Let's do this all in one post, eh?
Hopefully the repubs will do something to block it........
Doesn't look like they're going to.
If the Repubs knuckle under on this one, they are finished.
Sounds good to me.
Not sure I would use an unqualified and unofficial poll question from an op-ed unit of the NY Times as your "by one measure" point of credence.
But we are used to liberals believing such things as gospel and publishing them.
Don't see any qualifiers for the poll question asked, who asked, how qualified are the "askers", and lastly; who was asked. Don't even see what "congressional laws" have been struck down by the court. They simply say that they did it. No proof...no records.
And lastly, what parameters were used to examine each judges vote. Big variable there.
Didn't read real closely, did you? It wasn't a poll. Nobody was actually asked a question. The two who wrote the article simply asked the question of themselves and then "examined the court's decisions" in cases where congressional provisions were voted on. The article also pointed out, very clearly I might add, that this is not the only conclusion that one could draw from the data (hence the reason I included the qualifier "By at least one measure" - which is English for "there could be others"). So pretending that I'm believing this to be "gospel" is just you being sensationalistic and trying to start something that isn't there. But we are used to conservatives doing that.
I believe the point of the article, and the point I was trying to make by citing the article, is that activism on the court can be construed in multiple ways. To say that someone is "legislating from the bench" could mean a number of different things depending on which side of the aisle you tend to sit. Basically, it's a catchall phrase that gets trotted out when a judge does something a critic disagrees with and therefore has little, if any, meaning whatsoever.
