Online Now 678

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

On this Board 149
Record: 1479 (5/20/2013)

Online now 614
Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)

Boards ▾

Fighton247 Board

The home for discussion on USC athletics

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

Trojan News on the Net

Latest USC headlines from around the net

Reply

This Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History

  • One statistical method for analyzing the Supreme Court . . . finds that the current court is the most conservative since at least the 1930s.

    Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History - NYTimes.com

    One statistical method for analyzing the Supreme Court finds that the current court is the most conservative since at least the 1930s.

    fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

    wake6830

  • I wonder if people like Epstein and Gillman at USC have spoken publicly about the Court and this decision? USC has really added to our strengths in politics and the courts.

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

    swr22

  • wake6830 said...

    One statistical method for analyzing the Supreme Court . . . finds that the current court is the most conservative since at least the 1930s.

    I did not need an article to answer this question. Listening to a lot of the Obamacare oral argument was a very good indication.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Morethanafan on 3/31/2012 at 11:46 PM

    Morethanafan

  • May be?

    Rosebowl91 ●

  • There was a related piece in The L.A. Times yesterday.

    Signs of Supreme Court activism worry Reagan administration lawyers

    Signs that Supreme Court justices aim to strike down President Obama's healthcare law worry some Reagan administration lawyers and other older conservatives who have sought to rein in judicial activism.

    www.latimes.com

    cstory80 ●

  • cstory80 said...

    There was a related piece in The L.A. Times yesterday.

    It is a replay of other politics. Conservatives hated judicial activism, until they liked the result. They like conservative judicial activism.

    It is similar to smaller less intrusive government. Conservatives want less intrusive government unless the government is intruding to push a rightwing agenda.

    This post was edited by Morethanafan on 4/1/2012 at 8:37 PM

    Morethanafan

  • Morethanafan said...

    It is a replay of other politics. Conservatives hated judicial activism, until they liked the result. They like conservative judicial activism.

    It is similar to smaller less intrusive government. Conservatives want less intrusive government unless the government is intruding to push a rightwing agenda.

    Speaking for this conservative I don't like judicial activism and I don't consider striking down obamacare as activism.

    I also favor a less intruisive govt in every example I can think of

    The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager

    TrojanMonkey ●

  • Have a hunch we wouldn't see this thread or the complaining from those who have contributed if the NYT headline read:

    "This Supreme Court May Be Most Liberal in Modern History"

    brdcstr1

  • Morethanafan said...

    It is a replay of other politics. Conservatives hated judicial activism, until they liked the result. They like conservative judicial activism.

    It is similar to smaller less intrusive government. Conservatives want less intrusive government unless the government is intruding to push a rightwing agenda.

    True.

    cstory80 ●

  • brdcstr1 said...

    Have a hunch we wouldn't see this thread or the complaining from those who have contributed if the NYT headline read:

    "This Supreme Court May Be Most Liberal in Modern History"

    Probably true. In the '60s (and for some time thereafter), the left loved the activism by the court. I do not like it either way, but accept it as a reality both ways. I just find it amusing how those that hated activism and railed against it (claiming it is not a left/right thing with them) when it was from the left now love it.

    This post was edited by Morethanafan on 4/2/2012 at 9:18 AM

    Morethanafan

  • Morethanafan said...

    Probably true. In the '60s (and for some time thereafter), the left loved the activism by the court. I do not like it either way, but accept it as a reality both ways. I just find it amusing how those that hated activism and railed against it (claiming it is not a left/right thing with them) when it was from the left now love it.

    In your head, are there any cases where the SCOTUS overturns legislation and it's not activisim? Is it possible that Obamacare is a case like that?

    The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager

    TrojanMonkey ●

  • TrojanMonkey said...

    In your head, are there any cases where the SCOTUS overturns legislation and it's not activisim? Is it possible that Obamacare is a case like that?

    Of course the SCOTUS can overturn legislation without it being activism. However, I do not see it being possible that overruling Obamacare can fall into that category. Conservative judges finding interstate commerce when a person grows pot for their own consumption (they liked the result of being able to go after drugs), but not find interstate commerce when healthcare in the 50 states is regulated (they want to get rid of this legislation) cannot be reconciled. How can the same judges reconcile that? Scalia even wrote the marijuana decision. I cannot see how conservative justices can defend their positions from a legal perspective.

    Morethanafan

  • Morethanafan said...

    Of course the SCOTUS can overturn legislation without it being activism. However, I do not see it being possible that overruling Obamacare can fall into that category. Conservative judges finding interstate commerce when a person grows pot for their own consumption (they liked the result of being able to go after drugs), but not find interstate commerce when healthcare in the 50 states is regulated (they want to get rid of this legislation) cannot be reconciled. How can the same judges reconcile that? Scalia even wrote the marijuana decision. I cannot see how conservative justices can defend their positions from a legal perspective.

    sounds like your saying the interstate commerce provision gives the congress constitutionally unchecked power as long as they do it to all states.

    The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager

    TrojanMonkey ●

  • Morethanafan said...

    Of course the SCOTUS can overturn legislation without it being activism. However, I do not see it being possible that overruling Obamacare can fall into that category. Conservative judges finding interstate commerce when a person grows pot for their own consumption (they liked the result of being able to go after drugs), but not find interstate commerce when healthcare in the 50 states is regulated (they want to get rid of this legislation) cannot be reconciled. How can the same judges reconcile that? Scalia even wrote the marijuana decision. I cannot see how conservative justices can defend their positions from a legal perspective.

    And once again, your own opinion comes into play that there is no difference between the commerce clause being relevant for regulating the active production of a commercially-traded product and forcing someone who does not want a product to buy one. It would be a reasonable analogy if Obamacare was limited to controlling what insurers provided, rather than forcing an individual to be a consumer of a product.

