If striking down Obamacare is judicial activism

[Quantum Windbag]

...why is striking down Doma not judicial activism?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

...why is striking down Doma not judicial activism?

Lol

Don't see too many threads with the thread killer in the first post. Well done.

 

[konradv]

Got it backwards, don't you? If striking down DOMA is judicial activism, why isn't it the same for the health care act? It's the CONS that worry about judicial activism all the time, not the LIBS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Questions of Constitutional acceptance is not Judicial activism. Judges declaring things not in a law as part of a law or not part of law is.

Neither case fits the claim and both will be decided by the Supreme Court.

In the case of DOMA I happen to agree that IF a State has declared a marriage legal then those allowed to marry should reap ALL the benefits of said union.

 

[DGS49]

Marriage is the province of the States. The feds cannot refuse to accept that status because it is not a federal issue. It would be like the Feds refusing to acknowledge a transfer of real estate, or accept a state driver's license.

Judicial activism: Finding that a longstanding provision in the Massachusetts constitution prohibits the Commonwealth from refusing to "marry" people of the same gender. Now THAT'S judicial activism.

 

[Conservative]

...why is striking down Doma not judicial activism?

Because one is unconstitutional, and the other is.... um...


it's just different!

 

[Conservative]

Got it backwards, don't you? If striking down DOMA is judicial activism, why isn't it the same for the health care act? It's the CONS that worry about judicial activism all the time, not the LIBS.

Obama Warns Supreme Court Against Judicial Activism

you were saying???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Got it backwards, don't you? If striking down DOMA is judicial activism, why isn't it the same for the health care act? It's the CONS that worry about judicial activism all the time, not the LIBS.

Nope, because I never said striking down a law is judicial activism.

 

[Katzndogz]

Judicial activism is where the court legislates from the bench and usurps matters which are properly the function of the legislature or of the voters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is the province of the States. The feds cannot refuse to accept that status because it is not a federal issue. It would be like the Feds refusing to acknowledge a transfer of real estate, or accept a state driver's license.

The states, however, are subject to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. However they might configure their marriage laws, property law, or even laws regulating issuance of a driver’s license, each citizen must have equal access to those laws.

It’s a Federal issue to the extent the states are subject to the Federal Constitution.

Judicial activism: Finding that a longstanding provision in the Massachusetts constitution prohibits the Commonwealth from refusing to "marry" people of the same gender. Now THAT'S judicial activism.

There is no such thing as ‘judicial activism,’ it’s a contrivance of the right.

Rather, the issue is the hypocrisy and inconsistency on the part of conservatives, where they whine about laws they support being overturned as a consequence of ‘judicial activism,’ yet applaud those exact same courts when a law they’re opposed to is invalidated.

It’s part of the victimhood culture of conservatism.