dculkin,
Are you sure you're not a politician, or a college professor? The more you explain, the less I know what side of the issue you favor.
I think we agree on some and disagree on other aspects of the Constitutional issue, but agreeably so.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

If he's smart he'll appoint someone younger so they can serve longer.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Yep. Pretty sure I'm not either of those.I think our disagreements on this issue are more a matter of degree than any fundamental disagreement.

While I think judges need to stick to the text of the Constitution, I don't think it's feasible to expect the Constitution to remain cast in stone. To a certain extent, its continued vitality depends on the good faith of the justices on the Supreme Court. If they go off the reservation and start re-writing it, we're screwed. Fortunately, that hasn't happened. We just need to be sure to put people of integrity up there.

Agree with you on the "persons of integrity". Where would you find such persons?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Uh huh.

Can you point me to the place in the constitution where it gives the government the right to confiscate private property because it would serve to enhance the revenue stream of the government?

You also mentioned that the right uses judicial activism more than the left, I'd be interested in your most extreme example of right wing judicial activism.

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (123k)
13 GLK250 (135k)
06 E320CDI (323K)
16 C300 (62K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

If I had a couple of hours to spare, I could read that case and the cases on which it relied and give you my opinion. Fortunately, I don't have the time to do that. That decision was surprising, but that does not mean it was an example of judicial activism.

Can you cite reasons why that decision was wrong? Or not rendered in good faith?That would take some time to research. Two examples come to mind, although they are getting some age on them now.

In 1999, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, known as the most politically conservative circuit court in the country, issued a ruling overruling the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. I think that qualifies as extreme, especially since circuit courts have no authority to overturn Supreme Court decisions.

Another example is from the late 80s. A lady sued her employer alleging racial discrimination. She relied on a civil rights statute enacted during Reconstruction. She prevailed at trial and in the appeals court. Several years earlier, there had been some uncertainty about whether the statute applied to the type of discrimination she alleged. That uncertainty, however, had been resolved through a series of court rulings. By the time her case came along, none of the parties disputed the legal basis for her claim. The dispute was about whether this employer had violated the statute. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, Justice Rehnquist announced that he didn't like the way the courts had settled the issue and he wanted to raise it again, even though none of the litigants had raised it. He essentially inserted himself into the case as a litigant. Maybe his interpretation of that civil rights statute was correct, but he took an activist role in promoting his view.

Another example of judicial activism is Justice Clarence Thomas's entire approach to legal analysis. According the Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, the well established principle that courts should honor past rulings, even when they disagree with them. Stare decisis is not a binding doctrine. It doesn't say that prior rulings can't be overturned, but it does caution judges to avoid overturning prior rulings when they can. It is a foundational principle of our legal system. It's been around for centuries. Well, apparently Justice Thomas prefers not to follow it. He is an arrogant, activist jerk. He never should have been appointed to the Court.

I would also say that judicial activism is not always bad. Brown v. Board of Education was probably an activist decision. So were many of the Warren Court decisions about the rights of the accused.

EDIT: Thomas's aversion to stare decisis might be limited to Constitutional matters, which is probably not quite as extreme a position.

He is still an arrogant, activist jerk. IMHO, of course.

The decision was wrong, IHMO, because as far as I can tell it authorizes the government to seize private property for revenue enhancement or economic development as opposed to the current authorization they do have under the eminent domain laws. Their interpretation effectively expands eminent domain laws and seem to be (I admit I'm guessing a bit here) the personal policy preferences of a majority of the justices on the court. Can you point me to a law in CT that authorizes the confiscation of private property for revenue enhancement? Do you actually think the government should be able to do this? Do you think the framers thought this would be OK?

Seriously? Those two examples are the best you can do?

Let me throw two more at you (off the top of my head, no research required....)

I'm guessing you are OK with the recent decision of the supreme court on extending constitutional protections to enemy combatants?

How do you feel about maybe the worst case of judicial activism in our history - the supreme courts interpretations under the interstate commerce clause? I'm guessing you think the framers intended that the interpretations of modern courts reflect the intent of that clause when it was written?

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (123k)
13 GLK250 (135k)
06 E320CDI (323K)
16 C300 (62K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

The worst part is not that it allows for economic development. The worst part is that it allows for private companies to steal a citizen's land.

__________________
1984 300TD

Guess you've never been to New London CT. I think they used a broadsword rather than a scalpel, but the end result is a positive thing. The economic development plan was implemented by the local legislature, making it a public process. There is no existing law that specifies this approach, but neither is there any that prohibits it. The Fort Trumbull area was an economic and social blight on the landscape. The private homes were mostly worthless, and the owners were compensated far above what the real value of the property would be on the open market. Certainly, the City of New London would have been within their legal right to have taxed those people out of their properties, but chose a method that would enable the owners to benefit from the proposed development. Many argued, before the proposed development, that the Fort Trumbull area should be razed, as it was a harbor for drug dealers/users, criminals of all manner, and unsafe/unmaintained/abandoned homes. The increased tax revenue that the development provides is a boon to many of the previous inhabitants, as the city has the werewithall to support the social programs that they use daily.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Wouldn't be the first time, but there is a big difference between wrong and activist.As I said before, determining the answers to those questions would require a few hours in a law library. It sounds to me as if your analysis is based on your personal preference, not on the applicable law. Your accusation of activism is baseless.

That Connecticut decision seems wrong to me, but how would I know? These answers are not the sort of thing you just figure out on your own. You have to read the Constitution, the cases, and the statutes to find out what the law is. Even then, there is no guarantee that you will get it right.Are you kidding? A court of appeals tries to overturn the Supreme Court, reaching a result that even most law and order types would oppose, and you don't see it as activist? If you know of a more activist decision, I would love to hear it.

And I never said that courts on the conservative side of things were engaging in extreme examples of judicial activism, just that they tended more to the activist side these days.There's another issue for which I have done no research. Based just on reading that opinion and the commentary about it, I don't think they extended anything. Those Constitutional protections were always there. The Court's decision does not seem surprising to me, but I am not an expert in that area of the law.

Do you have anything other than your personal opinion to suggest that it was an activist decision?Why would you guess about what I think? Have we met?

You would have had a 50-50 shot at guessing what I think about that issue, but your bias about me apparently pushed you to one side. Your guess is wrong. I think those decisions are an example of activism gone too far. It seems as if the Court has recently tried to limit the scope of the Commerce Clause, which is probably a good thing.

I find it very strange that you would guess the preferences of a perfect stranger.

Is there a point to this thread?

It started off talking about the upcoming Supreme Court nomination process and turned into a discussion of judicial activism. Seems like a reasonable segue to me, at least by OD standards.

Isn't that the truth.... At least it's still free of, well nevermind, don't want to jinx it

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Started out claiming it would be a circus and that the attacks by the opposition would lack merit. It seemed to me to bait those that do not agree with your views.

If you say so.