Posts
This decision belies the superficial claim that conservative judges exercise restraint while liberal judges are 'activist'. In Court and the Constitution, Archibald Cox gives an excellent historical analysis showing that conservative judges have often reached out to strike down Congressional enactments in the name of newly created property rights. Basically, the labels are silly. Taken as a whole, the courts and especially the Supreme Court, have generally buttressed conservative positions - that's what courts do - protect the status quo. The Warren Court was the exception (See American Liberalism and the Warren Court's Legacy).
Yee haw! As a lawyer, I am pleased to see the Court create so much fertile ground for new litigation. (That's sardonic humor there.) This decision will make up for lost legal work from their skimping on punitive damage lawsuits (Oil spill ruling leaves Alaska victims stunned). The amount of litigation ahead is staggering. Send your kids to law school!
What does that amendment say anyway:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[From FindLaw: Annotations ]
Unfortunately the idea of a rule of law, not 'man/woman' is a slogan. Persons of conscience will not avoid disobeying an unjust law and unscrupulous folks will write law that serves only their interests. The rule of law, like the golden rule, begs the question of ruling as coercion...the violence of the greed for gold gives us 'free markets' with no regard for human need.
ReplyDeletePro-activist, Activist, 'Anti-activist'...nonsense terms.
Without justice the law is just coercion of wealth and the power to secure it.