Activist judges - supreme court decision

[mindwalker_i]

Some people here are arguing that the supreme court decision smacked of being a decision of "activist judges." The main reason for this goes to the NYTimes editorial talking about how the court scheduled the hearing while on vacation, with a month to prepare arguments on "an extremely complex issue."

The complaint offered by a few here is that no republicans are complaining about activist judges in this case, which seems to be the height of activist judging.

The assumption is that when Bush or other republican complained about activist judges, they meant that they didn't like activist judges and thought there shouldn't be activist judges.

It's really a an argument about copyright infringement.

[StClone]

1. Activist judges because as in Bush v Gore

They ruled when they should have not heard the case. And when they did rule it was with a "special case" never to be seen again in Bush v Gore and then actively overturn 103 years in the latest ruling.

[Democat]

2. Democratic Politicians are too stupid to frame issues

The Republicans are smart enough to frame every ruling they don't like as "activist judges". Democratic politicians are too stupid or too scared to say anything like that because it might offend someone.