Quote:
Originally posted by jyl
Given that analysis of the Kelko case, why this reaction on the current case? The court is saying basically the same thing - the constitution does not prevent this, but laws or political action can.
|
Because the media (with a lot of help from the Republican Party) has convinced everyone that they are constitutional scholars, ready to jump on every decision they disagree with with a charge of judicial activism. Then they start throwing around terms like "original intent" and it really gets fun.
In real life, it kind of breaks down this way:
Court strikes down a "good" law = bad activist judge (Roe v. Wade)
Court refuses to strike down a "good" law = good conservative judge
Court strikes down a "bad" law = good conservative judge
Court refuses to strike down a "bad" law = bad liberal judge (Kelo and this thread)
Of course, every label attached to every decision is dependent upon how one feels about the statute under consideration.
I saw a study recently that the four judges on the Supreme Court considered most conservative (in common parlance, less "activist") voted to overturn legislative enactments at a much higher percentage than the five moderate and liberal judges. Its not that they are less likely to overturn the "will of the people" as expressed through the legislature, its just that they pick the "right" laws to override.