Re: OT - Judicial Activism

theBZA wrote:

" bozak" <bozak1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
Hfagi.2105$s%.409@trnddc02:">news:Hfagi.2105$s%.409@trnddc02:


"Johnny" <apterix@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_3agi.8438$oh3.8360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

theBZA wrote:


Johnny <apterix@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:XR_fi.7389$s57.4073@xxxxxxxxxxxx:



David Goldberg wrote:



"theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Xns995A75F0615A8dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



If this isn't Judicial Activism in its most naked form, I don't
know what is. The Radical Right on the SCOTUS has literally
invented new exclusions to the First Amendment out of thin air.
Righties are probably ecstatic. Why they think it's so damn great
when the SCOTUS limits civil rights and so damn evil when the
SCOTUS expands civil rights is beyond me. If they hate the Bill Of
Rights so much they should move to Russia where Vlady Putin is
busy dismantling Russia's short-lived era of civil rights.


You don't have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and
you don't have the right to promote illegal activities to children.


Goldberg, your statement that "You don't have the right to yell
'Fire' in a crowded theater" is a common misquote (and
misunderstanding) of Justice Holmes' statement in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) that "The most stringent protection of
free speech would not protect a man in FALSELY shouting fire in a
theater and causing a panic." (Emphasis added.)

The holding in Schenck established a "clear and present danger"
standard in the opinion's most famous passage: "The question in
every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances
and are of of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a
right to protect."

The "clear and present danger" test was weakened to a less
restrictive "bad tendency" test in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S.
357 (1927). But both the Schenck and Whitney tests were overruled
in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), holding that the
government cannot constitutionally punish ABSTRACT advocacy of force
or law violation (emphasis added) and that inflammatory speech
cannot be punished unless it is directed to inciting and likely to
incite imminent lawless action. The three distinct elements of the
test established in Brandenburg (intent, imminence, and likelihood)
is now controlling and has not been seriously challenged since it
was laid down.

Moreover, the case in question in this thread, Morse v. Frederick
(2007), was not decided under Brandenburg, but under various rulings
dealing specifically and narrowly with school activities while
ignoring Brandenburg:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000

&invol


=06-278
And see, especially, the dissent in Morse which follows the spirit
of Brandenburg even in school cases.



Sorry.

You got this part of your post right, Weaselberg: When it comes to
Law, and Constitutional Law in particular, you have consistently
demonstrated that you are the sorriest son of a bitch in this group.
When are you going to learn not to dabble in the Law while I am
monitoring this group to point out your ignorance?

The bottom line general issue here is really the eagerness of the
reactionary majority of the current Supreme Court to avoid, ignore,
and dissemble well-settled precedent in order to promote a political
agenda. Conservatives like to decry the "social engineering" of
"liberal" interpretations of the Constitution by "judicial
activists" while advocating a conservative "strict construction"
approach. But in fact the self-styled strict constructionists are judicial activists interpreting the Constitution for the purposes of
social engineering no less than the liberal constructionists, they
are just doing it in a manner that enhances state suppression of
basic political liberties and empowers government to restrict
fundamental personal freedoms rather than in a manner that expands
those liberties and freedoms in the best interests of a
self-governing People.

The most serious and longest lasting harm the Bush administration
and it's servile Republican minions and gutless Democrat fellow
travelers in the Congress have done to the Constitution and People
is the appointment of reactionary federal judges, especially
Justices of the Supreme Court, who enable and encourage the
despotism that is the hallmark of the Bush years and of tyrannical
plutocratic oligarchies in general.

It is now up to a new generation of Americans to re-fight the Civil
Rights battles of the Social Revolution of the '60's whose gains in
civil liberty, personal freedom, and legal equality are being
squandered, betrayed, and surrendered by the tyrants who have taken
over the Republican Party and by the morally bankrupt political
cowards of the Democratic Party.


What a great post. Post of the Year IMO.


Be careful, I have enemies in here. :-)

dont worry he just made it post of the year because you were dissin
practically the only brain dead republikkkon left in here... i for one
dont see the joy in it but hey, everybody has their own lil sack of
rocks...

it was a good post, but just the same shit everybody has been saying
over and over for the last three or four years... i believe we have
achieved a consensus in here that most religious right winged nut-jobs
are a waste of time... well, for most except for you laurel, and
brandon...

good post, sure, but a post of the year needs to be more than rehashed
truth for the benefit of idiots...


It was legal review worthy of the Hofstra Law Review.


I told you to be careful. ;-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Judicial Activism
    ... Why they think it's so damn great when the SCOTUS ... limits civil rights and so damn evil when the SCOTUS expands civil ... The three distinct elements of the test established in Brandenburg ... judicial activists interpreting the Constitution for the purposes of social engineering no less ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT - Judicial Activism
    ... Why they think it's so damn great when the SCOTUS ... limits civil rights and so damn evil when the SCOTUS expands civil ... in Brandenburg is now ... Constitution by "judicial activists" while advocating a ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT - Judicial Activism
    ... Why they think it's so damn great when the SCOTUS ... limits civil rights and so damn evil when the SCOTUS expands civil ... The three distinct elements of the test established in Brandenburg is now controlling and has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down. ... Conservatives like to decry the "social engineering" of "liberal" interpretations of the Constitution by "judicial activists" while advocating a conservative "strict construction" approach. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT - Judicial Activism
    ... The Radical Right on the SCOTUS has literally ... SCOTUS expands civil rights is beyond me. ... Law, and Constitutional Law in particular, you have consistently ... "liberal" interpretations of the Constitution by "judicial ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT - Judicial Activism
    ... The Radical Right on the SCOTUS has literally ... SCOTUS expands civil rights is beyond me. ... Law, and Constitutional Law in particular, you have consistently ... "liberal" interpretations of the Constitution by "judicial ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)