I read an interesting article by entitled "Justices, Judges and Judicial Activism" (click for article), it got me thinking about recently overturned SCOTUS decisions and the question of right and wrong. When the current SCOTUS justices overturn a decision of a former group of SCOTUS justices, does it mean that the current groups decision is "right" and the former group's decision is "wrong"? When individuals are appointed because they hold a certain leaning, are decisions tainted with judicial activism?
In McDonald v. Chicago, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomeyer dissented. And in D.C. v. Heller, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter dissented. I am pretty sure I know how Kagan is going to land. What will we say in 10 years if SCOTUS, filled with individuals like these, overturns the current McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller decisions? Will we say that the 2020 SCOTUS got it right and the 2009 and 2010 SCOTUS got it wrong? After all, some would say justices of today know more than justices of the past.
The dissenters in McDonald were attempting to retry Heller. That is patently clear when you read their opinions. But that does not mean they were the only "activists" on the court that day. The judges on the "right" would not hear anything about P or I. They like the fact that the government has a great deal of control over the unenumerated rights that we are allowed to enjoy, and P or I being reinstated would strip away most of that control. The only justice on the court who had any guts to look at that issue and made the case to overturn a couple of very old and very unfortunate cases, was justice Thomas. The whole point of McDonald was to get the court to see the gross errors in the Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank decisions, and to finally make them right. Normally the left/liberal side of the court would jump at the chance to retry those cases, but they couldn't do it over a gun case. The left hates guns, and the right hates rights. Those words were never truer before they were applied to McDonald.
All it would take to start the avalanche is one less conservative justice. I know that Kagan has been brought on to replace Stevens, which would not shift the court's opinion on the 2nd. But what if a conservative justice died before the start of the next SCOTUS session? Would it be possible that Stevens stays on and Kagan takes the place of the conservative justice?
The next most likely position to be open is Ginsburg's, as she has had health problems lately, and is getting up there in years. There were rumors that she was going to retire to take care of her husband, but as he has already passed recently, that isn't going to happen now. So it's anyone's guess as to whether she will retire before Obama's likely one-term presidency is up. I would say that she will, if only to have a much younger justice take her place in the liberal wing of the court. If that is her aim, she is not likely to chance a Republican president to appoint her successor.
The left hates guns, and the right hates rights. <-- The Right Hates rights ??? ... unless you're talking about baby killing or some other PERVERSION of life I don't understand where you get that idea from.
So, if one conservative justice dies unexpectedly, would we be out-of-line to suspect that someone in the administration may have had a hand in "ensuring" a replacement on the conservative side of the court? (I get the uneasy feeling that Obama's vision of an ideal society is being implemented with an "ends justify the means" mentality.)
I agree, Terrorists (at least "major" ones) should be executed.
However, I don't think we should give the government the power to unilaterally decide who is a terrorist w/o a trial or due process.
There are far to many examples of government accidentally or maliciously labelling somebody a terrorist or threat who in fact is not a terrorist or threat.
Kill Terrorists, After a trial. Without torturing them.
I like how you argue the idea that the Right (i.e. conseervative party) is in support of Inalienable Rights but in the same thread you argue that the "US PATRIOT act, or FISA, or gitmo, or waterboarding" don't infringe on any of those inalienable rights b/c the government tells us that it only uses these powers against "terrorists".
War time... hello !!! who cares about TERRORISTS (or inalienable rights). The only good terrorist is a DEAD terrorist. Unless you're a bleeding heart liberal (i.e., a person who believes in inalienable rights).
Might I remind you that prior to our country being founded that the people who fought against the British soldiers could have been considered terrorists as well? There are numerous instances where American citizens have been arrested and held without a trial, denying the writ of habeas corpus, and then released without ever being tried for anything. Were those people terrorists? If so, why weren't they tried for something?
Labels are convenient for the person using them. It's easy to dismiss a label, it's far harder to dismiss a person who is a citizen of the same country you are. Throughout history labels have been used to rally people to do terrible things. The citizens of Nazi Germany sought to rid their country of a variety of labels: Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, prisoners of war, criminals, the elderly, the disabled, and so on. Is a person less deserving of their inalienable rights because our government has labeled them? I think not.