so judicial activism is OKAY when it serves the cause of regression?

[datasuspect]

so we can turn back the clock on the case that pretty much launched the civil rights movement?

reinstate price fixing?

that's okay, i wasn't using those rights anyway.

[quinnox]

1. evidently

it is only called judicial activism when it's the liberal justices doing it, when its the conservatives then its "following the rule of law" or some other spin they will come up with

[datasuspect]

2. i know i shouldn't be floored, but i am

they essentially said a hearty "fuck you" to one of the cornerstone cases of the american civil rights movement.

[hatrack]

3. But The Powder! It's DRY! Really, really REALLY dry!

Surely that's worth something!

[ellenfl]

4. every man, woman and child on this forum

should write an ltte (or more) to their local paper decrying this judicial activism. i will do so tonight.

ellen fl

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Yup, by definition

An "activist judge" is an activist judge only if the judge makes a ruling that pisses off the right. Otherwise, the judge is a true American and patriot.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Segregation NOW, Segegation TOMORRAH, Segregation FOREVAH!

Guess he knew what he was talking about.

[datasuspect]

7. yeah, only an idiot can pretend not to see the calamity that decision entails

a historically ignorant moron could only feel okay with it.

[malaise]

8. Looks that way

This too will pass.

[datasuspect]

9. that almost sounds trite

but since i'm not familiar with you as a poster, i'll take it at face value.

but do you really see a scenario where people who have appropriated that much power willingly give it up?

[malaise]

11. The people will take back power

It happened before and it will happen again. People are fed up.

[CrispyQ]

12. A few months ago my husband casually made the comment

that he doesn't think there will be elections in'08. I scoffed.

Now, I'm not so sure.

[sandnsea]

10. "does not compel our continued adherence"

Those are the chilling words folks. That's what they said when they overturned 90+ years of antitrust precedence. Just because something has been law in the past, that "does not compel our continued adherence".