Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
My statement wasn't really supposed to mean anything. And uh... conservatives only think the constitution trumps state laws when they feel like it. Just like liberals do. Otherwise the ideological ancestors of people like, well, Jeff Sessions wouldn't have argued vehemently for the rights of states to segregate and such. Otherwise you'd see so-called conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas voting in favor of fourth amendment rights, or honoring the constitutional limits on executive power. Unfortunately, both sides pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to actually enforce and have for as long as such debates existed. I usually laugh at the whole debate regarding "judicial activism" on either side. Yes, I understand I referred to John Roberts as a "reactionary activist," which is I now realize isn't really accurate (more less "conservative activist" - he makes his rulings not on law, but rather preserving the status quo, as opposed to returning to a former state, as reactionary would entail).
|
A broad brush...but that's okay...I'm not talking for all conservatives just like I expect you are not talking for all of whatever.. I'm talking about my view of judicial activism.
Obviously our country has been in a civil rights battle (like much of the world) since it's inception...as you stated...but government sanctioned racism is still racism...If we are REALLY going to get beyond it, our government needs to.