Interesting how conservatives love to bash "judicial activists," yet seek the approval of justices who follow a philosophy that centers around using broad strokes of judicial activism to repeal progressive legislation... thanks to Ben for this link from the ACS on the Constitution-in-Exile philosophy.
(Note: here, ACS stands for American Constitution Society, not American Chemical Society.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Funny, I was just looking at a chemist's resume at work (long story) and saw a mention of ACS...and it took me a moment to realize he wasn't referring to the Constitution Society.
Cass Sunstein warns that, if President Bush is able to make several appointments to the Supreme Court, we would likely see the Court strike down campaign-finance reform, parts of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, commercial speech would be elevated "to the same status as political speech-thus forbidding controls on commercials by tobacco companies," and "[i]t would probably limit congressional efforts to protect disabled people, women, and the elderly from various forms of discrimination. More radically, it might interpret the Second Amendment so as to reduce the power of Congress and the states to enact gun-control legislation."
and these are bad things? It is a shame however, that Bush does not actually believe in any of the above, and as such none of the following will happen while he is in charge.
- miguel
Miguel - Ben and I view them as bad, you and other Libertarians probably view them as good. Either way, it's judicial activism - the very thing conservatives rile against. I think these things should be decided by legislatures for the most part - however you feel about minimum wage laws, they're not unconstitutional.
Post a Comment