Toad case reveals Roberts as activist


PDA






GunGoBoom
August 4, 2005, 05:01 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/04/hilden.roberts/index.html?section=cnn_latest

If you read the article in its entirety, written by a lawyer (somewhat of a scholar), you learn that what the author means by saying that Roberts is 'activist' is that, if up to him, he would (probably) scale back the application of the interstate commerce clause, and thus Congress's power. While it's true that this could be argued to be an 'activist' position, in the context of being a circuit court judge (inferior to a SCOTUS justice) at odds (arguably) with SCOTUS precedent, but at the same time, he is in fact by such a stance, only advocating a return to what the founding fathers actually meant with their *plain English words* by "regulate interstate commerce" (notably the Const. does not say "regulate anything that is remotely related to something that is remotely related to interstate commerce"), which was only extended to its current unconstitutional meaning by *activist SCOTUS justices* from FDR's time to the Brennan court of the 60s until it was settled law! So Roberts' position is really being as much "anti-activist" or activist repealor or activist overruler as it is being an activist. In any event, this is a good thing. It does show that he may be willing to stick his neck out and do what is right and Constitutional instead of just rolling with the popular flow. I'm starting to get some nice warm fuzzies about Roberts now!

If you enjoyed reading about "Toad case reveals Roberts as activist" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Coronach
August 4, 2005, 05:23 PM
I concur, based upon that article.

I like how he's an "activist judge" if he advocates a strict interpretation of the constitution. So, like, if the status quo is a bunch of activists running amok and you advocate not doing that, you're now an activist, too.

Yeah. Right.

And, if his view of the commerce clause is, in fact, as "microscopic" as that article says, I think we might have a winner.

Mike

Beethoven
August 4, 2005, 05:58 PM
Anymore, the term "activist" is simply a smear term to use when the judge doesn't rule in your sides' favor.

If he'll uphold the Constitution TO THE LETTER, he's smeared as an "activist" by the left.

If he's a communist like Ginsberg, Souter, etc, he's labeled an "activist" by the right.

The term really has no meaning.

I just want someone who can read and understand and NOT "interpret" the Constitution.

WHY is that so hard????????? :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Lennyjoe
August 4, 2005, 06:02 PM
Anyone hear about the Dem's trying to pull up info on his adoption?

MrTuffPaws
August 4, 2005, 06:32 PM
Yeah, and he did some work supporting gay rights:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050804/ts_latimes/robertsdonatedhelptogayrightscase

This guy is looking better all of the time.

CentralTexas
August 4, 2005, 07:12 PM
Let's discuss this gay rights thing.
1-Personally I think every American should have the same rights.
2-Roberts worke dfor a law firm that did Pro Bono work, this was one of their cases he helped on.
If an attorney does his job and defends a murderer are you saying it's obvious he supports murder?
Even Rush Limbaugh gets this one....
CT

MrTuffPaws
August 4, 2005, 07:30 PM
True, and being pro bono, there is much haze around if Roberts support gay rights or if he was just doing his job. He did his job well though.

Standing Wolf
August 4, 2005, 08:35 PM
I just want someone who can read and understand and NOT "interpret" the Constitution.

What a radical idea!

Henry Bowman
August 5, 2005, 11:45 AM
Anyone hear about the Dem's trying to pull up info on his adoption? Yes, though I heard it was being done by their daily newsletter, the New York Times. :barf:

Kurush
August 5, 2005, 12:39 PM
I especially loved the line from NYT that it's just part of their "standard background check". The FBI does background checks, when a newspaper does it it's called "digging up dirt". Too bad they didn't do that kind of "standard background check" on Jayson Blair :rolleyes:

buzz_knox
August 5, 2005, 12:40 PM
Anymore, the term "activist" is simply a smear term to use when the judge doesn't rule in your sides' favor.

Not really. When many use it, it describes a judge ruled by personal feelings and beliefs rather than the law.

Vang
August 5, 2005, 05:23 PM
Any "originalist" is indeed an activist. An activist is someone who rules against precedent. I would call an originalist a good activist, but an activist none-the-less.

publius
August 5, 2005, 09:35 PM
But finding a connection between interstate commerce and local real estate development is much simpler.

Local real estate development may use out-of-state labor or supplies and advertise out of state. The real estate market in one state virtually always affects the market in adjoining states; state borders rarely mark terrain and climate change. Meanwhile, a given property may be sold to out-of-state buyers -- even permanent out-of-state residents who seek vacation homes.

Almost any commercial activity may use out of state labor or supplies and advertise out of state. The market for almost any product or service in one state virtually always affects the market in adjoining states.

In fact, an activity need not even be commercial to be regulated under the commerce clause. If it might affect commerce, Congress can regulate it. As Justice Thomas recently pointed out, this covers virtually anything (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html).

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 09:45 PM
Thank you publius, well put.

I wish someone would ask Roberts "What is not interstate commerce?"

Actually, they should ask everyone on the supreme court and impeach all who answer incorrectly.

publius
August 6, 2005, 05:51 AM
The answer is, if the Congress wants it to be interstate commerce, it's interstate commerce.

The topic article mentioned the Lopez decision, and conceded that some (barely) reasonable people might just possibly have some sort of reasonable grounds for concluding that being near a school with a gun is not interstate commerce.

What it did not mention is what happened after the Lopez decision, and for that it's easiest if I just quote a recent post over on TFL (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176586) by Hugh Damright:

Yeah Right ... Guns make People afraid to Travel Interstate
The SCOTUS struck down the federal gun free school zone as being beyond the powers of federal government. Clinton asked Reno how to circumvent the ruling, and Reno said to rewrite it to apply only to guns that had traveled in or impact interstate commerce. And I think they also changed it from 100 feet to 1000 feet, making the area a hundred times bigger than what the SCOTUS has struck down.

Here's an excerpt from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...:j104GROSS.html (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?j104:I05651:j104GROSS.html)



`(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that--

...

`(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;

`(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;

`(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;

`(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;

...

`(I) Congress has power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's schools by enactment of this subsection.

`(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

GT
August 6, 2005, 11:42 AM
Roberts is a hard right constructionist.
He also is a lawyer.
Until they appoint non-lawyers to the SCOTUS we will have to deal with all the "gay pro-bono" stuff that lawyers of all stripes are obligated to get caught up in.

He will be a much better replacement for the touchy-feely O'Connor, and in a couple of years I will be able to say "I told you so".

G

publius
August 6, 2005, 02:58 PM
Those predictions are not always so easy. If someone had asked me last Spring whether I thought it was more likely that Scalia or O'Connor would uphold the modern (New Deal) view of the commerce clause, I would have said O'Connor in a second. But that's not how it worked out. O'Connor (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD.html) went for a more originalist view, while Scalia (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html) swallowed everything the New Deal judges dished up.

GunGoBoom
August 7, 2005, 01:22 PM
Yep, Scalia has proved himself a politician, not a scholar or jurist, particularly with Raich.

If you enjoyed reading about "Toad case reveals Roberts as activist" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!