Obama v. Roberts: The Struggle to Come (NYT)

[quiet.american]

Obama v. Roberts: The Struggle to Come
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18baker.html?scp=2&sq=barack%20obama&st=cse

<SNIP>

Much more so than last year, when he made his first nomination to the court, Mr. Obama has Chief Justice Roberts on his mind as he mulls his second, according to Democrats close to the White House. For an activist president, the chief justice has emerged clearly in recent months as a potentially formidable obstacle, and Mr. Obama has signaled that he plans to use the political arena and his appointment power to counter the direction of the Roberts court.

“He’s very concerned about the activism of the court in recent terms,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, ticking off a series of cases that angered liberals, most notably allowing corporations to spend freely in election campaigns. “He wants to make sure he puts somebody on there who is not going to take radical steps like that.”

-------------
Pretty good piece in its entirety, but have to call out the phrase "...activist president." WTF? I swear, if a Democrat doesn't just lay there like a slug, and make the central objective of their life to make sure Boehner doesn't miss a tanning appointment, they're labeled as an "activist whatever" (like being an activist is supposed to be a bad thing in the first place) - it's beyond silly, now.

[Cha]

1. Thanks QA~ When I saw "Activist President" ..

I thought.."what's a president suppose to do..let a dick cheney run the gov?"

That's what presidents do. Very active..unless they sit on their election day..or again like gw..just campaign while the dick actively destroyed the country.

Thankfully we have President Obama going up against roberts and is able to appoint these SCs.

[Arkana]

2. That is a HORRIBLE article title.

[goclark]

3. I got an email the other day ~ saying Thomas held the wedding for Rush L

at his house and some other such thing.

Is that true??!