1 "You mean unlike the liberal justices across the country that are overturning valid state laws and votes by the people on issues such as underage death penalty and homosexual marriage?" A bit. Its just that the wingers would do it more.

2 I agree. The leftwingers would do it more. Leftwing judges have no regard for the legislative arm of the government.

3 Left wing right wing yeah yeah yeah. The problem is as Scalia said so well Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say? Here here!

4 Drew: No fair. You used facts and logic to undermine the Senior Senator from NY's opinion. Left leaning judges may have no regard for the legislative arm of the government, but they are the only de facto power base that the left has in running the country at the federal level. The Left's power in Congress is limited and has continued to erode over the last 20 years. The courts are all the Left has left to push it's agenda. That's why this fight is seen as so crucial to the Left's agenda. They need it to stay in the game. It's also why they need the US to flop badly somewhere so that they can claim to be the way out of the mess (doesn't matter if its domestically or internationally, they need a massive disaster to suggest that they can do things better).

5 I think if you check into the actual facts of the matter you will find the Supreme Court justice who has voted to overturn legislation more than any other is, in fact, Clarence Thomas. Scalia can't be far behind. Does that make them "activist judges"?

6 didn't some Leftard just sue successfully to outlaw the pledge of allegiance somewhere?

7 I wonder why leftards, like rectus, become leftards? What is the base deficiency which is the cause of their sociopathic hatred of Truth, Liberty, and Justice? Do they hate the essential aspects of Freedom, or do they simply hate those who prosper under than Freedom, while they themselves are almost uniformly losers, or see themselves so, in the game of life? What is it about someone else being free, happy, and prosperous that infuriates them so? It is no secret that liberals think themselves superior to their fellow citizens, and should therefore be the ones to order society so as to eliminate injustice, poverty, etc., simplistically thinking that these things are caused by uneven distribution of resources and not by stupidity, laziness, and ignorantly misdirected idealism, but what causes this cognitive disconnect in the first place? I think there is something fundamentally wrong in their minds which causes them to see up as down and black as white; a virus-like meme which once embedded in the brain, turns logic on its head and prevents them from ever being able to think straight again. Perhaps it is this unrequited feeling of superiority combined with the inexplicable (to them) success of those they see as inferior which sends them over the edge. Perhaps they simply can't stand to see other people free, happy, and prosperous without the benefit of their oversight. of course, with their oversight, nobody becomes free, happy, and prosperous, but rather subdued, miserable, and poor, which is the best way to keep a people under control. Within every liberal is a Stalin, who would starve 20 million people to death and send enemies to die in labor camps for the offense of daring to not repeat the Big Lie. They are all angry because they are petty tyrants who want to be in charge, and can't be, so they sycophantically idolize murderers like Castro, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, et al, and hate all who want to be free from their sickness. They should all be hanged before they destroy the last hope of freedom in the world.

8 Actus lives in an alternate universe if he believes the lie he just uttered. Surely you jest, Actus!

9 Congress is every bit as likely to try to grab power that is not properly theirs as the President or the Court. For example using the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify regulations whether or not they are interstate or commerce is one congressional abuse of power. In those instances it is proper for the acts of Congress to be invalidated. Seems to me, IIRC it was Leahy was reaching for power that is not vested in Congress when asking if Congress passed a law demanding the withdrawl of troops that the President had to obey. Huh? Congress can deny funding, Congress can declare war, but Congress can not end a war. That is a perogative of the executive branch.

10 I've noted the commerce clause gets interpreted differently depending on the issue before the court.

11 Howie, See my comment above that notes Justice Scalia's comment. I think therein lies the explanation for what you note.

12 "They should all be hanged before they destroy the last hope of freedom in the world." Don't wait a minute longer dude. "Actus lives in an alternate universe if he believes the lie he just uttered. Surely you jest, Actus!" The rehnquist court has overturned more statutes than any other. Ever read a Thomas opinion? pages and pages of the US code would disappear. Talk about undermining the elected branches.

13 Now Roberts - next another Conservative - still 3 more years to go, maybe another actus? And in '08 what - "THE NEW LEFT?" .. not likely. V Lombardi once said winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. And throughtout the smoke and haze, the desperate attempts to organize something (anything!) effective in opposition, the shrill whinning of hysteria ... we are winning.

14 Actus, If the legislature passes a law saying all moonbats must be tied up and tickled till they all piss their pants does this mean it must happen? After all, its law? Would it not be appropriate for the SCOTUS to slap that piece of legislation down? I don't blame it all on the left. Sometimes commentators on the right clearly wish for what they condemn the left for wanting. The Constitution on its own leaves many holes to be filled in. These holes are to be filled in by the legislature, when a law is filling in a hole then the job of the court is to interpret that law as written. If that law presumes to override the constituion then the job of the court is to nullify that law. The problem many conservatives have with the courts is that when a clearly constitutional law is invalidated by the court solely because the judges prefer it that way. The ruling that bars the execution of minors is one of those. There is no prohibition in the constitution against that. The states should be able to allow or prohibit it as they see fit, in fact I would argue the Court's ruling is what went against the constitution in that case.

