LIAR PARADOX: Harriet Miers and Judicial Activism


Whatever Bush says is a lie? That MUST be a truth!

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Harriet Miers and Judicial Activism

In response to the Conservatives who worry that Harriet Miers "might become part of the 'activist' group like Justice Souter has," I would like to say: get a life.

If anyone in the Supreme Court is a "judicial activist" it's Scalia. Scalia's judicial philosophy changes with the wind: Scalia's judicial opinions are motivated not by a philosophy of States' Rights, NOT by whether the Constitution is a fixed piece of paper or a living and breathing document; NOT by a philosphy of a strong federal government, but by Religious Conservativism.

Scalia is a Right Wing activist for Conservative Christians. He ruled against States rights recently in that California Medical Marijuana case, where the State law allowed people to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes; only to flip flop in favor of States' Rights when a State law is written to create obstacles for women getting abortions, or when a State law is written making it a law for gay men to have sex. Do you see a pattern here? If it's a law that the moral majority is opposed to, Scalia will argue against that law; but if it's a State law that the moral majority favors, then Scalia favors it too. Now if THAT ain't "Judicial Activism" I don't know what is.

It just so happens that Ginsberg and other liberal-leaning justices ruled against the California State law legalizing medical marijuana, based on the judicial philosophy that the federal government has the power to regulate Commerce when there are federal interests that are greater than the State interest which motivates the state legislature to enact such a law.

So all you conservatives out there that use the term "judicial activist" against anyone who doesn't legislate from the bench for Religious-Conservatism-control-freak-causes just shut your mouths.

I'm not knocking all of the Conservative Justices in the Supreme Court.

At least Clarence Thomas sticks with his States' Rights guns every time; he was in favor of the California State law allowing California's citizens to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes on a States Rights judicial philosophy. In his own opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case that invalidated the law making it a crime for gay men to have sex, Justice Thomas in his strong States Rights philosphy said: "Although I think that this Texas law is the most ridiculous law, if I sat on the Texas state legislature I would overturn this law: but I do not. Therefore, this law should stand, because it is what the people of Texas want."

I don't agree with Clarence Thomas in dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), but I respect him. He is not motivated by Christian Conservatives ideals; instead, he's motivated by a States Rights judicial philosophy. Clarence Thomas doesn't legislate in the name of Jesus from the bench. Unlike Scalia.......the alpha judicial activist.

In summary, Conservatives, shut up about Judicial Activists! Unless you can lay off your hypocrisy for one moment and admit that the biggest Judicial Acvitist of All is Scalia!!


At 11:24 AM, Blogger John McAdams said...

Harriet E. Miers Helped Bring Feminist Speakers to Southern Methodist

At 6:46 PM, Blogger banana said...

i just want to say that I'm not a Miers fan, but more than not being a fan of Miers, I am more so disgusted by the right wing jerks who use the term judicial activism without taking a glimpse at current and historical judicial opinions, ignorant to the fact that it was fiscal conservatives historically, and is christian activism today that is where the judicial activism lies.


Post a Comment

<< Home