Will the teabag party need an activist court to overturn legislation?

[rurallib]

I was musing over this with Mrs. Lib earlier.
By their definition a judge that overturns legislation is an activist judge. And also by their definition is liberal.
Ergo, will the baggers need an activist judge to do what they want, but will said judge not do what they want because the judge is by definition, a liberal and in favor (by teabag definition) of government takeover of the economy?

Does that make sense? Sometimes I get so confused because it seems like tea baggers constantly twist themselves in gordian knots.

[RKP5637]

1. Anyway you try to unknot a teabagger they will still end up twisted in gordian knots. Even

Harry Houdini would have found them to be 'unknotable.'

[Motown_Johnny]

2. it isn't activism when a conservative does it. Like overturning D.C.'s handgun restrictions

When they do it they consider it upholding the Constitution


Double standards are a mainstay of the weak

[FBaggins]

3. Does it make sense? That depends on who is answering the question.

An activist judge is someone who rules something constitutional that is actually unconstitutional (or visa versa) based on his/her political preferences.

So no... they wouldn't consider someone to be an activist judge for overturning HCR if they think that HCR is actually unconstitutional.

It's a very "convenient" position.