We have the very recent example of the Tenth Circuit court declaring that gender discrimination laws passed in the 1960's implicitly outlaw discrimination on the basis of SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Surprisingly, it didn't get a lot of Press coverage.
This was an outrageous usurpation by the court of Congressional lawmaking power, that will now be stopped when it inevitably comes before the USSC (another Circuit Court held the opposite way recently).
Judicial Activism is the phenomenon of a judge or court CHANGING or ADDING TO, or VOIDING a law that the judge or court deems defective. Here we have a case of a law that has nothing to do with sexual orientation being MODIFIED to include something that Congress never intended. To the extent that a non-discrimination law is appropriate for sexual "irregulars," it is clearly the province of Congress to do so, and not some court.
The fact is that Leftists, whose ideas and desires on governance generally are scorned by the public, cannot generally get their desires enacted legitimately through legislation, so they have embarked on a decades-long campaign to elevate similarly thinking lawyers into judicial positions, where they can change, or avoid laws, or make up new laws as they go along.
And when nominees such as Gorsuch come along, they pretend that their Conservative philosophy will somehow be harmful to the judicial cause because...they will hold to the laws and Constitution in their decisions, and not "do the right thing." Much of the whining over the past few weeks was on essentially that one specious point: "Oh WHY wouldn't Judge Gorsuch rule in favor of the Little Guy, going up against the big, evil corporations?"
Because the law is on the side of the Big Corporation, perhaps?
There is no such thing as Conservative judicial activism. When Leftists try to come up with an example or two, it is usually a matter where a prior court made an outrageously bad decision, and a conservative judge or court refused to follow the precedent (e.g., Roe v. Wade), instead harking back to the original law or constitutional section.
The phoniness of it all - the hypocrisy, make me sick.
Surprisingly, it didn't get a lot of Press coverage.
This was an outrageous usurpation by the court of Congressional lawmaking power, that will now be stopped when it inevitably comes before the USSC (another Circuit Court held the opposite way recently).
Judicial Activism is the phenomenon of a judge or court CHANGING or ADDING TO, or VOIDING a law that the judge or court deems defective. Here we have a case of a law that has nothing to do with sexual orientation being MODIFIED to include something that Congress never intended. To the extent that a non-discrimination law is appropriate for sexual "irregulars," it is clearly the province of Congress to do so, and not some court.
The fact is that Leftists, whose ideas and desires on governance generally are scorned by the public, cannot generally get their desires enacted legitimately through legislation, so they have embarked on a decades-long campaign to elevate similarly thinking lawyers into judicial positions, where they can change, or avoid laws, or make up new laws as they go along.
And when nominees such as Gorsuch come along, they pretend that their Conservative philosophy will somehow be harmful to the judicial cause because...they will hold to the laws and Constitution in their decisions, and not "do the right thing." Much of the whining over the past few weeks was on essentially that one specious point: "Oh WHY wouldn't Judge Gorsuch rule in favor of the Little Guy, going up against the big, evil corporations?"
Because the law is on the side of the Big Corporation, perhaps?
There is no such thing as Conservative judicial activism. When Leftists try to come up with an example or two, it is usually a matter where a prior court made an outrageously bad decision, and a conservative judge or court refused to follow the precedent (e.g., Roe v. Wade), instead harking back to the original law or constitutional section.
The phoniness of it all - the hypocrisy, make me sick.
