Again though, I never said that it wasn't. I said that you can't use as your SOLE basis for calling something "judicial activism" that it overturned a state court's decision. That's what the Supreme Court was set up to do. I was arguing with why he called it judicial activism and not the fact he called it judicial activism.
i think your talking about me. what is with this "SOLE basis" stuff you keep bringing up? it was ONE example and i never claimed it to be anything else. and if you dont think it was judicial activism than you need to go review the case. the supreme court clearly overstepped their jurisdiction as this particular issue (ballot counting) was a state matter. the fla s.c. declared the ballot counting should continue and team bush went crying to the s.c., who were more than happy to intervene.
No what I'm saying is that in this particular case you stated that it was an act of judicial activism because the SCOTUS overturned a State Court's decision. I'm saying that there are reasons the particular case could be considered judicial activism but simply overturning a state court's decision is not one of them.
...the crucial thing that makes it NOT judicial activism, despite the fact that it takes a dump on the federalism canon about rspecting state authority and devolving power onto state governements that young conservatives are weaned on in law school, is that it fits the major category: it is a decison that Republicans like.
i agree with you in that simply overturning a state courts decision does not necessarily equate overstepping their boundaries, but in this particular case the s.c. overstepped their boundaries. it is clearly established that the florida s.c. hears all matters regarding voting in their state. the ballot counting issue was a state matter and the feds had no buisness intervening. therefore, in this case, the s.c. intervening was judicial activism. understand?
I completely understand what you're saying. My first post in this thread regarding this was merely pointing out that the overturning of a decision of a state court does not make a decision judicial activism. I wasn't saying anything about the merit of other arguments regarding this decision. Thank you for at least discussing this matter in a civilized way unlike others have done.
Not you. I don't think I've ever been offended or put off by anything you've said in here. I disagree with you a lot but I can't really disagree with the manner in which you post 99.99% of the time.
Thanks! You're one of the fun guys to discuss politics with around here, since you don't fall into the "can't defend my guy, so I'll make some stupid crack," category. Yes, we have those on both sides, but the little clique that does it for Bush and company have really lost their imagination. Seems to be the same stuff all the time, just recycled. Now that the love-fest is taken care of, don't you think Bush is an idiot?? Keep D&D Civil.
