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: nigel bates who wrote (32346)	9/17/2008 10:47:25 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 149317

In Fletcher v Peck the SC enforced an article of the constitution. Fletcher v Peck has nothing to do with the Supreme Court enforcing the Bill of Rights - ie amendment rights. Find, but amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I believe there's even articles which say that. I'm sorry, but if you took the trouble to understand your nation's constitution, I just love liberals tone. You are all geniuses in your own minds. which despite its messy history and inherent flaws is about the best one in existence Indeed. , you wouldn't be shouting slogans like 'judicial activism'. There is a problem with justices finding things in the Constitution that aren't there. And there is a problem with justices deciding opinions like this: In general, legal scholars have noted that Douglas's judicial style was unusual in that he did not attempt elaborate justifications for his judicial positions on the basis of text, history, or precedent. Instead, Douglas was known for writing short, pithy opinions which relied on philosophical insights, observations about current politics, and literature, as much as more conventional "judicial" sources. ..... The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. en.wikipedia.org One of the reasons I believe Obama might make a great president is that I am pretty certain that he won't appoint liberal versions of Scalia. I'm pretty certain he'd appoint radical liberals like Douglas only more so. He's indicated as much: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." In other words, he thinks a judge should be a social worker. Neither am I, but I respect their knowledge of the law. I don't even trust most lawyers to communicate that objectively.