Toward a less dangerous judicial branch

[Hoosier8]

So they ARE conservative, which means that they are political, which means that the United States Constitution means nothing now.

Political only in the meaning that the left has tried to turn the Judiciary into a political arm. They have labeled judges that follow the constitution as 'right wing'.

[FindersKeepers]

Add to follow the Constitution they must make decisions that follow the conservative agenda. Correct?

To follow the Constitution, they must follow the Constitution. Period.

[IMPress Polly]

Instead of "constitutionalists", the OP should say what it actually means: Republicans.

Republicans "will not legislate from the bench", Peter assures us. I'm not sure what he calls the Bush v. Gore or Citizens United verdicts or the 2013 de facto repeal of the Voting Rights Act or the infamous recent, highly arbitrary ruling by a Republican judge in Texas that the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court had already determined otherwise, for example, but see to me, these types of rulings by the Republican judges strike me as politically motivated and partisan in nature, NOT as objective interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. I would definitely call these sorts of rulings stepping into the legislative arena.

Republican judges legislate from the bench all the time.

[stjames1_53]

Instead of "constitutionalists", the OP should say what it actually means: Republicans.

Republicans "will not legislate from the bench", Peter assures us. I'm not sure what he calls the Bush v. Gore or Citizens United verdicts or the 2013 de facto repeal of the Voting Rights Act or the infamous recent, highly arbitrary ruling by a Republican judge in Texas that the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court had already determined otherwise, for example, but see to me, these types of rulings by the Republican judges strike me as politically motivated and partisan in nature, NOT as objective interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. I would definitely call these sorts of rulings stepping into the legislative arena.

Republican judges legislate from the bench all the time.

What part of the ACA was Constitutional?
The only thing Roberts ruled on was that the "tax" was constitutional, not the whole. That part was never considered by Roberts.

[Captdon]

And how are you going to back up that assertion?

"Silly thinking", "incorrect"... with nothing to show for it.

You and others in the thread have iterated that yes they are conservative judges, which makes no doubt that such judges are political appointments and since our constitution is apolitical, it means that that very important part of what makes it work will ignored, thus the constitution itself will be ignored in favor of a political agenda. So how is that analysis silly and incorrect?

He said I was an idiot for saying it.

[Captdon]

Add to follow the Constitution they must make decisions that follow the conservative agenda. Correct?

No, but it's the way to bet.

[Peter1469]

Instead of "constitutionalists", the OP should say what it actually means: Republicans.

Republicans "will not legislate from the bench", Peter assures us. I'm not sure what he calls the Bush v. Gore or Citizens United verdicts or the 2013 de facto repeal of the Voting Rights Act or the infamous recent, highly arbitrary ruling by a Republican judge in Texas that the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court had already determined otherwise, for example, but see to me, these types of rulings by the Republican judges strike me as politically motivated and partisan in nature, NOT as objective interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. I would definitely call these sorts of rulings stepping into the legislative arena.

Republican judges legislate from the bench all the time.

I never mentioned republicans. I mentioned conservatives. And Bush v. Gore was a simple case where the law was not seriously in doubt. The NYTs even agreed in a large detailed article published a few months or so after the case.

[MisterVeritis]

Instead of "constitutionalists", the OP should say what it actually means: Republicans.

Republicans "will not legislate from the bench", Peter assures us. I'm not sure what he calls the Bush v. Gore or Citizens United verdicts or the 2013 de facto repeal of the Voting Rights Act or the infamous recent, highly arbitrary ruling by a Republican judge in Texas that the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court had already determined otherwise, for example, but see to me, these types of rulings by the Republican judges strike me as politically motivated and partisan in nature, NOT as objective interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. I would definitely call these sorts of rulings stepping into the legislative arena.

Republican judges legislate from the bench all the time.

There is so much error in this post.
1) Bush v Gore was a legal question, decided correctly.
2) Citizens United upheld the First Amendment.
3) Repeal of the Voting Rights Act? Explain.
4) ACA is unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional from the beginning. Roberts had no authority to rewrite the law. he damaged the Constitution.

[jet57]

Political only in the meaning that the left has tried to turn the Judiciary into a political arm. They have labeled judges that follow the constitution as 'right wing'.

You have no idea what you're talking about and have no hope of proving any of your assertions.

[jet57]

Of course I know. You should stop trolling this thread.

You should stop trolling this thread.

So, I'm like - the only guy on the board that's engaged you on your subject thus far. I've been very polite. I've asked questions and provided factual - on topic - information. I hardly see how any of that is trolling.

So, can you answer questions to you or not?