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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (485205)	6/2/2009 3:24:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574679

Hang on a second. You've been arguing that SC judges should only use the law and the Constitution to render decisions. Now you seem to be saying that they actually interpret things. They interpret the law and the Constitution. Duh. And that is often held up as an example of activist judges at work. Let's try to stay on track rather than wandering about. You said, "It is pretty unlikely you would have much in the way of precedent that violates the Constitution." I simply provided an example where there was a ton of precedent that was subsequently ruled to be invalid on the basis of constitutional issues. I did not make any statement, whatsoever, about whether I "agreed" with Brown or not. I could have just as easily referred to Dred Scott which was an example of activism gone awry. If you want to discuss judicial activism, that is a different subject. I was addressing your one specific erroneous statement. Like presidents, history determines the sensibility of the Court's decision. I would not consider Brown to "activist" today, although proponents of activism certainly did at the time.