Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ty just doesn't understand that once the activists have screwed it up, the non-activists have to actively fix it, so that they can then guard it from the activists, who might want to change it back.
Seriously, in terms of smacking down Congress, and sometimes states, the Rehnquist court was rather "active."
S_A_M
|
I don't think that one can validly misdefine a central term and then use that misdefinition indefinitely to redefine another's argument.
"Activist" originally meant, one willing to go beyond the words of the Constitution in order to rule on what it "ought to" have said, or what it "meant to" say, or what emotions and feelings were hidden in the penumbras and the byways of the heart of the Constitution or some such idiocy. Ty wants to redefine it as, "willing to ignore some precedent". But, when groups of Constitution-rewriting justices have wrought their harm, it's not "activism" to take it all back to the words. If you think that that argument doesn't work, then it's a simple matter if choosing a new word for it. Let's try "honest reader of the C" v. "lying sack of I-wish-I-had-a-penumbra-of-my-own."
