Would you consider this Supreme Court an "activist" Court?

[stevenleser]

From Kentuck's OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6921077

They gave us Citizens United, and today, they voted against the environmentalists on the coal-powered plants. But, they have also voted for Obamacare and same-sex marriage. They also voted to give citizens the right to do redistricting, rather than hand it to the state legislatures. They have had decisions that both sides have applauded and derided.

In my opinion, they are very political. They make their decisions based on what might be popular for the Republicans in the next election, or to get Republicans off the hook on some issues, such as Obamacare and same-sex marriage. They knew that the Republican Party had no back-up for Obamacare if it was declared unconstitutional. They also knew that same-sex marriage was gaining in the polls and the Republicans could end up taking a very unpopular position. In the manner that they ruled, it is still good for the Republican base and keeps their Party intact for the next election.

Basically, they have ruled with the Democrats on social issues and with the Republicans on economic or corporate issues. I think they are more political than "activist".

--------------------------------------------------------

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	3 (75%)
	No
	1 (25%)
	Not Sure
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[stevenleser]

1. I think the rulings of the last 7-10 days were not activist.

The LGBT marriage case, for instance, was a classic 14th amendment issue. Outside of prevarication or willful ignorance, I don't see how anyone would miss that.

[cascadiance]

2. Trying to rationalize that there is stare decisis for coporate personhood IS judicial activism!

They used a HEAD NOTE on a court decision that DID NOT support corporate personhood that was authored by a court clerk who was a former railroad exec. That's my reasoning for saying that this court is activist! And money is free speech is also an ACTIVIST opinion by the right wing part of the court!

[stevenleser]

3. I have no idea where that decision came from and I am certainly not going to defend it. My point is

that the decisions of the last 7-10 days do not seem activist. I mark a definite difference between the court of a year+ ago and what we are seeing now.

[cascadiance]

4. I think you are right that there was a political element to them...

... but in that case I don't think there's an either/or question here. I think that this court has been judicial activist in its rulings.

I do find that the timing of these decisions all right in a row right after the TPA was passed last week in such a divisive fashion, that helped Obama not only claim victory with these decisions, but to also couple that with his speech in South Carolina to recover some of his tainted image from last week too. I wouldn't be surprised that there was some corporate lobbyist pressure on the court to make these decisions now to help with that.

I was just noting in another post, that I thought it was interesting that there was a lot more media attention to what our state's Senator Wyden's opinions were on these decisions (I saw it mentioned when the decision first come down on local tv here too), than what Senator Merkley's feelings were on them who was on the opposite side of the TPA fence too. Those all together make me wonder if not only were the decisions and their timing "political", but also the media's coverage of those associated with them, who were also associated in a negative way with Fast Track/TPA last week too.

So yes, they were probably "political" too!

BTW, the court case I was referencing was Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific back in the 1800's. You can read more here...

https://riversong.wordpress.com/myth-of-corporate-personhood/

And note this quote too:

...
In one of the most blatant examples of legal legerdemain, Chief Justice Morrison Waite stated at the outset that “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.” The Court Reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis (former president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company), included this statement in the headnotes of the written decision (which was a trivial one, limited to whether fence posts could be considered taxable property).

Such an incidental and collateral opinion that is uttered by a judge (which is known in legal circles as “obiter dictum”), has no legal standing and cannot be used as precedent for future court decisions. In fact, not only is obiter dictum considered non-precedential, the Supreme Court, soon after, decided that headnotes are “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession” (United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company, 1906).

But the Supreme Court used those headnotes and the obiter dictum declaration of opinion as the stare decisis (“to stand by decisions”) basis for future, more important, decisions – and thereby it became the defacto law of the land, a case of judicial activism unmatched in our history.

Hugo Black, considered one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the 20th century, said “Of the cases in this court in which the 14th Amendment was applied during the first 50 years after its adoption, less than one half of one percent invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than 50% asked that its benefits be extended to corporations.”
...

[Recursion]

7. Corporate personhood dates back to 1590 or so

For all the problems with Citizens United, I never understood that complaint: corporations have legally been "persons" since they were invented; that's their whole point.

[GeorgeGist]

5. What does "activist" mean.

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. nope

[Recursion]

8. No, but litigants have been increasingly activist

I don't think the court is particularly activist, but the cases it's been getting have been.

[former9thward]

9. People say the court is "activist" when it rules against their views.

So one year they will say it is activist and another year they will say it is ruling fairly. Even though it is the same justices.

[Dont call me Shirley]

10. Judges are not Lawmakers, they are Arbiters. Theses are Lawmaker judges, superseding

Congress.


http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/dr-knowone/blog/2011/02/marbury-vs-madison-judiciary-act-1789-and-judicial-review

[ProfessorGAC]

11. I Voted Yes

But, not because of the way the right uses the term. Reactionary, social inversion approaches to jurisprudence is just as activist as the progressive courts to which they refer.

There is nothing about being activist that precludes reactionary behavior. Scalia and Thomas have been nothing but reactionary.