    GauchoGreg

  • By the way, LastWord, have you had a chance to see where your claims of my "hiding" were dashed to shit?

    GauchoGreg

  • Morethanafan said...

    .... I cannot see how conservative justices can defend their positions from a legal perspective.

    "Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late."

    Justice Felix Frankfurter in Henslee vs. Union Planters Bank

    The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

    901Club

  • Morethanafan said...

    I did not need an article to answer this question. Listening to a lot of the Obamacare oral argument was a very good indication.

    Yeah, particularly listening to the Solicitor General's arguments.

    That was VERY compelling, the way he used the strategically placed "uh's" and "ummms".

    It was a bravura performance, and I'm sure the Obama administration is thrilled that he's on their side.

    scmarine84

  • scmarine84 said...

    Yeah, particularly listening to the Solicitor General's arguments.

    That was VERY compelling, the way he used the strategically placed "uh's" and "ummms".

    It was a bravura performance, and I'm sure the Obama administration is thrilled that he's on their side.

    Some pundits have gone as far to theorize that Obama may have instructed his solicitor general to take a dive. The belief is that no solicitor general could ever go into a hearing of this importance and bomb so badly, being so incompetent and unprepared. So the hypothesis is if they threw the case on purpose, Obama might be able to drum up sympathy from voters while continuing to blame his opponents for obstructing his policies.

    I don't know if I believe it, but politicians and the way that they play politics can make a person scratch their head.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Keyser_Sze157486 on 4/2/2012 at 1:59 PM

    Keyser_Sze157486

  • Here's the WSJ on the Supreme Court --

    Review & Outlook: Assailing the Supreme Court - WSJ.com

    The Wall Street Journal writes that in attacking the Supreme Court for considering ObamaCare's mandate to buy insurance, the legal left echoes Newt Gingrich on judicial power.

    online.wsj.com

    The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

    901Club

  • Morethanafan said...

    Of course the SCOTUS can overturn legislation without it being activism. However, I do not see it being possible that overruling Obamacare can fall into that category. Conservative judges finding interstate commerce when a person grows pot for their own consumption (they liked the result of being able to go after drugs), but not find interstate commerce when healthcare in the 50 states is regulated (they want to get rid of this legislation) cannot be reconciled. How can the same judges reconcile that? Scalia even wrote the marijuana decision. I cannot see how conservative justices can defend their positions from a legal perspective.

    For some reason I've always thought of "judicial activism" as creating law not striking down law.

    The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager

    TrojanMonkey ●

  • TrojanMonkey said...

    For some reason I've always thought of "judicial activism" as creating law not striking down law.

    Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.

    The classic example, acknowledged by good liberals like Alexander Bickel and Archibald Cox at the time, is Roe v. Wade in 1973. The High Court discovered a right to abortion rooted in a right to privacy that it had invented in Griswold in 1965 from the Constitution's "penumbras" and "emanations." Roe overturned 50 state laws and pre-empted a healthy debate that would have reached a different abortion consensus in different states. Our cultural politics has been polarized ever since.

    The ObamaCare case is very different, as the oral arguments made clear. The Court is debating the reach of the Commerce Clause and of its own precedents in considering the limited and enumerated federal powers that are explicit in Article I, Section 8.

    That's all from the WSJ link above.

    The serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

    901Club

  • 901Club said...

    Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.

    The classic example, acknowledged by good liberals like Alexander Bickel and Archibald Cox at the time, is Roe v. Wade in 1973. The High Court discovered a right to abortion rooted in a right to privacy that it had invented in Griswold in 1965 from the Constitution's "penumbras" and "emanations." Roe overturned 50 state laws and pre-empted a healthy debate that would have reached a different abortion consensus in different states. Our cultural politics has been polarized ever since.

    The ObamaCare case is very different, as the oral arguments made clear. The Court is debating the reach of the Commerce Clause and of its own precedents in considering the limited and enumerated federal powers that are explicit in Article I, Section 8.

    That's all from the WSJ link above.

    Blacmun's "penumbra" in Roe v. Wade is something that comes to my mind when I think of judicial activism.

    Morethanafan

  • TrojanMonkey said...

    For some reason I've always thought of "judicial activism" as creating law not striking down law.

    You are mistaking judicial activism for legislating from the bench.

    Rosebowl91 ●

  • scmarine84 said...

    Yeah, particularly listening to the Solicitor General's arguments.

    That was VERY compelling, the way he used the strategically placed "uh's" and "ummms".

    It was a bravura performance, and I'm sure the Obama administration is thrilled that he's on their side.

    I believe he was shocked by the questions that he got from the bench. That is not an excuse for his lousy presentation, but I suspect that was the reason. However, his presentation did not cause the questions from the bench. He lousy presentation has nothing to do with my post. Notice, some of the questions came almost immediately when he started. The presentation could not have elicted them. Some of the questions had no legal significance. They were policy questions and came straight out of the Tea Party playbook. That was shocking to me. Again, as solicitor general, he should deal with surprises better, but that has nothing to do with my post.

    Morethanafan

  • TrojanMonkey said...

    sounds like your saying the interstate commerce provision gives the congress constitutionally unchecked power as long as they do it to all states.

    I do not know what it sounds like, but I am saying that Congress may regulate interstate commerce among the states unless a constitutional provision prohibits it. That is what the constitution expressly states. If a law regulates commerce and it is among the states and no constitutional provision prohibits it, I am saying (as has the SCOTUS in the past) that the constitution is clear that Congress has the power to regulate as it sees fit. To use your term, if Congress is regulating commerce among the states and it is not violating a constitutional provision, Congress' power is otherwise unchecked. Like it or not, that is the constitution.

    Morethanafan

USC
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports