🚀 go-pugleaf

[Subject changed .. the last was a bit much]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:44:08 GMT, Dave Simpson <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>What these people, who usually are liberal activists and have no problem
>with such judicial activism (as opposed to amending the Constitution, which
>grown-ups demand instead), would also fail to understand is why and how,
>properly, the rest of us would still blame them -- those in favor of breaching
>the dikes that amount to true rule of law and constitutional restraint on all
>branches of government, including the judiciary -- if the judiciary would one
>day become activist but very conservative.  (It's those who supported the
>breaching of the dikes that we can hold to blame, no matter which way the
>flood waters run, leftward or rightward.)

I believe that the court has already shown that this sort of activism
can run both ways.  The Supreme court gave the presidency to Bush
overriding the State of Florida's supreme court giving it to Gore.

It is my belief that both courts behaved irresponsibly, and that both
made political, not judicial, decisions.


-- 
Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-alt@SprocketShop.com> 
--------------------------------------------------------
  I certainly learned a great deal from 3,000 town hall meetings across
  my home state of Tennessee over a 16-year period.
        -- Al Gore (That's one every 46.7 hours)