New London

[mikeiddy]

Bad as the New London decision is, I think there is an opportunity to use it against the freeper's to expose the problms with their rants about judicial activism. There was a thread there that had the following:

I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo is about. While I don't think the decision is good from a policy standpoint, it seems that the decision is exactly what we have been screaming for - a non-activist stance by the court. If I have been reading the reports correctly, I think the decision is a deferral to a legislative determination of what is in the "public interest", rather than what some jurist thinks is the public interest.

Followed up by:

Under the system of judicial review that has existed for over 200 years, if the supremes say a law is constitutional, then it is constitutional, regardless of whether it is consistent with the wishes of the majority. This is the system that gave us Roe v. Wade.

Opponents of this system call for limits on judicial review, or elimination of it altogether, which would deprive the supreme court of the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. Under this system, once a law was enacted, the courts could only enforce it. This system would produce results like New London.

Which do you think is the greater evil? I don't think you can have it both ways.

I love the soft pop of freeper heads exploding. . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432456/posts?q=1&&page=217#217

[LightningFlash]

1. Busisms just went out the window....Bushie is going to do in the crew.

Wolfowitz and the neocons are raising the terra levels trying to fake terror attack the capitol buildings and other horseshit. :puke:

Bush is going to do him and all his friends in, and say bye bye! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: