Democrats are digging their own grave

[AlCzervik]

Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.

Checks and balances and such.

 

[dhdawg]

Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.

Checks and balances and such.

It's not too much at this point. It's gone way overboard. I'm not saying I disagree with Marbury v Madison. But there needs to be limits

 

[priapism]

Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.

Checks and balances and such.

You seem fine to be drinking from that warm Coke. I'm glad you didn't look at it too closely.

 

[AlCzervik]

Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.

Checks and balances and such.

You seem fine to be drinking from that warm Coke. I'm glad you didn't look at it too closely.

You somehow know how to hurt me. If I were going to change my view, Thomas would have been the reason. Or Scalia - and I've been to that fucker's house. It's a hard argument to make as either side can quickly come up with examples of judicial activism gone awry. Nevertheless ...

I said better, not perfect. The benefits of a strong independent judiciary outweigh even my outrage over Thomas' so-called jurisprudence.