15 Give me a link, Actus, not an opinion.

16 "Give me a link, Actus, not an opinion." The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism By Thomas M. Keck, University of Chicago Press. "If the legislature passes a law saying all moonbats must be tied up and tickled till they all piss their pants does this mean it must happen? After all, its law? Would it not be appropriate for the SCOTUS to slap that piece of legislation down?" Of course it would be. Lets be clear though about who is striking down more legislation. Its the right wingers on the court that do it more.

17 Interestingly enough this may be because the legislature is abusing its power? Isn't the endangered species act based on the Interstate Commerce Clause? How why? IIRC, the federal law prohibiting drugs & guns within a given distance of a school was also based on the commerce clause. IIRC, that one was also struck down. Perhaps, the legislature should mind its Ps and Qs a little more. Funny, I don't see a whole lot of right wingers clamoring to claim most of the justices as their own. There is more than on Republican nominated justice the right wants nothing to do with. Seems to me most now consider Souter a solid member of the leftist block on the court. The striking down of legislation is not in and of itself a bad thing. There are appropriate strike downs and there are inappropriate strike downs. Anyway

18 Quothe rectus: "The rehnquist court has overturned more statutes than any other." Good on 'em then! Congress makes laws based on poor information and often for the wrong reasons. Hello? Patriot Act, anyone? Nobody, not a freakin' one of 'em, read the damned thing. A bunch of staffers (i.e unelected and unaccountable lawyers) wrote it, and the idiots Congressmen (sorry for being redundant there) voted for it. "Ever read a Thomas opinion? pages and pages of the US code would disappear." Well what the hell are they waiting for? Oh, that's right, those pages of US code that would disappear disproportionately favor some groups over others, so they're sacrosanct. We can't be doing away with special rights for the gaylesbiantransgenderhippyminoritycommunists, can we? "Talk about undermining the elected branches." The Court exists partly for that purpose; to prevent an entrenched oligarchy from passing bad laws. I'm sorry, where are your from again? Russia? Or is it North Korea? Regardless; see, here in America we have a government of three branches, each with certain powers and duties, and the power and duty of the court is to keep the executive and the legislature from trampling the Constitution. It isn't to make "social justice", or "fight for the little guy", but to weight the Constitutionality of the acts of the other two branches. Of course, I don't expect you to know that, since they obviously only teach Marxism where you went to school.

19 "A bunch of staffers (i.e unelected and unaccountable lawyers) wrote it" Try lobbyists. "The Court exists partly for that purpose" I know. But yet wingers complain that its hte left of teh court that strikes down too much. When in fact it is the right.

20 Hmmm, There is a distinction. For example the case I allude to in my previous comment and go into further over at Blogger Beer, see the Fatwa issued against me! :-) The striking down of the capital punishment of minors is an example. What in the Constitution prohibits that? Nothing, therefore it is a matter for the states and their legislatures. However, the SCOTUS, decided that was so yesterday and therefore had to go trolling far and wide for justification, justification not present in OUR Constitution. They resorted to foreign law (law which we have not consented to) and says our society needs to become more enlightened. This is judicial activism, striking down laws that are constitutional based on whimsy. This is BAD for our nation. Now, in the case I allude to above Congress tries to claim unconstitutional powers via standard procedures. The court in US vs Lopez ruled the law unconstitutional and nullified the law. So, you need to dig deeper.

21 Marcus: Thanks for explaining the obvious to actus. But he still doesn't get it. He can't understand the one simple point that the legislature can pass all the laws they want, but if it's unconstitutional, it must be struck down. I don't care what side does it. Whether one side does it more than the other is not the issue. The issue is "was it unconstitutional"? It's not that hard to understand. actus is only unhappy in that he sees the "right" doing it more. If the left side was striking down more legislation, he'd be checking into the particulars so he could defend it.

22 Actus, You gave me a book which is technically not a link. I went to my library today and could not find a copy of it, but I still disagree with your premise about the conservative side of the court striking down more laws than the liberal. That said, my objection has never been with the SCOTUS striking down unconstitutional laws, but with the tendency for the liberal side of the court to basically write law and order change based on personal views of what the Constitution should say. Under the Constitution as I read it, and I've read it many times, I do not see those particular powers enumerated. Reviewing law IS the priciple function of the court, and that is what the court should do. It's the liberal interpretation of laws based on a so-called "living" constitution that I find so objectionable.

23 Impy, your scrotum is in a knot!

24 You've got the wrong scrotum; brass doesn't get into knots. And I'm not even going to ask what you're doing.

25 Chucky schumer is that iresponsible jackass who is constantly voting for gun control so why dont this bray stupid jackass shut his big fat piehole before he shoves his big fat foot in it

26 Gracchus Maximus, you gotta calm down before the police show up with the white jackets.