Breyer and Scalia Debate Judicial Activism (long but a good read)

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

If you can show me, in any constitution, (US or any other state) where illegals have a right to US taxpayer money (in the form of food stamps or any other giveaway program) then I will agree the court was correct.......

A very quick google search shows that your complaint that the court overruled a Californian rule regarding "aid for illegals" was all about the removal of access to public education.

Apparently you guys have something somewhere in your constitution which says that states cannot seek to control immigration and rather that immigration control is the sole remit of federal regulations.

The court held that removing access to public education in California was an attempt to regulate immigration and thus a breach of the requirements in the constitution that this remain a federal matter.

As such the Californian law removing access to public education was unconstitutional. If that's the case, it's not exactly a great example of judicial activism.

Not personal knowledge of course – just a quick google.

[rushmc 23]

So, telling a state that it has to eductate illegals, is immigratation control?

You consider that a correct interpretation?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Apparently the California legislature billed the law (called Prop. 187) as being an attempt to get rid of illegal aliens. They described it as "the first giant stride in ultimately ending the ILLEGAL ALIEN invasion" (note that's their words not the courts or mine).

So yes, California - the state who created the law, said that the law was specifically intended to get rid of illegal aliens. Apparently your 14th Amendment says that states can't do that - only federal laws can.

So evidently California broke the 14th amendment and not only the court thought they did, but the Californian legislature told the court that's what they were trying to do.

So yes, from my admittedly very brief reading of the subject I consider it a correct interpretation.

You gonna tell Chris you agree with the court now?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

So yes, from my admittedly very brief reading of the subject I consider it a correct interpretation.

It is a sad state of affairs when Brits are more familiar with US law than American citizens.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Especially when all I did was stick a few key words into google and read up on what I was about to post about... BEFORE I hit the "reply" button.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Especially when all I did was stick a few key words into google and read up on what I was about to post about...

Yes, especially.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So wouldn't a constructionist take away the right to abortion AND the right to privacy? After all, if they were both done under the same type of activism, then a constructionist should remove both.

Yep. But he'd have to be a constructionist AND an activist to do so.

Quote

And how is the court FINDING rights?

By finding "implicit rights" in the Constitution.

Quote

Isn't basis of the constitution, particulary the 9th amendment such that other rights are already ours and that SCOTUS merely clarified them to those who opposed?

The problem is that the 9th Amendment is the least construed of the bill of rights. The judges aren't using the 9th Amendment to find these rights. They are looking into other rights to find the "right to privacy" - particularly the 14th and Substantive Due Process. I wouldn't be bitching about it if they said, "Hey, the 9th Amendment says thre are other rights not enumerated. We think this is one of them." Instead they say, "We think that implicit in the substantive due process clause is the right to (fill in blank)."

This is the problem and the dishonesty of the activism. Should there be a right to something that is not in the constitution? It seems to me that this is a political question, and not one for judicial fiat. If there is to be a newly defined Constitutional right or prohibition, I think it should be via the Amendment process.

My wife is hotter than your wife.