plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

Regards,

TLGK

Oh loop, I think I'm entitled to a little fun with a post every now and then.

If there is no Constitutional authority for a piece of legislation, then clearly it's unconstitutional. Therefore, if a lawmaker can't cite the relevant part of the Constitution, their law is Constitutionally questionable. I think liberals call that a gimmick mostly because they know much of their agenda is unconstitutional.

bty, "activist" does not mean striking down unconstitutional laws. It means inventing things that aren't in the Constitution to promote a political agenda you're trying to push, like abortion on demand.

Stare decisis simply requires a Court to follow rules established by a superior court, and doesn't prevent the Supreme Court from striking down laws or prior Supreme Court decisions. After all, the SCOTUS has reversed itself many times.

take care,

Tom

Yes. You are entitled to fun and if I missed it, my bad.

I am going to play the "I am a lawyer card" only for the reason that I disagree w/ and believe that your understanding of judicial activism and Stare Decisis are both in error.

Stare Decisis is the rule of law established by prior decisions. I suggest reading former J. Stevens' opinions on the current court on this issue. The usual rule is that great deference should be given to prior decisions. Sometimes, the Court justifiable syas, you know, this prior decision need to be revisited and overturned. See Brown V. Board of Education vis a vis Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld state laws that promoted segregation. The Citizen United v. FEC decision is a prime example of the current court trampling on Stare Decisis.

As for judicial activism, that can take many forms. I d not argue about your point regrading Roe v. Wade although certainly that holding has been narrowed over the years. Procedurally, the District of Columbia v. Heller decision is an example of the current court's judicial activism.

My position is, one cannot decry what one perceives as activism based on whether one approves of the results. I am not even taking the position that judicial activism is necessarily bad. I just believe it is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest for conservatives, having made judicial activism a hot button issue, to remain silent or to ignore such activism when the decision supports their Constitutional vision.

One final point as to the grandstanding that is citing the Constitutional basis for legislation.

The number of laws enacted by Congress that are unconstitutional are so small on a percentage basis, that citing the constitutional basis for a proposed piece of legislation is entirely unnecessary to the point of being stupid. It is almost as if, one were to begin an address, public or private, with the words, "I am speaking to you today at this moment because there is some information or an opinion I wish to convey."

Duh.

TLGK

Loop, a few last points and I'll let it go

Judicial activism is not striking down laws. If a city passed a law forbidding free speech, it is not activist to strike it down. Likewise, it is hardly activist to strike down laws forbidding gun ownership.

I went to Wikipedia for a quickie definition of stare decisis. I'm of course familiar with Brown V. Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson, less so Citizen United v. FEC although I know that liberals are all bent out of shape over it.

I will say that I've noticed that it seems that liberals pull out stare decisis mostly to protect rulings they like, that is as more of a political tool than anything else.

Tom,

Two points in reverse order. Invoking Stare Decisis is used by anyone or whatever political stripe when that person wants to maintain the status quo ante.

I disagree with your position on judicial activism. It is not merely the creation rights where someone might think none exist. Blacks Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."

David Strauss, law professor University of Chicago, has argued that judicial activism can be narrowly defined as one or more of three possible actions: overturning laws as unconstitutional, overturning judicial precedent, and ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution.

On the other hand former Solicitor General Ted Olson has stated "most people use the term "judicial activism" to explain decisions that they don't like."

I don't take issue with Ted Olson's definition. I suspect, liberals will use the term more and more often given the current Court. Mostly, in recent years, it has been used by conservatives to describe results they do not like.

TLGK

Is the Constitution a Gimmick?

Republican House members Pete Sessions of Texas and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania seem to think so. The two skipped the swearing in session of the new Congress, as they were pre-occupied with a fundraising event. I would note that Fitzpatrick took part in the reading of the Constitution, but he didn't seem to pay attention to what the words actually meant. Evidently, the U.S. Constitution requires House members participate in the swearing in order to be official members of congress. Although they did not do this, they then voted eight times on actions and legislation without being official members of congress, a direct violation of the constitution. When someone figured this out, the votes had to be nullified.

In Fitzpatrick's defense, he did say he watched the swearing-in on TV, and raised his right hand while watching the event on a big screen TV. But I am pretty sure that is not in the constitution....

Yes, jason, let's focus on two of 242 Republican congressman.

Weak.

I've noticed that too many fixate on the tiniest amount of hypocrisy from the other side, demanding absolute 100 percent purity, while ignoring the larger issues, which in this case is whether laws should be constitutional or not.