An 'activist judge' would have said... "It's a dumb law, and I would find it unconstitutional."

The job of the Supreme court isn't to make laws or decide if the laws are needed, their job is to decide if the laws passed by the congress are legal and constitutional.

A true American patriot would say "There is nothing in the US Constitution which reserves that power to any branch of government."

Quoted from Box A Rox

An 'activist judge' would have said... "It's a dumb law, and I would find it unconstitutional."

Nooooooooo....IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

The government has no business in my refrigerator, or at my dinner table, or my shopping cart or with me at my restaurant!!! Those are MY personal liberties protected by the constitution.

Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves right about now!!

Welcome to the world of the liberal progressive.

...dirty, nasty little guttersnipes and motherless whores, the whole lot. Sic Semper Tyrannis. I can't wait to see the limbs bend on the ole' oak trees.

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

...dirty, nasty little guttersnipes and motherless whores, the whole lot. Sic Semper Tyrannis. I can't wait to see the limbs bend on the ole' oak trees.

So does it violate the Commerce Clause ?

Quoted from Sombody

So does it violate the Commerce Clause ?

Seriously dude, is stupidity painful?  Comon, you can tell us... what's it like to live in your world?

Quoted Text

Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
Posted 06/29/2010 06:34 PM ET

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."....................>>>>................>>>>.................http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=538850

Find me the part of the Constitution where the government is given that power. Please. Just the fact that you could sit here and argue that you want the government to do that, and that you find it constitutionally defensible tells me you are type that needs to swing from the oaks at the end of the day. YOU, Somebody and Boxarox, ARE TYRANTS. And you should be dealt with as such.

You miss the point GB.

Senator Coburn asked a Supreme Court Nominee about a law passed by congress... Congress passes the laws, and the supreme court interprets those laws.

Weather the law is good, bad or otherwise has very little do to with a Supreme Court Nomination hearing.  The court interprets the law once passed but has almost no input in creating a law.

And when asked to JUDGE the law, she balked BECAUSE she is IN FAVOR of tyranny, all in the name of her Utopian socialist vision. One she shares with the junior tyrants on this board, you included. So THAT I think my communist, tyrannical friend, is the bigger picture. And you justify this kind of power in the hands of the government political class so easily...

The video was only part of that exchange... (The part that made the gotcha soundbite)

That wasn't the end of the exchange as the video would have you believe:

Kagan: Well, Sen. Coburn, I guess a few points. The first: I think there are limits on the Commerce Clause, which are the ones that are articulated by the Court that were articulated by the Court in Morrison and in Lopez. Which are primarily about non-economic activity and Congress not being able to regulate non-economic activity.
I guess the second point I would make is I do think that very early in our history and especially I would look to Gibbons v. Ogden, where Chief Justice Marshall did, in the first case about these issues, essentially read that clause broadly and provide real deference to legislatures and provide real deference to Congress about the scope of that clause, not that that clause doesn’t have any limits, but that deference should be provided to Congress with respect to matters that affect interstate commerce.

But the best line in the entire exchange was this:
Kagan did suggest that the most direct way to prevent stupid or simply bad laws was to put sensible people in Congress and the White House.
~ "The principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves." ~