Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (31771)	9/11/2008 12:49:35 AM
From: nigel bates	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

You're missing my point on 'judicial activism'. What has been in question, ever since the original amendments were passed, is the right of the US Supreme Court to enforce amendment rights at the state level, overruling state governments. In 1833 the Supreme Court ruled that it did not have that right. In the 1870s, in the Slaughter-House cases the Supreme Court eviscerated the 14th amendment - clearly flouting the will of Congress - by refusing to enforce it at state level. Starting in 1925, the Supreme Court started to change its mind on its powers to enforce amendment rights at state level, a process which has been going on ever since. It is difficult to see how this change of mind couldn't be described as 'judicial activism', since the legislature had nothing to do with this it. The recent decision regarding the District of Columbia (which incidentally isn't a state) is also unguided by any legislative process. The precise intention of Congress when it passed the 2nd amendment as to whether or not it was an individual right is entirely opaque. If 'judicial activism' means anything at all other than 'liberal decisions I don't like', then this decision too is judicial activism. As far as Obama is concerned, I think his policy is 'reasonable restrictions' on gun ownership - which entirely in accord with the recent decision.