The Glade 4.0

Judcial activism is tossing out precident and forging new ground.

1. I don't believe that organizations are people, and therefore aren't the subject of the bill of rights.
2. You're ignoring 100+ years of judicial precedence.

You mean like tossing out Plessy vs. Ferguesson (sp?) in favor of Brown v. Board of Education?

In any case, what precedent has been tossed out here? Precedent is not "laws already on the books"; precedent is based on prior jurisprudence.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yup, that is a prime example of judicial activism. Some activism is good, some is bad.

I am, however, amused at the hippocracy of many of the supporters of this change, as they were some of the loudest critics of judicial activism when it went in a direction they didn't like previously.

As Ladas points out, it has been a convenient label to throw around on a decision that you don't like.

As for what has been thrown out? The article Khross linked has at least 3 examples I believe.

While some may (incorrectly) call this "judicial activism", this case exemplifies the virtue of judicial review.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

This is not judicial activism. Judicial activism is when a ruling is based on the personal politics of the judges making the ruling rather than the ruling being based on the law as written.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Aizle:

You keep using the term "judicial activism" as if you know what it means. Since you have provided a definition that is not consistent with the generally accepted definition of the term, why is yours better? Why is your more accurate? Why should we adopt your definition?

And, yes, I can a very vocal critic of "judicial activism". I am, likewise, in no way hypocritical in my position in this thread. I have always been a critic of the McCain-Feingold school of campaign reform. So, please, show me how I am being inconsistent.

_________________

I was paraphrasing this for my definition.



I believe it's accurate to what's happened.

My comments about hippocracy were not directed at you, or actually most of the posters here. I believe I understand your position and logic behind it fairly well at this point, and it's consistent within itself, however much I disagree with it.

I had to wipe the tears from my eyes when I read this, because I laughed so loud.

Virtue of judicial review? Hardly. Saying that a corporation is a person is like saying a pocket pussy is a prostitute.

I wonder if I can incorporate my fight choreography business, and then apply for welfare and food stamps...hmmm...

I mean, it *is* a person. And would I be the one that endowed it with rights, being it's creator?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Nonsense. All they basically said is that people have a right to free speech. Just because they are part of an organization, does not mean they lose that right. Me, and a bunch of other people, have the right to start any group, and exercise our free speech as one. You don't get to limit my speech because we're speaking together.

Since it's apparent that you have difficulty discerning the difference between legislative entitlements and constitutional rights, it's understandable why you would be confused by the whole concept being discussed.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Now, this is a curious definition indeed, since one of the qualifiers would eliminate activism from the current ruling. "Constitutional intent" makes your position, or at least the application of this definition, problematic. (I'll interject that I think "Constitutional Intent" is a very poor qualifier and that even I find "Framers' Intent" arguments generally weak). The text of the First Amendment, on the issue of Speech, is pretty clear, as I noted earlier in the this thread. Consequently, the history of jurisprudence indicates this is not a matter of activism, as preserving the First Amendment is exactly what the Court has done. And, generally speaking, the Court almost always upholds the First Amendment.

If, for instance, we turn to the opinion piece I linked, the esteemed lawyer in question inaccurately applies to private domain rulings to the First Amendment. The Court has ALWAYS indicated that when in a private establishment, you are subject to the sovereignty and rulings of its governing body on issues of speech and expression. Consequently, the author makes a hasty generalization and an an appeal to emotion that neither substantiate his position nor given credence to the argument of judicial activismFair enough, but I would suggest that you have, carelessly but not intentionally, applied the definition you cited in this case.

_________________

I understand your argument Khross, and it's not without some merit. However, it ignores 100+ years of precident which is also a key part of the definition.

There's a reason there is a clear delineation between "binding precedent" and "persuasive precedent", Aizle. In this instance, they didn't "ignore" pp, they reviewed it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

And, shocker of shockers, the conservatives found that Corporations are more human than human.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Montegue:

The right to incorporate into a business or political entity is actually an element of the First Amendment and elements of Contract Law. The Political Action Committee is an expression of the Right to Peaceably Assemble. Likewise, so are corporations. Groups of individuals unite for a common goal and a dispersion of economic or political risk. It is simply a mechanism for collective bargaining. I have every bit as much right to make my political voice heard as you. Prior to Wednesday, I could only make my voice heard through government sanctioned entities that operated in very much the same way as corporations. Now my voice can be heard through the vehicle of my choosing. It would seem, at least to me, that you now have more freedom to exercise your individual and collective right to speech than previously.

I think, however, it is not the ruling you fear but the reality of what opposing voices will say.

_________________

I'm still not sure where I stand, but I'm curious what you think differentiates unions and corporations in this respect. As Ladas pointed out earlier, apparently they currently shell out millions for politics.

_________________
The Dude abides.

The "populist" progressive:

Unions good.
Corporations bad.

Unions are made up of working people slaving away for their uncaring, greedy masters merely trying to get their just
due.

Corporations are the uncaring greedy masters.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Let's just ban both and we won't have these tricksy political funding issues.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Hook all the people up as battery chargers and let the machines meet our every need.

Note my signature quote and you might get an idea of my actual viewpoint.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I love people who continually battle against actual rights of individuals while always claiming to stand for the rights of the little guy.

Its just rights that they think you should have.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

And, shocker of shockers, you ignore the arguments behind it and blindly assume it's all bad, while ignoring those organizations which benefit the people you agree with.

No, it's not. I fear for our democracy. It isn't about what they say - what they say will likely be false. It's about how they can say it, and how powerfully their massive piles of cash can make the message. You and I both know that when it comes to propaganda, repitition and fancy slogans rule the day. It's about controlling percieved reality instead of actually voting on actual reality. 1984? yeah. If a person thinks corporate control would somehow be benign and innocent, that it wouldn't resemble the horrors of government totalitarianism, then that person is a bleeding idiot.

Modern corporations know *exactly* how to sell ice to Eskimos. There are entire industries devoted to selling people **** they don't need, ideas they would disagree with, and so on. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that basically serves as the mechanism for capitalism. People believed the bullshit about John Kerry not only because they inherently wanted to hate a liberal, but because the message was professionally crafted and professionally delivered. It had nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with media power.





My guess is that this pleases you, despite it's unconstitutionality, despite it's absolute irrationality, because it takes power away from the average Joe and puts it directly into the hands of the most wealthy, the most powerful, and the most greedy among us. This is move that does what you have always wanted - kills our democratic process. You are fond of quoting Moussilini in regards to Fascism. Try this on for size -

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

edit - and do you honestly think they will actually dive into their profits to pay for this? no. They will pass on the cost of their campaigning to their consumers. Because they can. So now *my* money will be used to fund their politics. How is my money their speech? hell, how in the high holy **** is *their* money "speech"? They are bribing someone to say something they want. The concept that speech=money is one of those baffling zombie lies that shows the emptiness and irrationality of conservatism.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Its simply reversing an 8 year old law right? So things will go back to the way they were. Surely there were people who won elections prior to 2002 who weren't the friends of Big business.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You did see that like 8 of the top ten contributors to political campaigns were *unions* right?

/facepalm

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!